Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Patent PoliticsLife Forms, Markets, and the Public Interest in the United States and Europe$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Shobita Parthasarathy

Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780226437859

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: September 2017

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226437996.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use (for details see http://www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 20 November 2017

Confronting the Questions of Life-Form Patentability

Confronting the Questions of Life-Form Patentability

Chapter:
(p.51) 2 Confronting the Questions of Life-Form Patentability
Source:
Patent Politics
Author(s):

Shobita Parthasarathy

Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226437996.003.0003

Chapter 2 examines the beginning of the US and European life form patent controversies. It argues that almost from the outset, the two places approached the questions at stake, and how these questions should be answered, completely differently. In the United States, life form patentability was treated as a normal legal question about the distinction between nature and technology. Despite efforts by Jeremy Rifkin and other civil society groups to raise ethics and ecosystem concerns, they and their worries were rebuffed as irrelevant by the Supreme Court and the patent system’s traditional stakeholders in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case. In Europe, life form patentability quickly became an exceptional question, to be solved by democratically-elected legislators in the newly powerful European Parliament. Legislators grappled with questions of whether biotechnology products were forms of life, how they should make this determination, and what kinds of knowledge and expertise were relevant to their discussions and to the patent system. They decided that they were indeed dealing with matters of life, and that such matters required consideration of ethics, as well as socioeconomic and ecosystem implications. They eventually passed the European Union’s Directive for the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, but with important limitations.

Keywords:   Diamond v. Chakrabarty, patentability, nature, Jeremy Rifkin, civil society, ethics, US Supreme Court, European Parliament, biotechnology, expertise

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.