YOu can't get patents on herbals (and they can't seem to regulate them either). Whole plant patents are on hybrids or genetically altered plants...but you cannnot patent a laser since that is simply a device for creating a collimar beam of monochromatic light but you can patent the method of producing it (doped ruby crystals surrounded by xenon flash tube)
You will get no argument that we are providing TOO much protection to TOO much things. If the purpose of the protection is to protect a discovery, then no protection should be granted (e.g, EUREKA....dog saliva contains antibiotics..you must protect my discovery!).That's not content neutral. If the protection is to further progress, then that is content neutral
"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
07/14/2003 12:07 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
Jeme A Brelin wrote:
>
> I do believe there are several standing patents on naturally occurring
> chemicals, genes, and even whole plants.
That's very odd. What about the prior art... by nature. Then again
most of us would argue that a LASER would be patentable and they exist
in nature. I can see patenting a refining process but for naturally
occurring chemicals I don't see how one meets the "novel" or "original"
criteria.