Analyze the differences between major forms of intellectual property protection, and current ethical issues that arise under intellectual property law.

Response to Students’ Posts

I need of (2) substantive replies to (2) different post. BUSN 311 Law and Ethics in the Business Environment. Topic: Intellectual Property

CO4: Apply legal concepts to business scenarios.

CO5: Analyze the differences between major forms of intellectual property protection, and current ethical issues that arise under intellectual property law.

Using the Required Readings and your own research:

Review the requirements for a patent.

Then further discuss: Should a company be allowed to patent a life form?Does it matter if the life form is a non-sentient organism like a plant?Is there a place where the law can ethically draw a line between life as property and life as beyond any person or business appropriation?

In considering these questions read:Assn for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)

Peer replies to further the conversation

25 points

Student replied to at least two (2) classmates’ posts and each reply includes at least three (3) to four (4) sentences relating the classmate’s post to at least one (1) question/point of the Discussion Prompt.

Post 1:

Hello Class,

There are a couple of requirements that inventors need to know when creating a good or want to legally separate their work from others. The item requiring a patent must be of relevant subject matter, new, useful, and non-obvious. These sound simple at face value but it is a long process to make sure that these requirements are met. Because of these rules, it would be difficult to acquire a patent on a life form. When doing this, the requirements would seem to line up with the intentions of those asking for a patent, rather than the product (life form itself). This would make for a difficult and tedious decision because judging the applicant’s intentions would have to be looked at from a subjective stance rather than objective. If they were judging a man made object, design, etc. it would be easier to analyze the modernity and usefulness through research, this would be difficult when judging a life form. In the Assn for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, it was an issue of whether the product was man made or not. Because of this reasoning, complimentary DNA (cDNA) was able to get a patent, whereas natural DNA was not granted on, as it was created from nature. Despite this, their may be an ethical line where certain life forms can be patented. Life forms without consciousness that are not immediately necessary for human life, for example a plant, may be an acceptable use of a patent. Drawing a line between a life form being property and transcending business acquisition would be difficult because every case would have to be examined individually on if they meet the criteria for getting or not getting a patent.

Post 2:

Good Evening Class and Professor,

This week readings were interesting; I will give my following opinion.

No organization should be allowed to patent life forms, it does not matter whether non-sentient organisms like animals. Although companies patent genetic material, allowing them to perform scientific research that could be helpful for humans. Genes hold specific attributes that could alter the user. It could add to numerous advantages; for instance, there could be a quality that could make crops invulnerable to particular pesticides or a quality that could probably make a specific creature more grounded (Pixley et al., 2019). The organization involved in producing different medication, biotechnology, and genetic organizations have spent and contributed many dollars to licensing particular attributes. That will prompt numerous advantages in the clinical, horticulture, or cultivating enterprises.

This further creates an ethical dilemma when other organization want to perform research using the life form that has been patented. Since this organization is solely permitted to explore this gene, nobody else or different organizations are allowed, so no other suppositions are inputted.

There is no assistance for additional exploration. This gives the limited individual choices and a limited source in getting a specific gene that might spare someone’s life. Since there are limited alternatives, some will be unable to bear the cost of a hereditary trial. This also leaves many independent and smaller organization reluctant to explore because there are consistently in danger of abusing any licensing laws; this prompts less examination and fewer choices. However, it would be right to allow the organization to patent methods and techniques to find and make a living form product.

However, as of now, organization are allowed to patent natural genes (Medvedieva & Blume, 2018). But it is my opinion that no organization, government, and person should have full ownership of any living form.

References

Medvedieva, M. O., & Blume, Y. B. (2018). Legal regulation of plant genome editing with the CRISPR/Cas9 technology as an example. Cytology and Genetics, 52(3), 204-212.

Pixley, K. V., Falck-Zepeda, J. B., Giller, K. E., Glenna, L. L., Gould, F., Mallory-Smith, C. A., … & Stewart Jr, C. N. (2019). Genome editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology: Will they contribute to disease-resistant crops, and who will benefit?. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 57, 165-188.

Subject: Business

Answer preview……………………………….

apa 248 words

Share this paper
Open Whatsapp chat
1
Hello;
Can we help you?