Summary: New reminders of the dangers of an excessively broad patent law
• IPO finds cosmetic treatment patentable [hat tip: Glyn Moody]
Following the EPO decisions, the hearing officer in this case considered the claimed method was not treatment by surgery because the intervention did not burn the skin (as was the case in T 1172/03). There was also no suggestion that cells in the body were radically altered in the process (as was the case in T 383/03). The method was also not treatment by therapy, because (according to an expert medical witness) there were apparently no medical conditions that would benefit from wrinkle reduction resulting from the method. On the matter of inventive step, the hearing officer considered that GB2344532 did not contain clear and unmistakable directions to use the known process for reducing wrinkles, and that the use of the process to reduce wrinkles would be counter-intuitive (akin, so the hearing officer considered, to prescribing cigarettes for treatment of lung cancer), so the claimed invention would not be obvious to the skilled person. The objections raised could not therefore be sustained, and the application was remitted back to the examiner to conclude examination.
• Brazil Starts Public Consult On Retaliation Against US IP Rights
The Brazilian government today announced the start of a process of public consultation on suspension of concessions or obligations of intellectual property rights from the United States. The government on 15 March published a resolution of the Chamber of External Trade (CAMEX) launching the consultation, according to a Brazilian government press release.This follows a WTO dispute settlement ruling in a US-Brazil dispute on cotton subsidies where the US was found in non-compliance with international trade rules. The decision gave Brazil the authorisation to suspend its obligations on US goods including IP rights.
• More Examples Of Patent Incentives Making The World Less Safe [original source is Wired Magazine]
Well, given Monsanto’s history of patenting disease resistant crops — and then over-aggressively attacking anyone who uses such crops (even accidentally), it would seem like a rather legitimate fear. Perhaps, rather than brushing this fear off, the USDA’s Cereal Disease Laboratory (CDL) should work to do something to fix things?
Related posts (about Monsanto):
- Reader’s Article: The Gates Foundation and Genetically-Modified Foods
- Monsanto: The Microsoft of Food
- Seeds of Doubt in Bill Gates Investments
- Gates Foundation Accused of Faking/Fabricating Data to Advance Political Goals
- With Microsoft Monopoly in Check, Bill Gates Proceeds to Creating More Monopolies
- Gates-Backed Company Accused of Monopoly Abuse and Investigated
- How the Gates Foundation Privatises Africa
- More Dubious Practices from the Gates Foundation
- Video Transcript of Vandana Shiva on Insane Patents
- Explanation of What Bill Gates’ Patent Investments Do to Developing World
- Black Friday Film: What the Bill Gates-Backed Monsanto Does to Animals, Farmers, Food, and Patent Systems
- Gates Foundation Looking to Destroy Kenya with Intellectual Monopolies
- Young Napoleon Comes to Africa and Told Off
- Bill Gates Takes His GMO Patent Investments/Experiments to India
- Gates/Microsoft Tax Dodge and Agriculture Monopoly Revisited
- Beyond the ‘Public Relations’
- UK Intellectual Monopoly Office (UK-IPO) May be Breaking the Law
- “Boycott Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in China”
- The Gates Foundation Extends Control Over Communication with Oxfam Relationship
