Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Diamond v. Chakrabarty”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Perusing property rights in DNA.

Many practical questions have arisen since the use of patents relating to DNA has become progressively more common after the landmark case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980: What ownership rights do patents confer? What is owned? Who owns it? What does ownership mean to nonoweners? The central theme of the chapter is that much of the debate about patent rights relating to DNA is needlessly burdened by concerns that are inapposite, given an informed understanding of how things actually work in this area; and that as a result, insufficient attention is paid to exploring propositions that might elucidate or even alleviate pertinent problems in need of solutions. The approach of the chapter is more analytical than prescriptive. It endeavors to unpack how property rights in this area actually operate and concludes by making a few modest prescriptions about areas for future study, including efforts to explore the mechanisms that might be at play when actual transactions in basic biological materials and protocols break down. The intuition behind the chapter is that although many of the problems identified by patent critics do exist and, in theory, might be pernicious in creating some inefficiency in the form of dead-weight loss, in practice these problems turn out to be less pernicious than those likely to be caused by alternative regimes and are mitigated through various behaviors of market participants.

Commerce↗
PubMed2000

Varieties of secrets and secret varieties: the case of biotechnology.

This article examines several trends that have combined to veil the new field of biotechnology in secrecy: the transformation of biotechnology from an essentially academic field characterized by strong norms of openness to a field with extensive corporate connections that have reached even to research in leading universities; the establishment of intellectual property rights for life-forms initiated by the landmark Supreme Court decision, Diamond v. Chakrabarty; and the limiting of public access to information about the genetically altered organisms whose use in agriculture, industry, and medicine falls under government controls. The article also examines the effects of the U.S. biotechnology industry's demand for secrecy on the negotiations for a protocol to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, particularly the turn from requirements for transparency to protection of opacity with respect to biotechnology and other biological processes, equipment, and production.

Access to Information↗
PubMed2001

Harvard v. Canada: the myc mouse that still squeaks in the maze of biopatent law.

The Canadian Supreme Court will soon make a decision about Harvard University's long-standing application for a Canadian patent on a mouse transgenic for the myc oncogene. That decision could reignite in North America the controversy that continues in Europe and elsewhere to surround the patenting of life forms. The tortuous steps in this 15-year patent maze are marked by the arguments about life patents that attended the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty. This patent dispute about oil-digesting bacteria cracked open the door for animal patents in the United States and other countries, even though the legal arguments involved were based on patent applications for corn seeds and oysters, not mammals. The patent challenge to the Harvard mouse by the Canadian government now threatens to close this door in Canada. The arguments against life patents are commonly based on moral and religious grounds that regard the sanctity of life and oppose its commodification. The most compelling arguments for such patents are based on the benefits they deliver through commercial exploitation of inventions. The debate about patenting animals has been more heated outside North America and cacaphonic in the Third World. However, the Canadian debate could be amplified by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent entry on the biopatent stage through the side door of a new corn seed patent dispute. A narrow legal analysis by the Canadian Supreme Court would award the mouse patent to Harvard, while a policy analysis might support the government's challenge of the patent. Although the impact of the Harvard mouse patent process in Canada could be just a squeak, opponents of patenting life can mount the myc mouse to once again roar their opposition to animal patents. And the sound could resonate through the arguments about both biopatents and human cloning, with potentially important effects for academia, industry, and the public.

Animals↗
PubMed1993

Patents for genetically modified animals.

Should genetically engineered animals be patented? This issue has been one of the most contentious as lawmakers have grappled with how best to protect intellectual property. Since the 1980 case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a living microorganism is patentable, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has determined that plants and nonhuman animals can be patented. These policy decisions have led to congressional debate on whether animals should be patentable subject matter. Patenting of living organisms is unique for three reasons: the invention itself is alive; the invention in some instances can reproduce itself; and the invention sometimes cannot be adequately described for patent specification purposes, leading to the need for deposit of the invention for patent purposes.

Animals↗