Tony Del Plato wrote: > While it's outrageous that it took 13 years to revoke this immoral > thievery, the ETC article below perhaps makes it more clear why > this is an important victory.
The second article just confirms my initial take on this. Sure, it's great that an odious patent was overturned in Europe. But you have to keep your eye on the ball here. What did Monsanto want out of all this? Fourteen years of patent protection and nothing that would threaten their other patents. What did Monsanto get? Thirteen years of patent protection and nothing that would threaten their other patents. Side benefit: In return for spending a minuscule proportion of their profits on legal fees, Monsanto got to tie up the legal resources of its opponents and bleed them dry for thirteen years. That's not a defeat for Monsanto. That's a victory for Monsanto. It's to be expected that ETC Group would try to put the best spin they could on this, but even they had to admit "little joy in foiling soy ploy at this late date." If something had come out of all this that would threaten the status of "patents on life," then the effort would have been worth the trouble. But that's not what actually happened. Jon > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ETC Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: May 3, 2007 4:17 PM > Subject: ETC Group: Monsanto Soy Patent Revoked after 13-year Battle > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ETC Group > News Release > 3 May 2007 > www.etcgroup.org > > REVOKED!! Monsanto Monopoly Nixed in Munich > but little joy in foiling soy ploy at this late date > > Munich - The European Patent Office today put the brakes on > Monsanto's over-the-top corporate greed by revoking its species-wide > patent on all genetically modified soybeans (EP0301749) - a patent > unprecedented in its broad scope. ETC Group, an international civil > society organization based in Canada, won its 13-year legal challenge > against Monsanto's species-wide soybean patent when an EPO appeal > board ruled that the patent was not new or sufficient (i.e., the > invention claimed was not sufficiently described for a skilled person > to repeat it). The patent challenge was supported by Greenpeace and > "No Patents on Life!" Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of UK-based EcoNexus > also joined the opposition team in Munich as a scientific expert. > > The patent was vigorously and formally opposed by Monsanto itself > until the company purchased the original patent assignee (Agracetus) > in 1996. The technology related to the now-revoked patent has been > used, along with other patents in the company's portfolio, to corner > 90% of the world's GM soybean market. [For more information, see ETC > Group News Release, "Monsanto's Soybean Monopoly Challenged in > Munich," April 30, 2007 > http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=616] > > "It's shameful that it took the European Patent office 13 years to > kill Monsanto's immoral patent, which was ultimately revoked on > technical grounds. Though we're relieved that the species-wide patent > on all genetically modified soybeans - both seeds and plants - was > not allowed to stand, the delay of more than a decade demonstrates > just how broken the patent system is. The patent had barely a year to > go before expiring!" said Hope Shand, who represented ETC Group in > Munich today. > > "It was particularly satisfying," said Shand, "that Monsanto's own > blistering 1994 arguments against the patent were ultimately key in > defeating it." One of Monsanto's top scientists testified in 1994 > that the genetic engineering process described in the patent was > insufficient to allow a skilled scientist to replicate the procedure > - a necessary criterion for patentability. > > ETC Group, which first challenged the patent in 1994 (as RAFI), was > represented in Munich by UK barrister Daniel Alexander and patent > attorney Tim Roberts of Brookes Batchellor, LLP. > > According to patent attorney Tim Roberts, "It is very satisfying that > the European Appeal Board has completely revoked this patent. This > decision sends a message to greedy patentees - don't claim more than > you are entitled to." > > Patent expert Dr. Christoph Then of Greenpeace commented on the > outcome of today's hearing, "The EPO's decision to throw out the > patent will have implications for Monsanto and the EPO. It is now > shown that the Patent Office is granting patents covering broad > sectors of agricultural diversity with no real invention to back them > up," said Then. > > Ruth Tippe from the European-wide initiative, "No Patents on Life!" > asserts, "This is an important step against patents on seeds because > it shows that civil society will keep on fighting and can ultimately > succeed against powerful multinationals." > > According to Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of EcoNexus, "Monsanto's patent > couldn't even survive on its scientific merits. It was a thoroughly > bad patent - from both a technical and moral perspective." > > Multinational firm Syngenta also made oral arguments today opposing > the patent. While their technical expertise may have contributed to > the patent's ultimate downfall, their opposition is viewed by civil > society as cynical. In January 2005, ETC Group reported on three > Syngenta patent applications that also make breathtakingly broad > claims - multi-genome patents with claims on gene sequences that > extend to 40 plant species. Despite assurances from Syngenta that the > company would let the patents lapse, all three applications appear to > be active still at the World Intellectual Property Organization > (WIPO). [See ETC Group Communique, "Syngenta - The Genome Giant?" > January/February 2005 > http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=73] > > This isn't ETC Group's first successful battle against species-wide > patents. Most notably, another Agracetus patent - this one granted by > the US Patent and Trademark Office in 1992 and claiming all > genetically engineered cotton varieties - was eventually revoked in > India and the US in 1994. > > Other overly broad, unjust patents have yet to be revoked, however. > The formal challenge to the notorious "Enola Bean" patent, US Patent > No. 5,894,079, granted on a yellow bean genetically identical to a > pre-existing Mexican bean variety, has entered its seventh year. [See > ETC Group Genotype, "Whatever Happened to the Enola Bean Patent > Challenge?" 21 December 2005 > http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/41/01/genotypeenola05.pdf] > > Note to editors: The final wording of today's ruling by the EPO > appeals board will not be released for several more weeks. > > For further information: > > ETC Group (Carrboro, NC, USA) > Hope Shand (back from Munich on 7 May) or > Kathy Jo Wetter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: +1 919 960-5223 > > ETC Group (Ottawa, Canada) > Pat Mooney > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: +1 613 2412267 > > ETC Group (Montreal, Canada) > Jim Thomas > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: +1 514 516-5759 > _______________________________________________ > ETC Group mailing list > http://lists.etcgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/etcgroup > > _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
