Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (98897)	5/23/2003 7:24:11 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That's not at all what India was arguing. India had a competitive concern for their level of exports. The RiceTec patent, in fact, did not deny any country from exporting their basmati rice to the US — only that the rice had to be different from Ricetec's. And it most certainly did not deny any country the usage rights to their own produce. Regardless, most of Ricetec's patent was dropped anyway, as competitive and legal forces intervened in what was probably a fair decision. See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1033723.stm (note: this article says 5 of 20 Ricetec's patent claims were cancelled. The other 10 cancellations came after this publication, around June 2001) "India in particular is livid that naturally-occurring products are being 'patented' by us (the West) and we then require payment - and, worse, attempt to deny them the rights to use their own produce:"