Sexy iGasm gets Apple worked up

Posted by nimisha mistry Sunday, May 27, 2007 0 comments



A British sex toy shop's ad campaign for a vibrating iPod peripheral has drawn ire of Apple Inc. The vibrating sex toy accessory for the iPod appears to have got Apple's legal team all hot and steamy.
According to a British Tabloid reports, adult store Ann Summers, the seller of "iGasm," has been threatened by Apple with legal action over its advertising posters. Mind you, it is not the `i prefixed name that has bugged Apple, it's mainly the posters they do not like. Those seemingly demean the iconic music player and that has got Apple's goat. The sex toys shop chain recently began marketing the iGasm, which is an egg-shaped device that plugs into the Apple iPod and vibrates at different speeds depending on the volume of the music. The $60 device comes with "two silicone ticklers," as well as a splitter that allows the user to plug in earphones and listen to music at the same time. "Go at it hard and fast with a pounding drum and bass track or chill with the ambient classic," reads a marketing brief for the $72 iGasm, which plugs into any music player and vibrates in sync with the beat. Apple complains that the iGasm ads are a rip-off of its own iPod ads. The iGasm ad features a young woman in her underclothes with her arms crossed over her head, holding her iPod. Out of the player come two sets of wires, one going to her earphones and the other disappearing into her panties, where it presumably is attached to the iGasm. "We hope this request to remove it [the ads] immediately will prevent us having to consider further action," the tabloid quoted a legal letter sent by Apple's lawyers as saying. Incidentally, this is not the first time that Apple has had a run-in with iPod sex toy makers. Last November, it was reported that Apple scuttled a Japanese company's attempts to launch a device called gPod. Apple said the gPod, which has features similar to the iGasm, infringed on its "pod" trademarks.
SOURCE : THE TIMES OF INDIA

GM patent rejected after 13 years

Posted by Vipul Mistry Sunday, May 6, 2007 0 comments
The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a patent owned by global agricultural giant Monsanto for the genetic modification (GM) of soybeans, saying the technique it approved 13 years ago lacked "novelty".The technique, which describes a way of creating any kind of GM soybean without reference to the specific genes being introduced, has helped make Monsanto the dominant force in GM soybeans — the company owns nearly 90% of the global market. Opponents complained that the patent gave Monsanto de facto control over all GM soybeans, and have been fighting against it since it was granted in 1994.At a hearing on 3 May, the EPO revoked the patent. The board's decision is final, says Rainer Osterwalder, spokesman for the EPO, with no further appeals available.The decision will no doubt have an impact on other GM technology patents, Osterwalder told Nature. "Case law is important," he says.But the patent was due to expire in 2008 anyway. A spokesperson for Monsanto says: "We do not expect this decision to have an impact on Monsanto's business." The EPO will not issue a detailed written explanation of the legal basis of its decision for three to six months, Osterwalder says.Firing lineThe application for the soybean patent was first submitted in 1988 by US biotech company Agracetus under the title 'Particle-mediated transformation of soybean plants and lines'. The technique, dubbed a 'particle gun', involves introducing foreign genes into regenerable soybean tissues by coating on carrier particles, which are physically accelerated into plant tissues. The tissues are then recovered and regenerated into whole sexually mature plants. The progeny are recovered from seed set by these plants; a portion will contain in their genome the foreign gene.This idea was actively researched by several teams during the 1980s, one of which was the team at Agracetus, according to Ricarda Steinbrecher, a molecular geneticist at the Oxford-based non-profit science watchdog group EcoNexus. Steinbrecher, who served as a scientific expert at the hearing in Munich, notes another use of the technique on onions1 in 1987 was cited in the EPO hearing as an example that others were working on the technology.Osterwalder notes that GM technology was much less developed then than it is now, and patents in the field were new. "Guidelines are now better developed on whether to grant or refuse these patents," he says; a higher percentage of GM plant patents are now refused than in the past. Not the usual suspectsThe original patent approval was opposed by a strange mix of groups, including the Canadian environmental group ETC and a long list of big agribusiness firms involved in GM research. One of the opposing firms was Monsanto, which dropped its opposition in 1996 after acquiring Agracetus, thus becoming owner of the patent.Christoph Then, a GM expert at Greenpeace Germany, which cooperated with ETC in opposing the patent, was at this week's hearing in Munich. He says representatives from the Swiss agribusiness firm Syngenta provided some of the strongest arguments against the patent.
It is "a little strange", he admits, for Greenpeace and ETC — which are generally opposed to the use of GM soybeans — to be arguing the same side as Syngenta, a manufacturer of GM crops. It was also unusual, adds Then, for Greenpeace to be arguing a case that would effectively give other companies more unrestricted access to GM technologies.Then says Greenpeace is strongly opposed to any patent that would give a company basic control over a plant species and allow them to restrict access to technology. "For us, this patent was highly symbolic," he says.

Source :www.nature.com