Abstract
Developments in biotechnology and genomics have moved the issue of patenting scientific and technological inventions toward the center of interest. In particular, the patentability of genes of plants, animals, or humans and of genetically modified (parts of) living organisms has been discussed, and questioned, from various normative perspectives. This paper aims to contribute to this debate. For this purpose, it first explains a number of relevant aspects of the theory and practice of patenting. The focus is on a special and increasingly significant type of patents, namely product patents. The paper provides three general arguments against the concept and practice of product patenting. The first argument briefly considers the claim that patents are legitimate because they promote socially useful innovation. Against this claim, it is argued that product patents may hamper rather than promote such innovation. The second and main argument concludes that product patents are not adequately based on actual technological inventions, as they should be according to the usual criteria of patentability. The principal moral issue is that product patents tend to reward patentees for inventions they have not really made available. The final argument proposes a method for patenting the heat of the sun. Assuming that granting this patent will be generally considered absurd, the argument exposes a further, fundamental problem of the concept and practice of product patenting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).
Bok, D., Universities in the Marketplace (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2003).
Bostyn, S. J. R., Enabling Biotechnological Inventions in Europe and the United States (European Patent Office, Mu ¨nchen, 2001).
Collins, H. M., “The Seven Sexes:A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics,” Sociology 9 (1975), 205–224.
Collins, H. M., Changing Order:Replication and Induction in Scientic Practice (Sage, London, 1985).
De Ruiter, W., De Evolutie van de Laser, PhD dissertation (Eindhoven University of Technology, 1992).
Enge, H. A., Introduction to Nuclear Physics (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, 1969).
Etzkowitz, H. and A. Webster, “Science as Intellectual Property,” in S. Jasano., G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1995), pp. 480–505.
Evenblij, M., “Patent op Leven,” De Volkskrant 77 (1998, May 9), 1W.
Fuller, S., The Governance of Science (Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, 2000).
Hecht, E., Optics, 2nd edn. (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, 1987).
Keulartz, J., The Struggle for Nature. A Critique of Radical Ecology (Routledge, London, 1998).
Kevles, D., “Big Science and Big Politics in the United States:Rejections on the Death of the SSC and the Life of the Human Genome Project,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 27 (1997), pp. 269–299.
Kwa, C.-L., “Modelling Technologies of Control,” Science as Culture 4 (1994), 363–391.
Luper, S., “Natural Resources, Gadgets and Artificial Life,” Environmental Values 8 (1999), 27–54.
Radder, H., In and about the World (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1996).
Radder, H., “How Concepts Both Structure the World and Abstract From It,” Review of Metaphysics 55 (2002), 581–613.
Roothaan, A., Bestaanservaring en Morele Orie ¨ntatie. De Betekenis van de Metafoor Natuur voor een (Post )moderne Ethiek (in press).
Shulman, S., Owning the Future (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1999).
Sterckx, S., (ed.), Biotechnology, Patents and Morality, 2nd edn. (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000a).
Sterckx, S., “European Patent Law and Biotechnological Inventions,” in S. Sterckx (ed.), Biotechnology, Patents and Morality, 2nd edn. (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000b), pp. 1–112.
Sterckx, S., “Conclusions,” in Sterckx (ed.), Biotechnology, Patents and Morality, 2nd edn. (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000c), pp. 365–382.
Van den Belt, H., “Action at a Distance:A. W. Hofmann and the French Patent Disputes about Aniline Red (1860–1863), or How a Scientist May In. uence Legal Decisions Without Appearing in Court,” in R. Smith and B. Wynne (eds.), Expert Evidence:Interpreting Science in the Law (Routledge, London, 1989), pp. 184–209.
Van den Belt, H., “Biopatenting, 'Green Biotechnology 'and the Ethos of Public Science,” Paper for the Conference on Sozialethische Aspekte der Biopatentierung, Tu ¨bingen, October, 11–12 (2002).
Van den Belt, H. and R. Van Reekum, Issues rond Octrooien en Genen. Available at: www. sls. wau. nl/mi/mgs/research_programme/genomics_essay_P04. doc (2002).
Van Overwalle, G., “Biotechnology Patents in Europe:from Law to Ethics,” in S. Sterckx (2000a), pp. 197–206.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Radder, H. Exploiting Abstract Possibilities: A Critique of the Concept and Practice of Product Patenting. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17, 275–291 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000033080.99746.da
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000033080.99746.da