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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (737)	9/13/2006 1:53:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

You keep repeating the same quote. I don't think that repetition makes the idea more solid. "iv) Standards of patentability and the rights granted The legal criteria for patentability are substantially similar across all jurisdictions. In order to show that the plant, plant technology or plant product of interest is an invention: the patent application must show: 1) novelty 2) non-obviousness, or an inventive step 3) usefulness (United States) or industrial applicability (Europe, Australia) 4) enablement 5) claim clarity 6) written description 7) best mode (United States only)" bios.net The one point that I do agree is correct is that farmers (presumably not Iraqi farmers yet but that could happen too) have been sued when their fields where cross pollinated with patented seeds. The courts should just throw such suits out and possibly even award damages for frivolous lawsuits, and/or the farmers who did not plant proprietary seeds should get statutory protection from such law suits.