On 6/7/97, Anthony Claiborne <mdclaiborne[_at_]geocities.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > Well, yes, but it's not clear they really mean it. If I discover a new
> > plant in the jungle, I do not get a patent on that plant, because it is
> > a "product of nature" and therefore falls within a nonstatutory
> > exception to patentable subject matter.
>
> Of course, there ARE plant patents, relating to new varieties of asexually
> reproduced cultivated plants. Ruby Cabernet is a good example (now in the
> public domain), although there are lots more patented tea roses than other
> patented plant cultivars.
>
Agreed, but those are given to new strains of plants developed by the patentee and which do not exist in nature. Merely discovering a natural plant won't do.
Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law
Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu
You can find a list of my articles and books, and information on how to obtain them, at http://www.law.utexas.edu/lemley/pubs.htm
For information on the Intellectual Property program at UT, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/intelprop/ Received on Mon Jun 09 1997 - 16:16:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:26 GMT