- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: patentability
- From: wytze <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:59:15 +0200
- Cc: Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr, email@example.com
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- References: <8D6A396AFC@sperrin.ulst.ac.uk>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
I have to make you aware of the European Directive on the legal protection of
biotechnological inventions. This Directive makes all living organisms (except
humans) patentable, whether they are genetically engineered or not. Though humans
are excluded, it will be possible to patent human body parts, genes,
genesequences, and yes even embryo's for research. Anyone who says different is
lying or misinformed. I know because I have been busy with this Directive very
intensively. Under this Directive you will have it all for small and large
companies. I think you are wrong to think that small companies will profit.
Basically the big ones will "outpatent" the small ones. The Dutch government has
challenged the European Directive at the European Court of Justice. With many
others, I hope that the Dutch challenge will win, because if this Directive
stands, you will be in for some very ugly surprises. By the way, the European
Patent Office does allow the patenting of micro-organisms and also of cells, no
matter what their origin.
Wytze de Lange
Austin Tanney wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:59:23 +0200 (MET DST)
> > From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
> > Reply-to: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
> > Subject: patentability
> > To: A.Tanney@ulst.ac.uk, email@example.com
> > Austin Tanney said :
> > >Generally it is not the organism that is patented, it is the gene
> > >construct and method of transfection which is patented rather than
> > >the organism itself.
> > I think it is false. Even some organs can be patented if separated from
> > the human body. but also animals (chimers).
> It is not false. You cannot patent animals, only the genetic
> > you surely already saw the problems triggered by patenting of a bacterium
> > that is involved in an important disease.
> No I am not aware of this and would appreciate it if you would
> forward me on any info you have on this.
> > So, at least bacteria also can be patented.
> Yes... But with great difficulty. Since the Chakrabarty case in the
> 70's when a bacteria was patented, it has been very difficult to
> patent a bacteria and again, it is the ene construct and not the
> organism which is usually patented.
> > May I know why you want to diminish the possibilities of patenting ?
> May I know why you are so against it??? To me your arguement does not
> stand up to scrutiny. Without patenting there would be no small
> companies. Biotechnology would be ENTIRELY controled by big companies
> such as monsanto, and lets face it, would anyone like that? Small
> companies can only exist if they can protect their intellectual
> property, if it was not protected then they would simply be exploited
> by the big companies. Also, it is important to remember that a patent
> is a negative right. It does not allow you to do anything, it simply
> grants you the legal ability to prevent someone else from doing it.
> This means that big companies cannot "steal" you ideas/technology. On
> the other hand the format of a patent supplies enabling information
> allowing public or acamdemic research to use the techniques in
> research, just not for commercial gain.
> > >If the intellectual property for
> > >production of rec. proteins and other bioactive substances is not
> > >patent protected most of these would not come to production.
> > No.
> > please look for archives of Gentech. you try to promote a system
> > that proves itself, starting from its own assumptions but not proving right.
> > one example : When the Curie's have discovered the effects of
> > radioactivity for medecine, they REFUSED to patent so as to promote
> > the use of this technique. andf it worked. OK, they did not get rich.
> > but we got cured.
> > You start from the assumption that only large firms can do research.
> > And, some of proponents regret (after) that only large firms control
> > the system.(see after for an example in your own e-mail).
> You misunderstand.....
> The curies didnot patent their work, in fact I don't know if they
> could have. However the compaqnies which now produce X-ray and
> Radiography machines have Patented the machines. Without the
> companies patenting their ideas the machines simply would not have
> been produced. It is not the research that is patented but the
> product or procedure developed. I think you are simply overestimating
> what a patent is.
> > >Without
> > >venture capital most of these products would not exist
> > I proved above that, at least as stated, it is false
> > Except that I would favor a "liberal" approach : limiting the size of any
> > firm to 5% of the Amount of richness produced by a whole country (so it
> > would depend of the country)
> > This would prohibit Monsanto to act in so small countries that buying
> > a minister is as cheap as buying a simple civil servant.
> As I said, patenting allows small companies to exist.... and I don't
> see what is liberal about stopping companies from growing. On the
> other hand without patents, only big comanies would exist, simply
> fueling the fire of the problem.
> I mean no offence Herve. I simply think that you appear (from your
> arguement) to misunderstand the advantages of patening. You seem to
> think it favours big companies taking over the world, when
> realistically it is through the patenting of ideas that small
> companies flourish therefore restricting the monopoly of big
> companies within the biotech industry..
> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
> subscribe or help is:
> The searchable WWW list archive is available at