LAWS 2201 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Oncomouse, Glyphosate, Implied License
26 Mar 2019
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Lecture 13 changing the conception of property. Copyright (ideas book, article, music, software) Patent inventions, discoveries, etc: this can also be used for medicine, surgical procedures, etc. Case: moore v. ucla (1990, cal sc, p. 280) Facts: dr. removed plaintiffs t-cell lymphocytes, without patients consent. Ratio: courts must balance a patient"s rights against the publics benefit of research, show respect for body as a vessel don"t commoditize body parts. Case: harvard college v. canada (2002, scc, p. 290) Facts: harvard seeks to patent the oncomouse . Issues: can (should) higher life forms be patented. Ratio: no provision in patent act, so let parliament decide, they have the patents and then other people can use it, but it is subject to royalty. Case: monsanto canada v. schmeiser (2004, scc, p. 293) Facts: defendant using plaintiff"s roundup ready wheat. Ratio: defendant used plaintiff"s invention, no implied license, no stray bull defence available on these facts.
