kallend 1,623 #1 March 31, 2010 www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/nyregion/31about.html Good. The idea that something that's existed for millennia could be patented is just absurd.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #2 March 31, 2010 Fuckin' A. You can't own something just because you were the first person to find an example of it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 March 31, 2010 I've thought this was a disgrace for ten years. Patenting a "gene.". They'd discover it and patent it. I'd like to read more on the opinion. I hope this stands. More importsntly, I hope I can agree with the judge's logic. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #4 March 31, 2010 patents are a pretty silly way to run an economy any way. a very communistic system stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #5 March 31, 2010 At least it's a start, now I wonder if it will over flow into the world of agriculture an hopefully bust Monsanto's stangle hold Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #6 March 31, 2010 Quote patents are a pretty silly way to run an economy any way. a very communistic system Given your penchant for copy/paste I can see how you find the idea of rewarding original thought abhorant.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #7 March 31, 2010 Finally!! It only took 30 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #8 March 31, 2010 QuoteFuckin' A. You can't own something just because you were the first person to find an example of it. Imagine if J.J. Thompson had been allowed to patent the electron. Or Galileo had patented the moons of Jupiter.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #9 March 31, 2010 QuoteFinally!! It only took 30 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty It has little direct bearing on that case IMHO. This was about patenting an unmodified gene, in this instance the genetic indicators for a predisposition for developing breast cancer. Drug companies could not look at or use this gene in any way. Right there in the science literature these 2 genetic traits massively increased the chances of a woman getting cancer, yet NOBODY could test for this known gene without paying the company holding the patent a load of cash. It was a damned disgrace. So this is also a great day for womens health and JFTC if you want to look at it like that. Many more women will get tested and for a lot less $, those women with a genetic predisposition will be more likely to get the screening they need and lives will be saved. The judge mentioned that to make a gene patentable you have to modify it, and I think GM would probably be covered in that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #10 March 31, 2010 Indeed. If I can rephrase my first post, you shouldn't be allowed to patent something because you've looked at it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #11 March 31, 2010 QuoteIndeed. If I can rephrase my first post, you shouldn't be allowed to patent something because you've looked at it. Patents use the power of government to grant a temporary artificial monopoly to encourage investment in R&D. There is no natural right to monopolize any invention in any form. You might assume that there is some sense of fairness in patents but that's not how the system works. If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. Case in point, the telephone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone Today this scenario is more often than not what happens. Most inventions would have happened anyway, in another location or a maybe a month or year later. In many cases they've already happened but never widely published. Patents are a tool used by large corporations to seek commercial advantage, obstruct competition and extract royalty payments. People have forgotten the original intent, and the artificial and potentially unjust nature of these laws. The government granted monopoly on an invention is bestowed in the PUBLIC interest, not for the self-interest of the company. When patent law stops encouraging investment in R&D and starts hindering development then the law is no longer delivering as intended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #12 March 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteIndeed. If I can rephrase my first post, you shouldn't be allowed to patent something because you've looked at it. Patents use the power of government to grant a temporary artificial monopoly to encourage investment in R&D. There is no natural right to monopolize any invention in any form. You might assume that there is some sense of fairness in patents but that's not how the system works. If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. Case in point, the telephone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_the_telephone Today this scenario is more often than not what happens. Most inventions would have happened anyway, in another location or a maybe a month or year later. In many cases they've already happened but never widely published. Patents are a tool used by large corporations to seek commercial advantage, obstruct competition and extract royalty payments. People have forgotten the original intent, and the artificial and potentially unjust nature of these laws. The government granted monopoly on an invention is bestowed in the PUBLIC interest, not for the self-interest of the company. When patent law stops encouraging investment in R&D and starts hindering business then the law is no longer delivering as intended. this is why i say that the patent system is very communistic. to do anything in a communist society you have to refer back to central state control, stifling innovation and creativity. the patent system (originally invented by a queen i believe) is doing the same now in a 'capitalist' society. have you heard that elvis still lives...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #13 March 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteFinally!! It only took 30 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty It has little direct bearing on that case IMHO. Well, it was the first time a corporation was allowed to patent something living. It was the first step in that direction. At that time, opponents argued that if you allow that kind of patent, it means that without any congressional guidance or public discussion, corporations will own the blueprints of life. And it turns out they were right."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #14 March 31, 2010 QuoteQuote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #15 March 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Patently true (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #16 March 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Patently true ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #17 March 31, 2010 Excellent point .... and well made (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FreeflyChile 0 #18 March 31, 2010 Yes, and you'd only get patent protection for the part that YOU invented. In this case, based only on the article (I haven't read the decision), it seems like the issue will be whether the company is claiming a patent over a naturally occurring gene (what the judge said), or whether they modify it to a degree that it's not 'natural' (what the company claims). I agree - if the patent is on a gene that is unchanged from what occurs naturally, it should not be patentable. I wonder if the procedure, machinery, etc. they use to isolate this, to diagnose and any medicine used to treat this have already been patented by them or others... Oh, and anything discovered by Newton or Maxwell would have long since been in the public domain... ..though I understand what you're getting at. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #19 March 31, 2010 I am against the patenting of genes. However, the belief that they could be patented are the reason that so many gene discoveries happened so quick. It was like a gold rush, and a lot of big corporations put a lot of money (and employed a lot of people) to get those discoveries done quickly. The results of that work are going to help a lot of people much sooner. My guess is those same rich corporations will pay our elected "representatives" to overturn the opinion, and they will go right back to doing it. Hopefully, eventually, we'll come into line with other countries that think gene patents are patently stupid.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #20 March 31, 2010 Quoteanything discovered by Newton or Maxwell would have long since been in the public domain... That's only because corporations hadn't figured out how to work the system yet. Look at "Steamboat Willie", the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. It's old enough it should have been public domain by now, but Disney keeps paying - err, "lobbying" - congress to extend copyright law, rather than let it fall to public domain. You can bet that if corporations are allowed to keep patents on genes, they will make sure to keep them as long as capitalism is alive.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFXpert 0 #21 March 31, 2010 QuoteI am against the patenting of genes. However, the belief that they could be patented are the reason that so many gene discoveries happened so quick. It was like a gold rush, and a lot of big corporations put a lot of money (and employed a lot of people) to get those discoveries done quickly. The results of that work are going to help a lot of people much sooner. That is pretty close to my juxtaposition.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FreeflyChile 0 #22 March 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteanything discovered by Newton or Maxwell would have long since been in the public domain... That's only because corporations hadn't figured out how to work the system yet. Look at "Steamboat Willie", the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. It's old enough it should have been public domain by now, but Disney keeps paying - err, "lobbying" - congress to extend copyright law, rather than let it fall to public domain. You can bet that if corporations are allowed to keep patents on genes, they will make sure to keep them as long as capitalism is alive. Patents and copyrights are two different animals - I don't think you're thinking they're the same thing, but the way that rules are made and fought for/against in each are very different. I agree - if the companies were allowed to keep patents on genes, they'd try to do so. In patents, though, the competition makes it so that for any company trying to keep a monopoly on something VERY valuable, there are dozens willing to fight against it. My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #23 April 1, 2010 Quote My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). May I nitpick? As most people know, copyrights and patents are separate sub-categories under the broader category of "intellectual property". Anyhow, your definitions are on the right track, but a little over-simplified. A patent is an exclusive right granted to the developer of an invention. A copyright is the exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. If you invent a widget (or a process for the fabrication of widgets), you get yourself a patent on the widget and/or the process. If I write and publish article about your invention, either I and/or the publisher of the publication owns the copyright on the article. If you invent a widget, get it patented, and then write and publish a scientific paper on it, you own the patent on the widget, and the copyright on the paper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #24 April 1, 2010 QuoteQuote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Indeed, that's another important point. Patents allow you to stand on the shoulders of giants and claim ownership of a technological development that your contemporaries must then license from you, even if they have developed it in parallel, which these days is more often the case than not. Patents don't grant rights, they ONLY remove rights. They remove the right of non patent holders to use technology and inventions (even their own technology and inventions) without paying a royalty to the patent holder. Some companies are now set up purely to acquire or author patents and license them to companies who step on their minefield. Nathan Myhrvold's compant Intellectual Ventures is a good example, they plan to invent stuff and license it without making anything. In some instances this might be useful if they proactively invent and license wholesale a new useful device to another interested company. Unfortunately the reality is that Intellectual Ventures' plan is to have industrious companies in the business of producing goods encroach on the minefield Intellectual Ventures is laying and then have to pay royalties to a company that has no intention of making anything. There is no legal distinction that might protect industrious companies from patent trolls like this. So companies like Intellectual Ventures can set up road blocks and toll booths all over the intellectual landscape and use legal threats to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from each company they target, without ever making anything except profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #25 April 1, 2010 Quote Quote My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). May I nitpick? As most people know, copyrights and patents are separate sub-categories under the broader category of "intellectual property". Anyhow, your definitions are on the right track, but a little over-simplified. A patent is an exclusive right granted to the developer of an invention........ . So who invented these genes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
shropshire 0 #15 March 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Patently true (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #16 March 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Patently true ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #17 March 31, 2010 Excellent point .... and well made (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #18 March 31, 2010 Yes, and you'd only get patent protection for the part that YOU invented. In this case, based only on the article (I haven't read the decision), it seems like the issue will be whether the company is claiming a patent over a naturally occurring gene (what the judge said), or whether they modify it to a degree that it's not 'natural' (what the company claims). I agree - if the patent is on a gene that is unchanged from what occurs naturally, it should not be patentable. I wonder if the procedure, machinery, etc. they use to isolate this, to diagnose and any medicine used to treat this have already been patented by them or others... Oh, and anything discovered by Newton or Maxwell would have long since been in the public domain... ..though I understand what you're getting at. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #19 March 31, 2010 I am against the patenting of genes. However, the belief that they could be patented are the reason that so many gene discoveries happened so quick. It was like a gold rush, and a lot of big corporations put a lot of money (and employed a lot of people) to get those discoveries done quickly. The results of that work are going to help a lot of people much sooner. My guess is those same rich corporations will pay our elected "representatives" to overturn the opinion, and they will go right back to doing it. Hopefully, eventually, we'll come into line with other countries that think gene patents are patently stupid.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #20 March 31, 2010 Quoteanything discovered by Newton or Maxwell would have long since been in the public domain... That's only because corporations hadn't figured out how to work the system yet. Look at "Steamboat Willie", the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. It's old enough it should have been public domain by now, but Disney keeps paying - err, "lobbying" - congress to extend copyright law, rather than let it fall to public domain. You can bet that if corporations are allowed to keep patents on genes, they will make sure to keep them as long as capitalism is alive.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #21 March 31, 2010 QuoteI am against the patenting of genes. However, the belief that they could be patented are the reason that so many gene discoveries happened so quick. It was like a gold rush, and a lot of big corporations put a lot of money (and employed a lot of people) to get those discoveries done quickly. The results of that work are going to help a lot of people much sooner. That is pretty close to my juxtaposition.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #22 March 31, 2010 QuoteQuoteanything discovered by Newton or Maxwell would have long since been in the public domain... That's only because corporations hadn't figured out how to work the system yet. Look at "Steamboat Willie", the first Mickey Mouse cartoon. It's old enough it should have been public domain by now, but Disney keeps paying - err, "lobbying" - congress to extend copyright law, rather than let it fall to public domain. You can bet that if corporations are allowed to keep patents on genes, they will make sure to keep them as long as capitalism is alive. Patents and copyrights are two different animals - I don't think you're thinking they're the same thing, but the way that rules are made and fought for/against in each are very different. I agree - if the companies were allowed to keep patents on genes, they'd try to do so. In patents, though, the competition makes it so that for any company trying to keep a monopoly on something VERY valuable, there are dozens willing to fight against it. My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #23 April 1, 2010 Quote My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). May I nitpick? As most people know, copyrights and patents are separate sub-categories under the broader category of "intellectual property". Anyhow, your definitions are on the right track, but a little over-simplified. A patent is an exclusive right granted to the developer of an invention. A copyright is the exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. If you invent a widget (or a process for the fabrication of widgets), you get yourself a patent on the widget and/or the process. If I write and publish article about your invention, either I and/or the publisher of the publication owns the copyright on the article. If you invent a widget, get it patented, and then write and publish a scientific paper on it, you own the patent on the widget, and the copyright on the paper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #24 April 1, 2010 QuoteQuote If you invent something without reference to anyone elses previous work, and someone else invents it first, you are denied all rights to benefit from your OWN invention. In a general sense, unless you invent entirely new science, ALL inventions reference someone's previous work, even if the someone is Newton, Crick, or James Clerk Maxwell.. Indeed, that's another important point. Patents allow you to stand on the shoulders of giants and claim ownership of a technological development that your contemporaries must then license from you, even if they have developed it in parallel, which these days is more often the case than not. Patents don't grant rights, they ONLY remove rights. They remove the right of non patent holders to use technology and inventions (even their own technology and inventions) without paying a royalty to the patent holder. Some companies are now set up purely to acquire or author patents and license them to companies who step on their minefield. Nathan Myhrvold's compant Intellectual Ventures is a good example, they plan to invent stuff and license it without making anything. In some instances this might be useful if they proactively invent and license wholesale a new useful device to another interested company. Unfortunately the reality is that Intellectual Ventures' plan is to have industrious companies in the business of producing goods encroach on the minefield Intellectual Ventures is laying and then have to pay royalties to a company that has no intention of making anything. There is no legal distinction that might protect industrious companies from patent trolls like this. So companies like Intellectual Ventures can set up road blocks and toll booths all over the intellectual landscape and use legal threats to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from each company they target, without ever making anything except profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #25 April 1, 2010 Quote Quote My personal opinion - copyrights protects 'luxuries' (arts, cultural stuff), patents protect 'necessity' (science). May I nitpick? As most people know, copyrights and patents are separate sub-categories under the broader category of "intellectual property". Anyhow, your definitions are on the right track, but a little over-simplified. A patent is an exclusive right granted to the developer of an invention........ . So who invented these genes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
