<story><title>Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership</title><url>http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lighthawk</author><text>According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics. However, all humans rely their skin, mouth, and gut floras to be healthy. If the bacteria and yeast in that flora can&amp;#x27;t be excluded from patentability, are they considered not a part of the human animal? I understand that probiotics should be protected, but I wonder if someone could take advantage of this and claim patent on any naturally occurring microorganism by just isolating it and showing that it has some use.&lt;p&gt;Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.mayo.edu&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;departments-divisions&amp;#x2F;department-molecular-medicine&amp;#x2F;harnessing-viruses-treat-cancer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.mayo.edu&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;departments-divisions&amp;#x2F;departmen...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;society&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;nov&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;fda-approval-imlygic-cancer-hunting-viral-treatment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;society&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;nov&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;fda-approval-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren&amp;#x27;t mentioned, then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>aroch</author><text>I think the &lt;i&gt;spirit&lt;/i&gt; of this to allow for drastically modified yeast that produce, say, anti-cancer drug X to be patented. To make the biological equivalent of an industrial methods patent. Otherwise you wouldn&amp;#x27;t be able to protect your IP even though significant effort has gone into creating a chimeric yeast, because its just a collection of natural products (natural product&amp;#x27;s are currently not patentable).&lt;p&gt;Still, seems a little odd &amp;#x2F; slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect &amp;#x2F; profit off what you&amp;#x27;ve developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good reason.&lt;p&gt;(Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product made by a bacteria)</text></comment>
<story><title>Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership</title><url>http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lighthawk</author><text>According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics. However, all humans rely their skin, mouth, and gut floras to be healthy. If the bacteria and yeast in that flora can&amp;#x27;t be excluded from patentability, are they considered not a part of the human animal? I understand that probiotics should be protected, but I wonder if someone could take advantage of this and claim patent on any naturally occurring microorganism by just isolating it and showing that it has some use.&lt;p&gt;Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.mayo.edu&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;departments-divisions&amp;#x2F;department-molecular-medicine&amp;#x2F;harnessing-viruses-treat-cancer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.mayo.edu&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;departments-divisions&amp;#x2F;departmen...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;society&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;nov&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;fda-approval-imlygic-cancer-hunting-viral-treatment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;society&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;nov&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;fda-approval-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren&amp;#x27;t mentioned, then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>PythonicAlpha</author><text>This alone is a strike against humanity: Now local patent laws that are widely criticized are even protected by international contracts (and thus have to be implemented by all signers -- and can not be changed, even the US can not change it&amp;#x27;s laws or regulations, when the top courts want to change patent ability regulations, they can&amp;#x27;t.).&lt;p&gt;Is this about &amp;quot;free trade&amp;quot; or about profit-maximizing and guaranteeing for some big corporations?</text></comment>