3 ms·

Well, in Argentina there are not patents for plants at all (genetically modified or not) if they can reproduce themselves. And for what its worth, Software Pate

by molmalo 10y ago

Well, in Argentina there are not patents for plants at all (genetically modified or not) if they can reproduce themselves. And for what its worth, Software Patents do not exist in Argentina either. Intelectual Property is protected by copyright. I leave here a translation of an extract for that law. It only allows "inventions" as something that can have a patent. And in its 6th article, it explicitly excludes the following: Article 6 - They are not considered inventions for the purposes of this law: a) Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; b) Literary or artistic works or any other aesthetic creation and scientific works; c) Plans, rules and methods for performing intelectual activities, playing games or for economic and business activities as well as computer programs; d) Ways of presenting information, e) Surgical, diagnostics or therapeutic treatment methods, applicable to the human body and animals; f) The juxtaposition of known inventions or mixtures of known products, variations in their form, dimensions or materials, except in the case of combination or merger so that they can not function separately or that the qualities or functions thereof are modified to obtain an industrial result not obvious to a person skilled in the art; g) All kinds of living matter and substances preexisting in nature. Art. 7 - Are not patentable: a) Inventions whose exploitation in the territory of Argentina must be prevented to protect public order or morality, health or life of people or animals or to preserve plants or avoid serious damage to the environment b) All existing biological and genetic material in nature or a replica thereof, in the biological processes implicit in animal, plant and human reproduction, including genetic processes involving material capable of conducting its own duplication in normal and free conditions as it happens in the nature.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mejari 10y ago
Then it appears that Argentinian law is in conflict with treaties that the Argentinian government has voluntarily entered into.
- molmalo 10y ago
  Well, most of those treaties are about defending IP, which is possible through other methods. For example, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent most countries exclude software patents or computer programs, and lots of them are also signatories of many of the same treaties. So, its a very complex situation. Also, and curiously, it seems that the article 1350 of the Civil Code Of The Russian Federation, is almost the same word by word. So, my guess is that this kind of wording exists in many other countries. http://civil-code.narod.ru/ch69-art1349-1350.html http://civil-code.narod.ru/ch69-art1349-1350.html PS: I find it amusing to be down-voted just for translating the text of the law. I swear didn't write it, lol.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    >PS: I find it amusing to be down-voted just for translating the text of the law. I swear didn't write it, lol. This is probably because quoting the translated law looked like attempting to intentionally obfuscate. The very point is that IPR can be defended by using some other name for it than "patent", so quoting a piece of law that says what cannot be "patented" is not relevant when the rights are granted by some other law - and in the case of Argentina they should be, because it is signatory to international convention that obligates it to have such a law. Seed rights don't have to be protected by "patents". For instance, in my country, the name (translated to English) "plant breeder's right". It has its own piece of legislation, and it is in many ways like a patent, but it is not called a patent. In the US, the same thing is called a patent, but that is just terminology.
    - makomk 10y ago
      It isn't just a mater of terminology. Plant breeder's rights are different from patents and generally give much less power to the rightsholder. For example, the US has them via the Plant Variety Protection Act, but they only give protection to one single variety of plant, they allow researchers to use that variety without having to get a license, and they permit farmers to replant saved seeds. For this reason, US agribusinesses invested a lot of legal resources in convincing the courts to let them take out normal utility patents on plants, which had previously been considered unpatentable. (Plant patents were not the same thing, no matter what Monsanto's propaganda department have been claiming.)

by molmalo 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mejari 10y ago

Then it appears that Argentinian law is in conflict with treaties that the Argentinian government has voluntarily entered into.

molmalo 10y ago
Well, most of those treaties are about defending IP, which is possible through other methods. For example, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent most countries exclude software patents or computer programs, and lots of them are also signatories of many of the same treaties. So, its a very complex situation. Also, and curiously, it seems that the article 1350 of the Civil Code Of The Russian Federation, is almost the same word by word. So, my guess is that this kind of wording exists in many other countries. http://civil-code.narod.ru/ch69-art1349-1350.html http://civil-code.narod.ru/ch69-art1349-1350.html PS: I find it amusing to be down-voted just for translating the text of the law. I swear didn't write it, lol.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  >PS: I find it amusing to be down-voted just for translating the text of the law. I swear didn't write it, lol. This is probably because quoting the translated law looked like attempting to intentionally obfuscate. The very point is that IPR can be defended by using some other name for it than "patent", so quoting a piece of law that says what cannot be "patented" is not relevant when the rights are granted by some other law - and in the case of Argentina they should be, because it is signatory to international convention that obligates it to have such a law. Seed rights don't have to be protected by "patents". For instance, in my country, the name (translated to English) "plant breeder's right". It has its own piece of legislation, and it is in many ways like a patent, but it is not called a patent. In the US, the same thing is called a patent, but that is just terminology.
  - makomk 10y ago
    It isn't just a mater of terminology. Plant breeder's rights are different from patents and generally give much less power to the rightsholder. For example, the US has them via the Plant Variety Protection Act, but they only give protection to one single variety of plant, they allow researchers to use that variety without having to get a license, and they permit farmers to replant saved seeds. For this reason, US agribusinesses invested a lot of legal resources in convincing the courts to let them take out normal utility patents on plants, which had previously been considered unpatentable. (Plant patents were not the same thing, no matter what Monsanto's propaganda department have been claiming.)