Vor drei Jahren deckte das Sunshine Project auf, dass die US-Armee sich eine Granate für den Einsatz von biologischen Waffen hat patentieren lassen - ein glatter Verstoß gegen das internationale Biowaffenverbot (Hier mehr dazu). Jetzt hat das US-Patentamt reagiert und Teile des Patentes zurückgezogen. Der folgende Artikel von David Ruppe erschien im Global Security Newswire am 31. Januar 2006.

U.S. Army Grenade Patent Changed

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last month changed controversial language in a patent that critics said suggested the Army has developed an aerosol dispersion grenade in violation of international arms control treaties and U.S. law (see GSN, Jan. 5, 2005).

Language in the Army's patent, No. 6,523,478, which was awarded in February 2003, repeatedly said the "rifle-launched nonlethal cargo dispenser" could be used to disperse aerosolized agents including "chemical agents" and "biological agents."

That and similar descriptions of its capabilities in the patent, critics said, suggested the grenade was developed in violation of the Chemical and Biological weapons conventions and the U.S. Biological Weapons Antiterrorism Act of 1989. The latter two prohibit development of devices to deliver biological weapons agents, while the Chemical Weapons Convention forbids using riot control agents as a method of warfare (see GSN, Nov. 11, 2005).

The Sunshine Project advocacy organization has argued the grenade should not be further developed and used. The weapon would be "practically useless in CWC compliant applications," said Sunshine Project co-director Edward Hammond. "This is not a riot control weapon."

An Army spokesman in 2003 said the language was in error and a correction would be sought through the Patent and Trademark Office (see GSN, May 28, 2003). The Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command's "certificate of correction" said "the term 'chemical/biological agents' was incorrectly used (on only four occasions) and it is requested that the term be deleted from the patent because it is unnecessary and confusing." It added, "This mistake was made in good faith, and deletion of the term does not introduce new matter into the specification nor require re-examination."

The Patent and Trade Office originally denied the request in February 2005, finding the proposed change would alter the scope of the patent.

However, the agency reconsidered and approved the changes on Dec. 22, according to a page on the office Web site. The version of the document posted online has not yet been changed.

"It's a good thing that they went ahead and changed the claims," said Hammond. He added, though, "It doesn't obviate the fact that they made the claim in the first place and presumably the weapon is capable of doing what they claimed."

Weitere Informationen finden Sie in unserem Archiv
zurück zur letzten Seite

Top