Thank you... I guess that makes some sort of sense. Now if Lexmark can modify their printer cartridges to print and replicate themselves, Lexmark might might find cover under the Bowman case!
I wish I could hand the SC justices 10 seeds each, with each 10 seed packet comprised by 5 GMO seeds and 5 non-GMO seeds. If the justices could visually sort the GMO and non-GMO seeds correctly, their ruling is actually "followable". If the product in question appears on the surface to be a natural object without patentability, extending patent protections to something that is indistinguishable from a non-patented object and self replicates seems incredibly academic.
When you go to the store and buy anything, do you know what is patented and what is not? Do you know every patent that covers every part of your phone? Do you know what parts of any of these things you can copy? Patent Law is just like that- 'academic' as you describe it, I suppose.
(I realize none of those things self-replicate like your seeds... but I think my point still holds.)
This article came up today and highlights quite nicely my unease about GM plants a. [0][1] If I stretch a bit, also kind of explains my unease about extending patent protections to plant life. The petunia flower with GM color change could be under patent protection. [2] Here we have a case of GM petunias growing outside a lab and quite likely breeding. What are the patent implications of patented plants going to seed? Does the landowner where the plant grows owe somebody money? If I'm a landowner, how do I identify and prevent patented plant life from growing on my property?
