After genetically engineering a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, Ananda Chakrabarty sought to patent his creation under Title 35 U.S. Code Section 101, which states that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent ... ." The U.S. Patent Office (PTO) rejected a claim to the bacterium itself on the grounds that living things are not patentable under Section 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the PTO's decision and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Diamond's appeal. The Court was faced with the question of whether the creation of a live, human-made organism was patentable under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
1. The foregoing decision was decided by the Supreme Court by only a 5 to 4 vote. Do less developed nations agree with the majority or minority? Why?
2. Has the development of artificial life forms been encouraged by the Supreme Court's decision? Is this a good thing? What would have happened to the Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico without crude oil-ingesting organisms?
3. Do industrialized nations like the United States tend to expand the scope of IPRs? Why?