Divest Harvard: Climate justice, higher education, and fossil fuel divestment

On the 19 November 2014, seven Harvard students — the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition — have brought a legal action against Harvard University to compel it to withdraw its investments from fossil fuel companies. The plaintiffs include the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition; Alice Cherry, a law student; Benjamin Franta, a physics student interested in renewable energy; Sidni Frederick, a student of history and literature; Joseph Hamilton, a law student; Olivia Kivel, a biologist interested in sustainable farming; Talia Rothstein, a student of history and literature; and Kelsey Skaggs, a law student from Alaska interested in climate justice. The Harvard Climate Justice Coalition also bringing the lawsuit as ‘next friend of Plaintiffs Future Generations, individuals not yet born or too young to assert their rights but whose future health, safety, and welfare depends on current efforts to slow the pace of climate change.’ The case of Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, is being heard in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The dispute will be an important precedent on the ongoing policy and legal battles in respect of climate change, education, and fossil fuel divestment.

Franklin Barley: Patent law and plant breeders’ rights

This paper considers the relationship between patent law and plant breeders' rights in light of modern developments in biotechnology. It examines how a number of superior courts have sought to manage the tensions and conflicts between these competing schemes of intellectual property protection. Part 1 considers the High Court of Australia case of Grain Pool of Western Australia v the Commonwealth dealing with Franklin barley. Part 2 examines the significance of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc with respect to utility patents and hybrid seed. Part 3 considers the Supreme Court of Canada case of Harvard College v the Commissioner of Patents dealing with the transgenic animal, oncomouse, and discusses its implications for the forthcoming appeal from the Federal Court case of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto.