Home » Patents » GMO = patenting = evil ?

GMO = patenting = evil ?

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

An interesting story by Charles Eisenstein in The Guardian  highlights the way in which patents often become associated with potentially negative aspects of technology. It can sometimes seem as if the word “patent” when associated with a given technology acts as a flag to the reader that this is evil science.

In the case in point, the on-going debate about whether genetically modified plant crops (GMOs) are good or bad for developing countries is interlaced with the issue of patent holders for such GMOs requiring local farmers to disclose if they are holding patented seeds. It is plain to see that there are in fact two stories here: one about GMOs versus organic methods, and one about patent holders exercising their rights under international treaties such as TRIPS. IPCopy argues that patents are entirely neutral instruments of commerce. How patent holders exercise their rights is a matter of personal conscience, in the same way as how they choose to treat their employees or where they choose to pay their taxes.

In this debate about GMOs it is not the patents that are necessarily bad, rather it is how the owners of those patents decide they will exercise their IP rights around the globe. Following this line, two talented biologists were awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their contributions to stem cell biology. One of those scientists (Shinya Yamanaka) has filed several patent applications covering practical applications of his discoveries, the other (John Gurdon) in spite of a career spanning more than 50 years never filed a single patent application. Does this mean that Yamanaka is an ‘evil’ scientist and Gurdon is a ‘good’ scientist – of course not, rather it probably reflects that times have changed in academia as in industry and it is now recognised that patents are a crucial means for taking technology from the lab to the marketplace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: