The 5 Requirements for a Patent
Patentable Subject Matter: To be eligible for a patent, the invention must fall under one of the four statutory categories: processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter.
Usefulness: The invention must have a useful purpose and demonstrate practical applicability.
Novelty: The invention must be new and not previously disclosed or publicly known. It should not have been patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use or on sale prior to the application.
Non-Obviousness: The invention must involve an inventive step that would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the field at the time of invention.
Enablement: The inventor must provide enough information in the patent application to enable a person skilled in the field to replicate and practice the invention.
Should a Company be Allowed to Patent a Life Form?
The issue of patenting life forms raises complex ethical and legal questions. While legal frameworks differ across jurisdictions, the underlying debate revolves around whether life forms should be treated as intellectual property and subject to patent protection.
One perspective argues that life forms should not be patentable due to their intrinsic nature. Life, whether sentient or non-sentient, is seen as a product of nature and should not be owned or controlled by any individual or company. Patenting life forms may be seen as commodifying living organisms and undermining the inherent value of life itself.
On the other hand, proponents of patenting life forms argue that it encourages innovation and incentivizes research and development. They contend that allowing patents on life forms ensures that companies investing significant resources in discovering and developing new organisms can recoup their investments. This can lead to advancements in areas such as medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology.
Drawing an Ethical Line
Determining where to draw the line between life as property and life beyond the right of any person or business to own is a complex challenge. It requires considering ethical, societal, and legal implications.
One potential approach is to distinguish between naturally occurring life forms and those created through human intervention. While naturally occurring life forms could be considered part of the common heritage of humanity, non-sentient organisms created through deliberate human effort might be subject to patent protection.
Another consideration is the potential harm or exploitation associated with patenting certain life forms. If granting patents on certain organisms could lead to monopolistic control over essential resources or hinder access to necessary medical treatments, it may be necessary to restrict patentability in those cases.
Ultimately, finding a balance between promoting innovation and respecting the fundamental value of life is a complex task. It requires careful consideration of ethical principles, societal values, and the potential consequences of granting exclusive ownership rights over living organisms.
Conclusion
The question of whether companies should be allowed to patent life forms raises profound ethical and legal concerns. While patents are integral to incentivizing innovation and research, the patentability of life forms requires careful consideration of their inherent nature and potential implications. Distinguishing between naturally occurring organisms and those created through human intervention, as well as considering potential harm and exploitation, can help establish
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
