About: Diamond v. Chakrabarty     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FDiamond_v._Chakrabarty&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented. Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter". Justice William J. Brennan Jr., along with Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr., dissented from the Court's ruling, arguing that because Congress had not expressly authorized the patenting of biological organisms, the Court should not extend patent law to cover them.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty (en)
  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty (fr)
  • Diamond contro Chakrabarty (it)
  • 戴蒙德诉查克拉巴蒂案 (zh)
rdfs:comment
  • L'arrêt Diamond c. Chakrabarty (447 U.S. 303, 1980) de la Cour suprême des États-Unis entérine la brevetabilité du vivant, en l'espèce d'une bactérie génétiquement modifiée. (fr)
  • Sidney A. Diamond contro Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty (1980) fu la sentenza con cui la Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti diede per la prima volta il permesso di brevettare organismi geneticamente modificati. (it)
  • 戴蒙德诉查克拉巴蒂案(Diamond v. Chakrabarty), U.S. 303 (1980)是美国联邦最高法院判决的一个案件,裁定转基因生物可被授予专利。 (zh)
  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented. Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter". Justice William J. Brennan Jr., along with Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr., dissented from the Court's ruling, arguing that because Congress had not expressly authorized the patenting of biological organisms, the Court should not extend patent law to cover them. (en)
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al. (en)
foaf:depiction
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Pseudomonas_aeruginosa_01.jpg
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Warren_e_burger_photo.jpeg
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/William_Brennan_color.jpg
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 44 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software