The patent process is not open to official public debate, unfortunately. It
isn't even open to congressional influence to expedite the patent. I tried
since I couldn't license it without the actual patent number. However, part
of my struggle with the autoimmune patent came from the USPTO efforts
(according to the patent attorney) to stem the tide of transgenic and plant
patents. A media ruckus couldn't hurt focus attention on the situation
indirectly.
Donna Fezler
GCR
Jacksonville, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: wytze [mailto:geno@zap.a2000.nl]
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 2:47 PM
To: gcr@rhealiving.com
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: New Novartis Patent VI
As far as I understand it is not yet approved. It is an application and I
hope
to find out if comments to the patent offices are possible.
In the mean time, the fun of this patent is that it reveals a huge amount of
things so thank you Novartis for this information.
Wytze
Donna Fezler wrote:
> It was filed on January 15, 1999 and it has been approved already?
> Supposedly the USPTO is above corruption, but it usually takes at least 18
> months for the first review. 95 % of patents are rejected at the first
> review. It takes about 6 months from approval to issuance, so this patent
> was reviewed and approved within 5 months of application. HMMM.
>
> Donna Fezler
> GCR
> Jacksonville, IL
>
> http://www.rhealiving.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu]On
> Behalf Of wytze
> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 12:27 PM
> To: mmiller@pcsia.com
> Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: New Novartis Patent VI
>
> I wonder if this mycotoxin story did not come up as a result of the
patent,
> given
> the fact that the patent was filed 14 january 1999.
> Furthermore, the "advantage" of increased pollination may be a great
comfort
> to
> all of us.
> I also wonder where the New Scientist got the 20% yield increase. It is
not
> mentioned in the patent.
> wytze
> P.S. I loved your new patent ideas!
>
> mmiller@pcsia.com wrote:
>
> > >Synergistic effects and advantages of the "invention" as described in
> > >patent WO9935913.
> > The term
> > >"synergistic", however, is in no way to be understood in this
connection
> > >as being restricted to the pesticidal activity, but the term also
refers
> > >to other advantageous properties of the method according to the
> > >invention compared with the nitroimino- or nitroguanidino-compound and
> > >the transgenic useful plant alone.
> > >Examples of such advantageous properties which may be mentioned are:
> >
> > >-enhanced crop safety; snip
> > > reduced content of toxic products such as mycotoxins, snip
> >
> > I wonder what the people who published the mycotoxin discovery think
about
> > their idea being part of somebodyelse's patent?
> >
> > Also how much of the legal cost to determine what percentage of the
> reduced
> > mycotoxin benefit is attributable to the BT and what is due to the
> > pesticide synergy (and then there are those pesky changes in that
> > relationship as a function of soil type, weather conditions and other
> > factors like carrier insect populations) will be passed onto the end
users
> > as higher food costs?
> >
> > Or maybe as in another industry I was in, just the fact that a large
> > corporation has managed to get a patent from the new improved and
defunded
> > Patent Office that includes a prior art idea will be enough to not only
> > keep them from using the prior art idea but will keep them from even
> > challangeing the illegal patent due to lack of resources to do legal
> battle
> > with a large corporation.
> >
> > On the level of no moral constraints in the battle of corporations, this
> > patent is a Very Beautiful Strategy. Think of it,
> >
> > I patent how people can use your products including the use of your
> > pesticide on your herbicide and pesticide resistant crops.
> >
> > I now control how your customers can use your products through the
license
> > they are required to buy from me due to my patent on the use of your
> products.
> >
> > So the question becomes : "How much of your value stream to your
customers
> > will I take in license fees? "
> >
> > I love it. This system may very well collapse under the weight of its
own
> > avarice. "Plutocracy today, plutocracy tomorrow, plutocracy forever"
with
> > apologies to George Wallace. Mike Miller
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the
command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> >
> > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> > http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail