Patent on cladistic analysis involving unknown species

Joachim Rodriguez joachim at CARIARI.UCR.AC.CR
Fri Aug 4 11:07:28 EST 1995


> > 
> > I do anyway...!  Seriously, tho, how can anyone patent the use of 
> > PAUP, which is in itself copyrighted?
> 
> 
> If they have a patent on the use of cladistic analysis in general, I
> suppose that this includes all possible ways of doing cladistic analysis,
> and it doesn't matter with which software you would do it. In practice
> this means that if you use PAUP, HENNIG, PHYLIP, or even a self-written
> software package that performs cladistic analysis, you violate their
> patent. 
> 
> 
> 
> 		Bart Nelissen
> 
> Dr. Bart Nelissen		| E-mail: nelissen at uia.ua.ac.be

and all the other messages with respect to the FINS patent




It'd be interesting to see what comes out of a legal battle of the PAUP 
copyright vs the FINS patent. Aren't they themselves violating the PAUP 
copyright somewhere? I'd put my money of Swofford and Co.

Apart from that, my personal feeling with regard to this idiotic patent 
is to ignore it completely, after filing your complaint to the EEC of course 
so they learn not to be so sloppy. If the whole scientific community does this 
(as it undoubtedly will) the company that bought the patent will probably 
decide not to alienate the same scientists that they would like to sell their 
other products to (if they are smart, that is).

Finally, and I must confess I am not at all an expert in patent matters, 
is that I thought that a patent had to be novel, non-obvious and a 
distinct improvement over previous methods and that it has to be a thing, 
or a production method (you can't patent knowledge) and as far as I can 
tell, this one scores zeroes all round. So it may not even stand up in 
court as a proper patent.   

J.R. de Miranda
UCR, Costa Rica




More information about the Mol-evol mailing list