Talk:Biological patents in the United States

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Under current law...

An anonymous contributor (User:24.63.247.223) added the following paragraph:

Normally only those forms of the gene which have been islolated outside of a living organism or sythetically manufactured in a lab, and whose purpose has been identified are patentable. Those genes or other biological matter which occure in their natural state are not patentable under current law.

Since it is not clear which "current law" is concerned, I removed the matter. Please cite your sources so that we can put this information in context. Thanks. --Edcolins 20:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian Patent Law

I removed the whole paragraph about "Article (4) The Jordanian Patent Law". An international view is needed instead.

== Article (4) The Jordanian Patent Law ==

Article (4) of the Jordanian Patent of Invention Law No. (32) for the year 1999 enumerates the situations where a patent SHALL NOT be granted as follows:

1. For an invention, the exploitation of which results in breaching of public ethics or public order.

2. For inventions, the prevention of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect life or human, animal or plant health or to avoid serious damage to the environment.

3. A discovery, scientific theory or mathematical methods.

4. Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods required for the treatment of humans or animals.

5. Plants and animals except for micro-organisms.

6. Biological processes for the production of plants or animals except for non-biological and microbiological processes.

The provisions of this Article are almost identical to that of the Article (27) of TRIPS agreement that allows World Trade Organization Members to exclude from patentability inventions, the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect; order public or morality, to protect human animal or plant life or health, or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment. Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals. Plants and animals, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals.

But in spite of the above exclusions, World Trade Organization Members must afford patentability to micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses, and non-biological and microbiological processes for the production of plants or animals, as well as plant varieties that have to be covered either by patents or an effective sui generis system.

However, Article (4) it is not without shortcomings, for example, the subjects named in point (3) are extra and the reasons for the stipulation are uncertain, given that a closely look reveals they can most likely be considered not to meet the definition of invention.

In point (1), the order public and morality prohibition, though the term “exploitation” is wider than that of “commercial exploitation” stipulated in TRIPS, it would have been better if the legislator left a margin for the patent offices and indeed the court to exercises discretion regarding the possibility or likelihood that the invention’s “exploitation” may result in a breach rather than only tying the exclusion to exploitation that results in a positive breach.

Furthermore in point (4), the legislator added a qualification beyond that which is stated in TRIPS Article, in that the treatment methods in order to be ineligible must be “required”, this may have adverse affects such as nullifying the reason to be for the exception all together. (Furthermore, it is presumed that this added qualification came as a result of the automatic copying of the TRIPS text, not from one of the Agreement’s official languages, but rather from the unofficial translation into Arabic, made by the Egyptian government, which contains the term “required” added incorrectly to the translation of TRIPS Article (27/a).

As for the plant varieties exclusion, the Jordanian Protection of New Varieties of Plants Law No. (24) came into force in 2000, which offers a sui generis system of protection for plant breeder based on International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).

Finally, we note that, TRIPS agreement presents Arab World Trade Organization Members, and equally all Members, with a choice to exclude animals from the scope of patentability, as exercised by the Jordanian legislator. However, Members do not have the discretion to exclude patents from any specific sector, nor can they abridge patent rights exclusively in any sector. Members have an obligation to make patents available to any invention, whether product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.

Feel free to create a more specific article with the above subject-matter. Thanks. --Edcolins 10:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary about removing the Jordanian Patent Law section - it's sometimes held up as a standard, and most developed nations have similar viewpoints - but since I've strong personal views on biological patents and I work in the industry I'm not in a position to make unbiased contribution to the page. 130.194.13.104 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

See Talk:Gene patents#Proposed merge. --Edcolins (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in this article

Copied message from my talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to contain a bias in favor of all arguments to increase the commercialization of biological patents--both by commission and by omission, the latter being that there is insufficient discussion of the arguments of the consequences of, e.g., "stacking" patents and "stealth" patents.

For the record, I am neither for nor against the increase (or decrease) in commercialization; I am just worried about bias.

Jcrglobalcap (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)jcrglobalcap[reply]

Agreed. Removed some bias against critics of biological patents from the controversy section. 3.5 years later and it isn't much better! 2.217.128.170 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information is well written, however the tone is still not neutral, there is some bias towards commercialization of biological patent. Holly6322 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)holly6632[reply]

NPOV dispute [Controversy]

I'm concerned specifically about this section: "as well as concerns and fears based on ignorance of patent law and inflamed by the media (see for example the title of a 2010 60 Minutes segment called "Should Firms Be Able to Own Your Genes?", generated in reaction to the Myriad patent litigation mentioned above; the title is absurd as "your genes" are not patentable subject matter -- see article on gene patents.)"

It is not the place of wikipedia to state that a given populations fears, concerns or opinions are based on ignorance. It is a ridiculous assertion, frankly. Many scientists, myself included, have reservations and concerns over biological patents - the notion of patenting a cell phenotype sits quite uncomfortably with many. Other parts of the article are also sketchy, in both directions, when it comes to neutrality. This section stood out to me, however.

Furthermore, to state that the title of a documentary is absurd is definitely not appropriate for a neutral encyclopaedia. It is up to the reader to determine what they find or do not find absurd. The title of the documentary is clearly being a little facetious, I don't think the implication was that the producers believe that corporate bodies could physically own the nucleic acids within an individuals body. What is absurd is to suggest that they did. I think that removing everything quoted above would improve this article measurably. Any thoughts? 2.217.128.170 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can really be bold and delete any poorly sourced material. In addition, the section should not contain any embedded external links, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. --Edcolins (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. An expert could do with paying some attention to this section in general. 2.217.128.170 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merged gene patent article into this one

today i merged the gene patent article into this one. they had a great deal of duplicated content and both were relatively short. merged gene patents into this one, as this one is broader. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US only

This article, as it currently stands, deals wholly with U.S. law. I suggest we move the content to Biological patents in the United States and turn Biological patent into a diambig and/or international overview page. Substantial work would need to be done disentangling the inbound links. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, make the move, that will force the sorting to begin. Abductive (reasoning) 18:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Would appreciate help sorting out the fallout from this. --LukeSurl^{t c} 19:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! That was probably the WP:BOLDest edit I've ever made! --LukeSurl^{t c} 19:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Food patents into this article

This morning I boldly merged the stub, Food patents into this article. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff. It seems right to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]