One of my greatest passions in recent years has been gardening and seed saving. This obsession has led to concern about the patenting of genetically modified seeds and the legal ramifications of this process. In traditional farming if Joe's cow got in his neighbor Bill's field and ate his corn, Joe would owe Bill for his loss. By the patenting of GMO seeds, the Monsanto Corporation with the support of several court cases has been taking control of our food source. Now if Joe drops his GMO seeds on Bill's land and the plants are discovered on Bill property by the corporation, Monsanto can claim not only the plants, but now Bill's land as well, as the GMO seeds invade the genetic make-up of Bill's original plants.
In the meantime, Myriad Genetics has been gaining power over our health-care choices with the patenting of the breast cancer gene. In discussing my concern over these issues with my son James one day, he explained the same problem occurring in the software industry. Until recent years, a company could obtain a copyright on software, not a patent. The information contained in software, like DNA, is an abstract concept. A court ruling in 1989 changed this by deciding software was patentable in that it has a tangible result represented in a specific form, again like DNA. Luckily this spring an appeal's court judge took a step to reverse this dangerous trend. To read more about the implications of this case, check
http://opensource.com/law/10/4/gene-patenting-and-free-software-breakthrough
While some might argue that companies need to be able to protect product development expenses, I can't help but wonder if we are not simply weaving a tangled legal web that will drive up product cost and limit the implementation of basic ideas. A prime example of the complexity involved in these patents is the infringement by Microsoft involving XML imports in Office 2003. http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200933/4240/Microsoft-has-60-days-to-halt-sales-of-Word
What do you think? Should abstract ideas like DNA and software be patentable? If so, what level of rights should be given to the patent holder? Where do we draw the line to protect an individual in our society?
Wow! Great topic. I’ve been aware of Monsanto’s patented seeds for a while now, and have thought of this trend as terrifyingly criminal. I had not realized the extent to which this philosophy has pervaded corporate culture. Of course businesses have a right to make a profit, and to be compensated for the risk of research and development. But where to draw the line is an interesting dilemma, and the stage is set to put far too much power in the hands of few, and the voices of the big corporate fish are the only ones that matter. Some developments are meant for the greater good. What if Prometheus had patented fire, for heaven’s sake?
ReplyDelete