Yea, my point is that if you do make this an open source project and disclose your planned methods, they're then unpatentable by others.
Best also to clearly note the obvious "next steps" to protect those from the embrace/extend/extinguish tactics used by Apple$oft and Google et al and their peers in biotech.
On 29 April 2014 11:03:33 GMT+01:00, "Mega [Andreas Stuermer]" <masterstorm123@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure.
But the exact mechanisms how I make them e.g. resistant against fungi, that I haven't disclosed (intentionally). So that probably is still patentable.Bee transformation with GFP was described before, and you couldn't patent the transformation of honeybee anyway. What you can patent are the specific heterologous sequences.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:30:47 AM UTC+2, Cathal Garvey wrote:You've disclosed the idea publicly, so it's safe from predatory
patenting. That is, if anyone patents it now, you can have their patent
revoked simply by pointing to the public list archives where you wrote
about it first.
No need for patents! :)
On 28/04/14 22:20, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
> Perhaps I should patent my mechanisms before Monsanto does.
>
> Does anyone know how to file biotech patents?
>
>
> What I imagine:
>
> Selling Transgenic bee version 1.0 in 2015 (after approval from EPA)
> the bees outcross with other farmers' bees, and after 3 years no one will
> buy the transgenic bee 1.0 any more. Then version 1.0 will be made open
> source.
> 2018: Transgenic bee 2.0
> If farmers want better bees, they *want* to buy transgenic bee version 2.0.
> In case they are happy with less, they are free to use and breed version 1.0
>
>
> Does that sound like a fair buisness model?
>
--
T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +353876363185
W: http://indiebiotech.com
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment