Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cancer Mouse Not Patentable in Canada

Posted by timothy on from the say-onco-say-onco dept.

Proaxiom writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that OncoMouse, the so-called 'Harvard Mouse' that is especially prone to cancer, cannot be patented under Canadian law. The hapless rodent still enjoys patent protection in the U.S., Japan and much of Europe. So there is at least one place where higher life forms cannot be patented, but I am not familiar enough with the intricacies of international intellectual property treaties to figure out the consequences of the discrepancy. I'm sure countless IANAL's will be willing to offer opinions."

7 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Read the judgement here: by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/ harvard.en.html

    --
    Carousel is a lie!
  2. Mouse not patentable, but Canola is? by Slashdolt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the same country in which the farmer was sued for using seeds from last year's canola crop, rather than buying them (again) from Monsanto.

    1. Re:Mouse not patentable, but Canola is? by jaeson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually he didn't buy anything from Monsanto. His argument was that his rapeseed(canola) crop was cross pollinated by Genetically Modified variants in neighboring fields. Monsanto argued that since they owned the copyright on the GM rapeseed, that the farmer was in violation of their copyright. Amazingly enough Monsanto won the case.

      Monsanto is being counter-sued for contaminating his crop. If there is any justice, they will have to cough up some big $$$ for it.

      I too thought the Canadian justice system wouldn't be as bad as our own, but it goes to show you how fscked up any government can be when idiots are making the decisions (Go USA!!!)

  3. Re:The mouse isn't patented... by AndyMan! · · Score: 5, Informative

    but the biochemical method for manipulating the genese of the mouse to create the Harvard mouse is.

    Actually, the mouse is. Specifically, the patent covers the offspring of the mice as well. Indeed, it ALSO covers the offspring of other animals that were bred with the mice.

    Read the article.

    _Am

  4. Canola oil seed different from a mouse by dgerman · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the ruling:

    "Although Parliament enacted special legislation for the protection of plant breeders, it did not address other higher life forms. Moreover, the passage of the Plant Breeders' Rights Act demonstrates that mechanisms other than the Patent Act may be used to encourage inventors to undertake innovative activity in the field of biotechnology.[...] If a special legislative scheme was needed to protect plant varieties, a subset of higher life forms, a similar scheme may also be necessary to deal with the patenting of higher life forms in general. It is beyond the competence of this Court to address in a comprehensive fashion the issues associated with the patentability of higher life forms."

    In other words, patents related to plants have their own set of laws. They were not meant to include animals and the Supreme Cort does not want to take the responsibility of something that Parliament should do.

    At least, that is my interpretation :)

  5. Not copyright.. patent. by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a patent issue.

    And it's not that far fetched that they won; it wasn't an "accident". The guy KNEW it was monsanto's seed. It wasn't forced on him. He knew they had a patent on it as well. He took the gamble.

    What you have to realize is that the legal system is not as convoluted in Canada. Though this time, the guy might have been found to be doing something wrong, under slightly different circumstances, monsanto would lose (say, if the guy really had no idea it had happened).

    You can't just compare one ruling and declare the Canadian justice system to be as screwed up as the US. Remember, we have 10x less population, over a larger area, and a system that is *FAR* more flexible and less complex than the US system. Not everything is Black & White in the Canadian legal system, nor do we pretend it is.

  6. Patents & TMs in Canada by vorwerk · · Score: 5, Informative

    FYI, in Canada:

    1) Medical procedures are not patentable. This is basically to prevent the formation of a monopoly on a life-saving procedure. (e.g., If someone invented a procedure to repair spinal cords, she couldn't patent it and charge a zillion dollars, because that would limit poor people's access to the technique.)

    2) A life-saving drug (e.g., cure for cancer), if they're the only such life-saving drug available, is not patentable.

    3) Some drug patents and trademarks seem to be quickly lost in Canada (while others are not). In the U.S., the trademark "Aspirin" has been lost to common use, so any generic manufacturer can claim that they make aspirin. Not so in Canada -- only Bayer can claim this trademark. In terms of patents, we have lots of generic drugs being manufactured that I don't think they can offer in generic form in the U.S. yet (e.g., generic forms of Reactine & Allegra). Not that I'm complaining -- our drugs are dirt cheap in comparison to what U.S. citizens pay (e.g., a month's supply of Claritin in the U.S. costs over $90 USD according to a recent Reuters article, but costs me only about $18 CAD -- this is due, in part of course, to the fact that it has been available over the counter here for some time ... but you get the drift).

    For more comparisons of patent law differences:

    http://www.dww.com/articles/how_do_you.htm

    -kris