WATER ABLAZE - Patagonia Sin Represas

of living things in its rules and standards, on paper at least!
Article 53: Exceptions to patentability
European patents shall not be granted in respect of:
(a) inventions, the commercial exploitation of which would be
contrary to “ordre public” or morality; such exploitation shall not be
deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or
regulation in some or all of the Contracting States;
(b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for
the production of plants or animals; this provision shall not apply to
microbiological processes or the products thereof;
(c) methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery
or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or
animal body; this provision shall not apply to products, in particular
substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.
Similar exceptions have been laid down in national patent
regulations as well as at international level in article 27.3(b) of the
TRIPS agreement. It therefore seems even more absurd that the
patenting of life is nevertheless progressing at a fast and furious
pace and in an increasingly ruthless manner. Here, too, an area not
regulated by law has been created, in which the large companies of the
industrial nations are able to push through their interests unhampered
by legislation.
Resistance to this development can take the form of legal actions,
such as those currently underway against existing patents, e.g. on
basmati rice or substances from the neem tree, or else the refusal to
comply with corporate compensation demands. The most famous
example of this is Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser who, in a lawsuit
which lasted several years, successfully rejected charges made against
him by Monsanto. His field had been contaminated by genetically-
161