此外，由于取得较高级的生命形式的专利将造成对传统专利制度的根本背离，并且由于这种生命形式的专利保护存在高度争议，从而带来若干极其复杂的问题，因此需要明确而毫不含糊的立法。
Also, since patenting higher life forms would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such life forms is a highly contentious matter that raises a number of extremely complex issues, clear and unequivocal legislation is required.
现行法律没有明确指出较高级的生命形式可取得专利。
The current Act does not clearly indicate that higher life forms are patentable.
法院不具备处理这种复杂问题的制度能力，这大概需要议会展开公开辩论，平衡相互冲突的各种社会利益并起草复杂的立法。
The Court does not possess the institutional competence to deal with issues of this complexity, which presumably will require Parliament to engage in public debate, a balancing of competing social interests and intricate legislative drafting.
在加拿大孟山都公司诉Schmeiser案中，孟山都公司取得了一种抗草甘膦基因和细胞的专利，这种专利产生了抗除草剂Roundup的油菜作物。
In Monsanto Canada Inc. v.
Schmeiser, Monsanto patented a glyphosate-resistant gene and cell, creating canola plants that were resistant to the herbicide Roundup.
农场主Schmeiser从未购买或获得种植抗Roundup的油菜的许可证。
Schmeiser, a farmer, never purchased or obtained licence to plant Roundup resistant canola.
他发现自己的土地上有一些抗Roundup的油菜，从作物中攒集种子并于次年种到所有的油菜地里。
He found that he had some Roundup resistant canola on his land, saved seed from the crop and planted it in all of his canola fields the following year.
他出售了油菜作物来换取饲料。
He sold the canola plants for feed.
孟山都公司起诉Schmeiser侵犯专利。
Monsanto brought an action against Schmeiser for patent infringement.
加拿大最高法院部分同意孟山都公司的上诉。
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal of Monsanto in part.
法院多数法官认为，Schmeiser采集、储存和播种含有孟山都公司的专利基因和细胞的种子，侵犯了《专利法》第42条。
The majority of the Court held that by collecting, saving and planting seeds containing Monsanto's patented gene and cell, Schmeiser infringed section 42 of the Patent Act.
因此，Schmeiser剥夺了孟山都公司充分享有的垄断权并在商业或经营利益背景下利用或持有受到专利保护的发明。
Therefore, Schmeiser deprived Monsanto of the full enjoyment of its monopoly and employed or possessed the patented invention in the context of their commercial or business interests.
法院还认为，通过使用造成的侵权并不要求以隔离的实验室形式使用受到专利保护的基因或细胞。
The Court was also of opinion that infringement by use did not require use of the patented genes or cells in their isolated, laboratory form.
植物的繁殖就是一种使用，尽管植物具有生命，自行生长。
The propagation of the plants was a use notwithstanding that plants were living things that grew by themselves.
根据该法，农业领域的发明与机械科学的发明一样值得保护。
Under the Act, an invention in the domain of agriculture was as deserving of protection as one in mechanical science.
在加拿大作曲家、词作者和音乐出版者协会诉加拿大互联网服务商协会案中，问题是对作品被从互联网上下载的音乐艺术家和作曲家的补偿。
At issue in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v.
Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers was the compensation of musical artists and composers whose works were downloaded from the Internet.
作曲家协会要求有从加拿大互联网服务商收取版税的权利。
The Society of Composers was asking for the right to collect royalties from Canadian Internet Service Providers.
服务商辩称，它们提供互联网接入手段而不管理互联网的内容，或者提供音乐工作者交流的途径。
The Providers argued that they offered the means to have Internet access but in no way regulated the content of the Internet or provided the means for the communication of musical works.
因此，服务商声称，它们没有违反《版权法》，该法规定只提供“他人进行交流所需通信手段”的个人不能被视为侵犯版权的交流一方。
As a result, the Providers claimed that they were not infringing the Copyright Act, which provides that persons who only supply “the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate” cannot be considered parties to a communication in violation of copyright.
加拿大最高法院考虑，立法机关是否打算向与加拿大存在“真正和实质性联系”的每次互联网交流赋予版权责任。
The Supreme Court of Canada pondered whether or not the legislature intended there to be copyright liability attached to every Internet communication with a “real and substantial connection” to Canada.
法院认为，只要互联网服务商充当传输渠道而不参与通信内容相关活动，互联网接入所需手段如连接设备、连接服务和软件等等是《版权法》所覆盖的项目。
The Court held that the means necessary for access to the internet such as connection equipment, connectivity services and software, etc. were covered by the Copyright Act so long as the Internet provider acted as a conduit and was not involved in activities related to the content of communications.
最高法院裁决，提供互联网基础设施者不应被视为《版权法》中的使用者，而是中间机构。
The Supreme Court concluded that those who provide Internet infrastructure should not be considered as users for the purposes of the Copyright Act but rather as intermediaries.
案例列表
List of cases
Archibald诉加拿大（C.A.）案， 4 F.C. 479。
Archibald v.
Canada (C.A.), 4 F.C. 479.
Auton（的诉讼监护人）诉不列颠哥伦比亚省（卫生部长）案，2004 S.C.C. 78。
Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v.
British Columbia (Minister of Health), 2004 S.C.C.