List the difference between a patent and a trademark

In 250 words, list the difference between a patent and a trademark. Should a company be allowed to patent a life form?  Does it matter if the life form is a non-sentient organism like a plant? 

Patents are used to secure ideas or inventions that someone wants to be credited for. Furthermore it helps prevents someone else from making profits on the same idea. In business, no one company is allowed to become a monopoly. Patents are considered a legal monopoly. The government allows this for the exchange for the disclosure of the usage of the idea or invention. Trademarks are different from patents. The trademark uses a various forms of a symbols or combination of words. It is used for the foundation of ownership of a service or product. The trademark can be used to make a decision on what product to buy because it acts as a guarantee that the quality is a good choice to pick. The owner of the trademark can challenge any other company usage of the mark due to the Trademark Act of 1946. It is also known as the Lanham Act which covers words, names, symbols and combinations of any of the three.

 

Now, let’s discuss an important issue of our world today. There is new science that is gaining more ground every day. It is considered to be very controversial in ethical proportion. I am covering this topic from a research point of view neither to incite any heated discussions nor to push any views on anyone else. Genetic engineering uses the most up to date modern technology. Genetic engineers have created a way to clone sheep, fish and horses now. Now, should the companies that practice cloning animals be able to patent that life form? We know that, we cannot patent a lamb that was born from the mother. It is important to note that patenting something that exists in nature is prohibited by the patent law. But, due to the clone being born from a surrogate mother does that make the animal less of a life form? Genetic engineering creates a new biological deposit by sequencing the DNA to produce changes from the original natural process of life. The changing in the use of language and its function allows anything to become relevant for the desired result. In this case someone might use to change the function language to create patents based on what it does rather than what it is. Court will consider if the patentee is trying to claim more than is needed. The courts also have the right to reject those claims to include not meeting the requirements of written descriptions. Biotechnology that is evolution-based is not capable of submission to structural claims. The courts also require that “representative species do more than populate a corner of the claimed territory and that the patent does more than merely drawing a fence around a perceived genus.” (New York University Law Review, 2016) The lack of legal limits in the United States currently allows eligibility of patents concerning life forms, if deemed made by man. In addition, inventions have to be new and not previously accessible to the public. What is the inception that we can use human manipulation to be viewed as a level of invention over natural composition? What about if the life form is a plant a non-sentient organism, can it be patented? Organisms grown in the wild are considered unoriginal and do not qualify for patents protection. Thank you for reading my post this week. Have a great week in class.