Genetically Modified (GM) Food

[Picciotto, Sol]

Just a couple of comments on the IPR (intellectual property rights) aspects.
Though I'm generally sympathetic to the arguments of those wanting to try to
restrict Monsanto from subjecting science to profits, I'm not sure that
blocking patent protection would help. A requirement of patent protection is
publication of the specification, so at least it becomes public knowledge -
the alternative is commercial confidentiality. I suspect that Monsanto has a
lot more up its scientific sleeve than it has publicised. If a particular
technology is hard to keep secret (because reverse-engineering is possible),
then this creates an incentive to speed up commercialisation, get the products
out quick, to keep ahead of the competition. Although the ideological support
for IPRs is commonly said to be the  need for the incentive of monopoly profits
to encourage innovation, I believe there is some economic research that
indicates that without such protection the incentive to innovate may be as high
or higher. Authors like Doug don't really need copyright as an incentive to
keep writing, and they could get an income through control of initial
publication of their texts. Mass-market authors and publishers would have
reduced incomes without copyright protection, as they would be forced to issue
cheaper editions.

On a point made earlier in this debate, patents can be both for a product or
process. The main issue in relation to GMOs is the fundamental one that patents
are only available for new inventions, not discoveries. This translates into
the distinction made in the TRIPs agreement, which allows WTO members to
exclude from patentability 'plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and
essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other
than non-biological and micro-biological processes' (although plant varieties
can be protected either by patents or by specific provisions). Can any more
scientifically-minded contributors here comment on whether this distinction
between biological and microbiological processes is valid?  

Based on this, the EU last year passed a Directive  giving patent protection to
biotechnological inventions, but excluding 'essentially biological processes
for the production of plants or animals'. It specifically includes 'biological
material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by a
technical process' presumably meaning a DNA string, though the other
requirements of patentability would have to be met, i.e. industrial
applicability - you have to show what it can do. 

But countries can still refuse patent protection where exploitation would be
considered immoral - and the EU directive says cloning human beings comes into
this category. 

cheers

sol


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Doug Henwood [SMTP:dhenwood at panix.com]
> Sent:	Monday, March 01, 1999 3:57 PM
> To:	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject:	Re: Genetically Modified (GM) Food
> 
> Chuck Grimes wrote:
> 
> >The way out of this quagmire is to destroy the copyright and patent
> >laws that form the legal foundation for this corporate exploitation.
> 
> As someone who earns a living of sorts as a writer, I'm not too
> enthusiastic about junking copyright law. Is there any way to undermine
> Monsanto without undoing us humble scribblers?
> 
> Doug