Copyright and patent laws confuse me. Until the recent past, products like genetic materials which occur spontaneously in nature were not eligible for copyrights or patents. When the genomes of living organisms were decoded a few years ago, science became able to identify which genetic components contributed certain traits to an organism. At the point of discovery, patents were extended to those components though they were only discovered, not created.
To add to the confusion, it depends on international laws, federal laws, and local laws to regulate and enforce the granting of copyrights and patents. Fortunately or unfortunately, most countries do not automatically recognize those grants of ALL other countries. Many countries do have treaties which regulate their enforcement, but even with those treaties, many countries like China and India simply ignore them if it is in the financial best interest of the country.
Ultimately, it is the threat of civil action which most commonly enforces the laws and that simply boils down to who is willing to use and can afford to employ the most lawyers.
Since it was a political decision to allow the restrictions to apply to naturally occurring genetic materials, I think they should be ignored with the knowledge that such action can result in negative civil actions and judgments.
Genetically modified organisms should be patentable and protected.
Ted
|