> Similarly they attempt to patent strains that have existed for centuries in order to become sole providers.
Oh really?
Since you didn't understand the article that you cited, I'll quote it "It should be perfectly clear that what RiceTec patented was not the genome of basmati rice or a genetically developed variety (RiceTec makes the point that all its products are natural). It was simply a hybrid of basmati obtained from cross-breeding with an US long rice variety."
RiceTec has a patent for its hybrid. That patent does not cover anything else, such as pre-existing strains of Basmati.
The whole argument that what RiceTec has done is somehow wrong is "By including basmati name into the patent definition, RiceTec could claim wide-ranging rights over a traditional name, for which it did not acknowledge the origin or the originality, let alone the copyright."
That's factually incorrect. Patents don't grant any protection for names. Copyright and trademarks do.
I've got a patent for a method of branch prediction. No one thinks that said patent gave me any rights over the term "branch prediction" (or even "programmable branch prediction", a term which was arguably novel when I filed the patent.)
Oh really?
Since you didn't understand the article that you cited, I'll quote it "It should be perfectly clear that what RiceTec patented was not the genome of basmati rice or a genetically developed variety (RiceTec makes the point that all its products are natural). It was simply a hybrid of basmati obtained from cross-breeding with an US long rice variety."
RiceTec has a patent for its hybrid. That patent does not cover anything else, such as pre-existing strains of Basmati.
The whole argument that what RiceTec has done is somehow wrong is "By including basmati name into the patent definition, RiceTec could claim wide-ranging rights over a traditional name, for which it did not acknowledge the origin or the originality, let alone the copyright."
That's factually incorrect. Patents don't grant any protection for names. Copyright and trademarks do.
I've got a patent for a method of branch prediction. No one thinks that said patent gave me any rights over the term "branch prediction" (or even "programmable branch prediction", a term which was arguably novel when I filed the patent.)