Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4583 talk.politics.misc:9202 sci.bio:1113
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cca!dee
From: dee@cca.CCA.COM (Donald Eastlake)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Animals Patentable?
Message-ID: <27245@cca.CCA.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 88 18:28:47 GMT
References: <97500013@prism> <4872@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> <3447@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: dee@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Donald Eastlake)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 35
Summary: "Blame" the courts

In article <3447@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
>>>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice!
>>>> (genetically engineered.)
>>>> Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard.

I don't think this is true in the usual sense of "owned".  In fact, if you
purchased such a mouse I would think that, in the absence of an agreement to
the contrary, you could assume that you were licensed to breed it.

Even if you do have something that is in violation of a patent, I would think
that the worst that could happen is that you could be ordered to destroy it
or not use it in such a way as to gain the benefit of the patented invention.
Something does not "belong" to the patent holder just because it violates their
patent.  (The profits from exploiting it might ... )

>>> Oh boy!  The perfect precedent!  Let's clear up, say,  Down's syndrome
>>> in a family line with gene therapy.  We can bring back slavery.
>>> Legally!  The patent office says so!
>>The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents
>>for new specifies of humans 
>they said you couldnt patent plant strains about 15 years ago either
>and now you can; they said you could never never never patent animals

As I recall, the patent office initially reject applications to patent
animals.  Eventually a suit was brought in reference to a singe celled
"animal" produced by genetic engineering.  I think it got up to the
Supreme Court that ruled that under the current patent law, animals could
be patented, but not people.

So don't blame the patent office.  They didn't want this.
-- 
	+1 617-969-9570		Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA: dee@CCA.CCA.COM	usenet:	{cbosg,decvax,linus}!cca!dee
	P. O. Box N, MIT Branch P. O., Cambridge, MA 02139-0903 USA