Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Then it appears that Argentinian law is in conflict with treaties that the Argentinian government has voluntarily entered into.


Well, most of those treaties are about defending IP, which is possible through other methods.

For example, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent most countries exclude software patents or computer programs, and lots of them are also signatories of many of the same treaties. So, its a very complex situation.

Also, and curiously, it seems that the article 1350 of the Civil Code Of The Russian Federation, is almost the same word by word. So, my guess is that this kind of wording exists in many other countries.

http://civil-code.narod.ru/ch69-art1349-1350.html

PS: I find it amusing to be down-voted just for translating the text of the law. I swear didn't write it, lol.


>PS: I find it amusing to be down-voted just for translating the text of the law. I swear didn't write it, lol.

This is probably because quoting the translated law looked like attempting to intentionally obfuscate.

The very point is that IPR can be defended by using some other name for it than "patent", so quoting a piece of law that says what cannot be "patented" is not relevant when the rights are granted by some other law - and in the case of Argentina they should be, because it is signatory to international convention that obligates it to have such a law.

Seed rights don't have to be protected by "patents". For instance, in my country, the name (translated to English) "plant breeder's right". It has its own piece of legislation, and it is in many ways like a patent, but it is not called a patent. In the US, the same thing is called a patent, but that is just terminology.


It isn't just a mater of terminology. Plant breeder's rights are different from patents and generally give much less power to the rightsholder. For example, the US has them via the Plant Variety Protection Act, but they only give protection to one single variety of plant, they allow researchers to use that variety without having to get a license, and they permit farmers to replant saved seeds. For this reason, US agribusinesses invested a lot of legal resources in convincing the courts to let them take out normal utility patents on plants, which had previously been considered unpatentable. (Plant patents were not the same thing, no matter what Monsanto's propaganda department have been claiming.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: