{"id":471,"date":"2010-09-28T04:13:01","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T04:13:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wp3.thomsonreuters.net.au\/journals\/?p=471"},"modified":"2010-09-28T04:13:01","modified_gmt":"2010-09-28T04:13:01","slug":"human-beings-as-excluded-subject-matter-for-the-purposes-of-the-patents-act-1990-cth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2010\/09\/28\/human-beings-as-excluded-subject-matter-for-the-purposes-of-the-patents-act-1990-cth\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Human beings&#8221; as excluded subject matter for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>By Dr Charles Lawson*<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The purpose of this article is to review the meaning of &#8220;human beings&#8221; as it is used in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The analysis demonstrates that the meaning remains uncertain and that appeals to essential characters and taxonomic conceptions of &#8220;human beings&#8221; are not satisfactory. The article concludes that the existing qualitative test of what constitutes &#8220;essentially\u00c2\u00a0human characteristics&#8221; (that is not defeated by any technological means of\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0how the &#8220;human being&#8221; is constituted or created), and the &#8220;unlikely to be\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0ephemeral&#8221; standard in applying the &#8220;contrary to law&#8221; exclusion for\u00c2\u00a0post-patent grant exploitation limitations, are problematic.<br \/>\nThe full article can be accessed here: &#8220;&#8216;Human beings&#8217; as excluded subject matter for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)&#8221;\u00c2\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2010\/09\/AIPJ_20-04_Article-Lawson.pdf\">(2009) 20 AIPJ 223.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>*Associate Professor, Australian Centre for Intellectual Property Agriculture, Griffith Law School, Griffith University.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Dr Charles Lawson*  The purpose of this article is to review the meaning of &#8220;human beings&#8221; as it is used in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The analysis demonstrates that the meaning remains uncertain and that appeals to essential characters and taxonomic conceptions of &#8220;human beings&#8221; are not satisfactory.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[192],"tags":[191,193,194],"class_list":["post-471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australian-intellectual-property-journal","tag-aipj","tag-patents","tag-patents-act-1990-cth"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}