Re:New Novartis patent VI
- To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Subject: Re:New Novartis patent VI
- From: wytze <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:17:50 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,"firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- References: <199912201504.QAA25381@lan43.LANORS.MATUPS>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
Apologies for any unclarities. Here are the Patent Claims that hopefully make
things more clear.
1)Method of controlling pests in crops of transgenic useful plants, characterized
in that a pesticidal composition comprising of a nitroimino or
nitroguanidino-compound in free form or in agrochemically useful salt form as
active ingredient and at least one auxiliary is applied to the pests or their
2)Method according to claim 1, characterized in that thiamethoxam is emplyed.
3)Method according to claim 1, characterized in the imidacloprid is employed.
4)Method according to claim 1, characterized in that the transgenic plant is
5)Method according to claim 1 to 4, characterized in that the transgenic crop of
useful plants is maize.
6)Method according to claim 1 to 4, characterized in that the transgenic crop of
useful plants is soybeans.
7)Method according to claim 4, characterized in that the propagation material of
the transgenic useful plant is treated.
What I did in most of the other messages was to provide further info that is
present in the patent like: the list of "useful transgenic plants", the list of GE
Herbicide Resistancies and the herbicides that can be applied to them, the list of
Auxiliarysubstances that may be used in the composition etc.
I hope this helps.
Herve LE MEUR wrote:
> Me too, I cannot understand the "explanations" of wytze. I hope he'll send more
> easy explanations.
> You write :
> >had the patent laws in Europe been the same 500 years ago as
> >they are now, Columbus and Isabella would have patented America.
> Let me remind you that patents have durations.17 years in USA and 17 in EC.
> The reason is that legislators wanted to conceal "particular interest"
> and general interest.
> So, had America been patented, 500 years ago, it would have fallen into public
> Moreover, a patent is not a property. It's a guarantee by a state (the
> extent is limited to a country, though there are agreements betwween
> countries) to have the unique right to use an invention. This exclusivity is
> It is not a property beause it is limited in time (and surely other reasons).
> Yet I think your point is not irrelevant, becaus,e we are enteringin
> a conception of society where we will have (more and more) to define new areas
> where patenting will be applied, so as to fuel multinationals.
> After patenting technical inventions (long ago and I do not contest it),
> we are allowing to patent living forms.
> What next when all the patents actually discussed will have fallen
> into the public domain ?????? Companies won't tolerate to be fueled
> with less power than what they will have been accustomed to !
> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
> subscribe or help is:
> The searchable WWW list archive is available at
- From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>