On 4/5/99, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Dan (and others) who helped set me straight on this.
> It seems I went a little overboard in accepting unquestioningly the
> concerns of Jeremy Rifkin and others.
I am reminded of a biotech lawyer friend of mine who debated Jeremy Rifkin a few years back -- Rifkin was ranting on about how recombinant genetics will create monsters and the need for strict regulation. My friend replied that the most destrucive monster she she know of having been created via recombinant genetics was concieved by Mr. and Mrs. Hitler in thier bed during the early part of this century, but there has been no push to regulate those type of recombinant experiments. That pretty well shut him up.
> I really ought to know better. Nonetheless, it still strikes me
> as a risk that we ought not to tolerate just for the sake of stronger
> self-help protection against patent infringement.
The issue is a little more complex than that -- it involves the interface between PVPA and utility patents, since there is a seed privelege in the former and not in the latter. The self-help issue is much more problematic under a statute that explicitly allows farmers to save seed.
On 4/5/99, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> On 04/03/99, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >BTW, what exactly does this have to do with copyright?
>
> Nothing. It's really a patent question.
And PVPA.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:35 GMT