Criminal Justice

please follow the paper instruction carefully…. THANK YOU

Grading Criteria
Your roles as a facilitator are twofold.

First, facilitation will involve the development of a discussion topic. Suitable discussion prompts can focus on a case from the book, an article from the book, a recent news article from a reliable source such as The New York Times, or an article from a professional peer-reviewed journal. After the basis for the discussion, prompt has been decided, students will pose a series of two to four questions to serve as the basis for discussion. The questions should be formulated in such a way that they will elicit thoughtful discussion around the topic, and will encourage participants to justify their responses with arguments drawing from the readings and based on the relevant ethical theories/principles. Also, the prompt should be unbiased and inclusive of different points of view.

Second, facilitation involves collaboratively leading the discussion.

You, as a facilitator, are not required to respond to the initial discussion prompt, but to respond to other students’ posts. Also, facilitators should do additional research on the topic, so they know the subject better than do the participants. While facilitating, here are some useful strategies:

1. use the Socratic Method, and ask some probing questions.

2. provide additional information or correct misinformation.

3. point out the use of faulty reasoning, or compliment a well-researched post, and so forth.

Also, keep in mind that facilitation must be done in a respectful and unbiased manner such as one would expect of a person moderating a discussion such as one at a professional conference.

Please note this is a collaborative endeavor. All students are expected to participate in the formation of the discussion prompt and to equally lead the discussion. (If any group member is not pulling her/his weight, please feel free to confidentially contact me.)

Also note, student facilitators, are expected to post their prompt on the Assignment link one week before it is posted so that I can review it. (Keep in mind modifications may be required.)

The student facilitation activity is worth a total of 22 points*. Each member’s facilitation efforts will be individually graded based on the following criteria: rubric: Group Prompt Formulation of an appropriate discussion prompt sent to the instructor for approval in a timely manner. Group Collaboration Group member pulls her/his own weight and helps the group achieve the minimum goals stated above. Individual facilitation Posts contribute to the discussion by providing additional information, pointing out bias or faulty reasoning, and posing engaging questions. Posts are unbiased and are respectful of different points of view.

ANSWER

Case Title: Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks V Chakrabarty

Year: 1980

Court: United States Supreme Court

Case Number: 447 U.S. 303,206 USPQ 193

Some of the facts of this case are that the invented bacterium does not possess characteristics similar to any naturally occurring bacteria. The second fact is that the Patent Act of 1930 did allow patents on some plants (both sexually and asexually reproduced) but excluded bacteria without giving any sufficient reason for their decision. It can also be noted that the judges behind the first ruling on the case did not fully make their judgment based on the two Patent Acts of 1930 and 1970 (Kumar & Das 2016).

The nature of this case is complicated because of the the previous constitutionalized Patent Acts, Congress rulings, Government definition of terms (manufacture and composition of matter) and the previous court decisions on similar cases. The matter at issue is the demand for patent rights by the respondent (Chakrabarty) over the bacterium. The ruling court denies him the rights regarding the law, 35 U.S.C & 101, which states that microorganisms are not patentable since they are natural products (Soto 2019).

The major holding is the definition of genetically engineered microorganisms to determine whether they belong to the “composition of matter” or “manufacture” group. Congress explains that the plant breeder’s work “in aid of nature” is a patentable invention. Still, the Government says neither manufacture nor composition of matter excludes living things from patents. A notable dissent on this case is the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals denying the inventor the patent rights basing their argument on the Plant Patent Bill, 101, claiming it did not apply to laboratory microorganisms. Some of the key questions to be asked based on this case are; why did the Patent office deny the respondent the patent rights of his invention yet had earlier issued patent rights on bacteria? Why shouldn’t the Congress and Patent Body adopt one law that includes all the patent parameters? From the case highlights, it is evident the respondent deserved the patent rights on the bacterium since the invention is wholly his handwork and does not rely on any nature’s work.

References

Kumar, R., & Das, A. J. (2016). Scenario of intellectual property right on microorganism and microbiological research: an imperative need to amend. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 9(1), 1-4.

Soto, M. P. (2019). The Case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A Look at Microbiology through the Lens of Patent Law. Rev. Der. PR, 59, 51.

Jain, A., Singh, H. B., & Das, S. (2019). Patenting Microorganisms: An Indian Perspective. In Intellectual Property Issues in Microbiology (pp. 95-101). Springer, Singapore.