"Dear, could you pass me the genetically enhanced pork please?"
Eh. Not the dumbest patent I've ever seen. Some guy tried to (and succeeded) patenting the stick.
If you created the specific genetic variety of pig that you were using, then you could patent it. It's like how people can patent commercial variants of open-source software because of modifications added afterwards. But I don't know how you could patent a normal pig.
Either way, it seems kind of wrong. Not because they're animals and animals should not be patented for ethical reasons, but because they're animals and animals have a habit of wandering off. What if someone found a patented animal in a farm who had not agreed to breed the patented animal? Did they do it on purpose, or did the animal wander onto the farm, or was it planted there?
7th December 2003
The idea that you can patent a genetic code is a bit scary. But if you want to encourage companies to invest money into genetic engineering then you'd better give them a way to protect their investments.
I think this is complete and utter bullshit and Monsanto should be smacked down for even trying this.
Monsanto is saying that a common yet randomly occurring gene in Pigs can be patented and ANYONE who has possession of a Pig with this gene can be sued by Monsanto, and Monsanto does sue people for crap like this.
If they added something to the Pig that was synthetic and could only be produced by their techniques or policies then I might be able to see it.
But Monsanto is trying to patent something that is naturally occurring and that is just not right and IMHO is downright evil.
And as f-ed up as things are in the world and all the crazy laws Monsanto will probably get their way.
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
I'm still watching the video but I'll share my an intitial comment:
Patenting some "unnatural" gene modification sounds reasonable. If you modified something so that it became unique, something not excisting in nature already, then it would make sense to protect that engeneering feat for a while (a few decades). Obviously, patenting something that natural occures or can be expect to occure as part of the evolution process cannot be patented. Claiming a piece of nature to be "your" work would just be silly.
For example: Patenting say a process that gives species a certain eye colour might make sense. HJowever, you have no claim on this when it's caused by natural causes (making a cliam of some sort for every specy that happens to be born with these type of eyes from a natural occurence wouldn't make any sense and be prone to shameless capitalism and other questionable interests).
Pigs and Patents
pigIn 2007, Monsanto sold Monsanto Choice Genetics to Newsham Genetics LC of West Des Moines, Iowa. The transaction was completed in November 2007, and Monsanto is no longer in the swine breeding business.
Since a Greenpeace publicity announcement in 2005, rumors have continued to circulate among activists and on the internet that Monsanto is trying to patent pig genes. When Monsanto owned the business, the company performed research work for a patent application related to a specific gene marker for a pig trait, but not for the trait itself, and also a patent application for a unique set of breeding processes, including an artificial insemination method. Monsanto never filed a patent application for a pig gene.
There’s been some rather wild speculation that these patent applications would prohibit pig farmers from breeding lines of pigs to which they had always freely bred. This isn’t true. Any claims issued from these patent applications would apply to only animals and their offspring which had been bred using marker technology covered by patent claims.
In any case, the sale to Newsham Genetics included any and all swine-related patents, patent applications, and all other intellectual property. We’re out of the pig business.
I didn't make it!
Mr. Pedantic;5251215Either way, it seems kind of wrong. Not because they're animals and animals should not be patented for ethical reasons, but because they're animals and animals have a habit of wandering off. What if someone found a patented animal in a farm who had not agreed to breed the patented animal? Did they do it on purpose, or did the animal wander onto the farm, or was it planted there?
Already happened. Monsanto patented it's version of several genetically modified plants. Now, plants have a tendency to breed on their own by the air an animals. So a few seeds would land in a neighboring farm and they would sue the farm holder for growing their plants.
I think some sort of middle ground needs to be found, basically. I think it is reasonable to patent a genetic modification but it's simply stupid and unreasonable to blame a farmer for natural growth. If you don't want your genetically modified plants mixing into a neighboring farm, modify it so it needs something else to activate the seeds or something.