Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Greed: "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." So no. However, I'd like to see what percentage of people actually use patents for sustained living vs. those who use them to further monopolize businesses (and to make money via suing).

In the end, I'm certainly no lawyer. If you can convince me that the way patents are used is flawless, then I'll proudly stand corrected. However, I will continue to scrutinize inefficiencies in hopes to bring forth better alternatives.

I'm not arguing patent law is flawless, I'm arguing that you've created a straw man.

The straw man is the thought that possible patent holders are desperate for money and are about to be kicked ot the curb if they don't monetize.

[Urist is dead tome]

The straw man is the thought that patent holders are desperate for money and are about to be kicked ot the curb if they don't monetize.

Not a straw man. I was naming a hypothetical situation. A situation based on a thing that happened, but hypothetical nonetheless.

[Andir]

The straw man is the thought that patent holders are desperate for money and are about to be kicked ot the curb if they don't monetize.

Not a straw man. I was naming a hypothetical situation. A situation based on a thing that happened, but hypothetical nonetheless.

Straw man:

We should abolish/rewrite/change patent laws.

But if we do that, the person who has a great idea will be trounced by corporate greed and will have their idea stolen.

[CoughDrop]

That's why I'd put laws in place to severely limit corporate power. They'd probably send some hit men after me first, though. 

[Taricus]

That's why I'd put laws in place to severely limit corporate power. They'd probably send some hit men after me first, though. 

Not when you send the army after them first

[Soadreqm]

Algorithms are nonpatentable.

Isn't that what software patents are all about? Really, I don't know shit about patent law. Patent law is boring. Luckily, the conversation seems to be veering away from that and into the direction of straw men.

[Kogut]

Algorithms are nonpatentable.

Isn't that what software patents are all about? Really, I don't know shit about patent law. Patent law is boring. Luckily, the conversation seems to be veering away from that and into the direction of straw men.

It is like human genome patents.
"genes, products of nature, fall outside of the realm of things that can be patented"
but
"Myriad Genetics, the company that holds the patents with the University of Utah Research Foundation, asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable."
etc
[from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html ]

<What a great derail!>

[FuzzyZergling]

I would say that the knowledge/use of the knowledge of the genome should be able to be patented, but not the genome itself.
Just my opinion.

[CoughDrop]

Oh god, so they're aiming to sue cancer patients for harboring a patented mutation? 

(Yes, I know what they say they're after, but what does "knowledge/use" mean in these circumstances?)

"Myriad sells a test costing more than $3,000 that looks for mutations in the two genes to determine if a woman is at a high risk of getting breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Plaintiffs in the case had said Myriad’s monopoly on the test, conferred by the gene patents, kept prices high and prevented women from getting a confirmatory test from another laboratory."

Ughhhhhhh, I hate legality.

Bryan Roberts, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, said the decision could push more work aimed at discovering genes and diagnostic tests to universities. “The government is going to become the funder for content discovery because it’s going to be very hard to justify it outside of academia.”

Does anyone else see some large holes in this logic? They're trying to monopolize research. That, my friends, is total bullshit. Just another reason I really, really want to move out of the US.

[Urist is dead tome]

Does anyone else see some large holes in this logic? They're trying to monopolize research. That, my friends, is total bullshit. Just another reason I really, really want to move out of the US.

Then do it. Live up to your word. Just prepare for other people's medical bills.

[Fayrik]

Then do it. Live up to your word. Just prepare for other people's medical bills.

Heheh! Yeah! Paying to keep other people alive is such a drag on my finances!
They should have thought about how they where going to pay their medical bills before they got stabbed!

Oh god, so they're aiming to sue cancer patients for harboring a patented mutation?

Wouldn't really surprise me to be honest.
Next, Coke a Cola or whatever the hell their name is, are gunna put a patent on water.
Because you know, all drinks in the world inherently belong to them.

[CoughDrop]

Just another reason I really, really want to move out of the US.

Then do it. Live up to your word. Just prepare for other people's medical bills.

It's not exactly the easiest thing to do, plus there are these little things called priorities. I know this has gone entirely off topic, but are you defending the US health care system? (contrary to some beliefs, it isn't the best country at everything)

Someone should really re-rail this thread.

[Urist is dead tome]

My well meaning friend CoughDrop has infuriated me. I'm outta here.

[Spreggo]

I've noticed that people who have never really had to work for what they get, or have never labored over a creation completely of their own devising, seem to think that everyone else who does so should be forced (by government or mob) to distribute that to everyone else. The feel entitled to the fruits of the others' labors.

People who do work for what they have, or have labored to create something of their own, tend to be happy with that and aren't interested in the wealth of others. They only feel entitled to the fruits of their own labors.

I would advise assessing your own personal achievements before making a moral argument about the property of others.

[CoughDrop]

First, I apologize for my last comment. My intention wasn't to be an asshole, but it sure came out that way.

I've noticed that people who have never really had to work for what they get, or have never labored over a creation completely of their own devising, seem to think that everyone else who does so should be forced (by government or mob) to distribute that to everyone else. The feel entitled to the fruits of the others' labors.

People who do work for what they have, or have labored to create something of their own, tend to be happy with that and aren't interested in the wealth of others. They only feel entitled to the fruits of their own labors.

That's an excellent point. My mind has worked itself up to spot inefficiencies, and patents do seem to make an inconvenience for those trying to build upon others' works. That said, I admit I didn't really think too much on personal freedoms; you really can't have freedom and 'maximum' efficiency at the same time. There's a scale, and I'm not sure there is any truly 'good' part of the spectrum.

I would advise assessing your own personal achievements before making a moral argument about the property of others.

You have motivated me further to create.