[pp.int.general] Artificial meat

[Richard Stallman]

    > I think it would be a matter of patents -- not copyrights, trademarks,
    > trade secrets, plant variety monopolies, publicity rights, or
    > controlled geographical terms.  Why say "intellectual property" and be
    > vague, when you can say "patents" and be clear and brief?

    Noted; I just don't believe that patents are the only form of law that
    corporations (with vested interests in GMO) will rely on to give
    weight to their claims in any given situation, context, and/or time.

There are several laws they might use -- but each of them is a
different issue.  I don't think we would want to say, "Any law that a
GMO producer might in some cases use to its advantage is ipso facto
bad."  We need to consider these laws separately.

For instance, the name of the GMO variety will probably be a
trademark, but I don't see anything wrong in that.

Moreover, several of the laws that WIPO calls "intellectual property
laws" don't relate to GMOs at all.  For instance, copyright law, since
nothing in a plant is copyrightable.  And personality rights.
And controlled geographical terms.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/