ACLU, Cancer Patients Sue Over Patenting Of Genes
from the big-news dept
For years, we've been among those who have questioned how the hell anyone (let alone the US Patent Office) can justify the concept of patenting genes. Yet, the Patent Office has continued to issue such patents, even as they have been shown to cause significant problems in diagnosing and treating certain illnesses. Finally, however, it appears that the concept of patenting genes is about to get tested in court. The ACLU has organized a group of cancer patients who have had treatments and medical analysis limited due to gene patents held by the company Myriad Genetics, and brought the issue to court. This is a big deal... and while the case and the resulting appeals will certainly take many years, this is going to be a case well worth watching.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aclu, cancer, gene patents, patents
Companies: aclu, myriad genetics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If your position is that the concept of patents, as it was originally intended, is basically sound, but that we just need to fix the system which applies patents, then I would 1) agree with you and 2) suggest you don't use such terms if you're trying to convince people of this position. (You're probably doing more hard than good.)
And if your position that the concept of patents is itself wrong, then 1) I don't agree with you and 2) suggest that when you're trying to convince people of your position you make it clear that your position is radical and different from the group of people who just want to fix the current system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your brains were stolen by nature, mindless techdirt lemming-punk creature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When everybody + angry dude tells you how stupid you are--you know it's true.
angry dude pretty much never agrees with anything...
*"I trolled with angry dude"*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time to go get my meds now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The power if images
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you need to learn and understand what the word 'stealing' means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It wasn't stolen from nature. It is still there, the patent didn't deprive the genes."
And yet, despite the clear harm that intellectual property is causing and the fact that the people who stole this idea from nature and patented it to prevent anyone else from doing research on it, there are people here still trying to defend this intellectual property nonsense with poor arguments. I guess this goes to show you that there really aren't good arguments for intellectual property which is why the media and such censors all the problems it's causing society.
The point is that those who have the patent on the gene didn't come up with any new ideas, they STOLE them. Just like you may consider it STEALING if someone downloads a game that copyright game without paying. The game is still there, the downloading of the game didn't deprive the existence of the game, but you may still consider it stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, you may consider copying a game without paying as stealing, but...you'd be wrong. You can't steal something that isn't owned. Contrary to what is implied by the term "intellectual property", IP is not owned. It is merely a right granted by the government to a legal entity. You must be new around here if you don't understand the distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I said to RIAA, learn and understand the meaning of the term 'stealing'. I does not mean what you want it to mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being that this isn't the corrupt media, I suggest you don't try to censor anything that you disagree with just because you think that the censorship of opposing ideas maybe the best way to propagate your own. It's bad enough our mainstream media already does this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Suggest you don't use such terms"
Key word is suggest.
Censoring would be Mike not liking what you are saying and deleting your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I tend to agree w/your points, but your statements also come across as juvenile. If you want to reach, you need to present in a pallitable(sp?) way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is no more stealing than what these people did when they stole "ideas" from nature by patenting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me help you out: Stealing - "the illegal taking of another person's property"
Denial something to somebody: "deny," block, cock-block, being a dick, being a douche, being "Bettawrekonize," withholding (etc, and so on.)
I'm an ignorant Mexican, and I know that, what's your excuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm an ignorant Mexican
And your post proves that perfectly. Thanks for doing everyone else's job for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are TRYING to censor my ideas by suggesting that I not present them. You are doing everything in your power to censor my ideas, it's just that you don't have the power to censor them.
"Censoring would be Mike not liking what you are saying and deleting your comments."
Perhaps you WOULD censor it if you could, perhaps the only reason you are not deleting my comments is because you have no choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sigh. No, you're just being inflamatory.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
AC does not have the power to act upon as a censor, since presumably he is not an admin of this site, which does not moderate comments, ergo no censoring is possible. AC also did not attempt to delete a word or passage of text, nor does he, again, have the capacity as a censor.
You don't know the language you're speaking. Sadly, that isn't an uncommon problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suggesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
whiny radical nutjob
radical whiny douche
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So then you agree that depriving something is not necessary for something to be considered stolen. So then these people did steal ideas from nature, just because they may not have deprived the existence of the gene doesn't mean it's not stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of the courts, the venue most likely to accord the relief sought is Congress. It has done so in the past with respect to "surgical procedures". Moreover, the circumstances regarding how the work on the inventions were funded, together with who are the owners of the patents, would give advocates before Congress serious fodder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feel free to refute what I said instead of making meaningless comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing
If you mugged a woman on the street and took her purse --- is that stealing?
If you wrote a article for the NY Times because of blog entry interested you --- is that stealing?
If you put wheel on the front of your dirt box to make it easier to move --- is that stealing?
If you Madoff with your investors money --- is that stealing?
If you baked Biscuits for your kids that taste just like Red Lobster's --- Is that stealing?
If you liked the design of the neighbors porch and built one just like it --- is that stealing?
If you overheard two women at a coffee shop talking about your wife's new boyfriend --- is that stealing?
If you borrowed your brothers legal copy of Gladiator and watched it --- is that stealing?
If you copied a passage out of your classmates book report --- is that stealing?
If you downloaded Ol' Yeller off of Mini Nova an watched it --- Is that stealing?
If you had a great idea on how to improve your companies product and sat on it ---- is that stealing?
If you gave that idea to your competitors --- is that stealing?
If you sold that idea --- is that stealing?
If you sold them the prototype --- is that stealing?
-----------
How can you steal something that is not a solid object that you can touch and feel?
Where is the line between stealing, theft, plagiarism, and the normal evolution of thought and technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So far, however, two panels of government experts who have looked at the issue have not found significant impediments to research or medical care caused by gene patents. A 2006 report from the National Research Council found that patented biomedical research “rarely imposes a significant burden for biomedical researchers.”
the biggest obstacle that gene patents present is one of cost.
Without that cost, would the test even exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems the cost still rests on people's lives and not the corporation.
As a new entrepreneur in the colored contact lenses business, I went ahead and patented hazel green eyes, so if you have them without buying our lenses, you'll soon see some court documents headed your way - we can settle up front for $1.7 million in damages if you just sign here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or do you endorse slavery? You know what you are a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a close approximation of my position and I have even made several useful suggestions in other threads on how to alleviate the problems with our current patent system.
"And if your position that the concept of patents is itself wrong, then 1) I don't agree with you and 2) suggest that when you're trying to convince people of your position you make it clear that your position is radical and different from the group of people who just want to fix the current system."
While I may not necessarily agree with this position I don't think that simply holding such a position that disagrees with you makes one a "radical nutjob" or that people will necessarily think of someone as such just because they disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You appear to have misread my comments. I did not say that you are a radical nutjob or that because you disagree with a particular position you are a radical nutjob. I simply stated that claiming that anything that was patented was "stolen from nature" will make you sound like a radical nutjob to the average person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes no sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never said he is successfully censoring my ideas. He is trying to prevent me from expressing my ideas, that can be considered censoring.
" an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds."
(dictionary.com)
The purpose of suggesting that I not present an ideas is to suppress it.
"You don't know the language you're speaking. Sadly, that isn't an uncommon problem."
One doesn't have to be successful at something in order to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's of the NOUN VERSION, which isn't how you were using the word, but thank you AGAIN for displaying your ignorance of the English language. Suggesting you reformulate your argument to make it more palletable isn't censoring. I'm starting to lose my patience here. Suggesting that using terms like "stolen from nature" is going to turn people off and convince most of them you're a radical nutjob, which is EXACTLY what was said isn't attempting to suppress your point of view, it's telling you that you're coming off like a tool instead of successfully arguing your point.
"One doesn't have to be successful at something in order to try."
The point is that you aren't trying hard enough, or at all. Try harder, or you risk being ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have the right to your ideas, but nobody else has to agree with you, OR to refrain from commentary and advise.
In short, get over yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me help you.
"to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."
"To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing?r=75
He is patenting an idea, using it as if it's his OWN idea by preventing anyone else from using it. It's not his own idea and hence he has no right to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A rock type found in the wilds of Nefarnia is first identified by Joe Rockhound. He gets no patent, no exclusive use. Even if he makes ones just like them in a lab.
What is the difference?
Wonder what would happen if Merck had first identified a compound consisting of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then let them patent the PROCESS NOT THE GENES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe if...
Also, IMO, the clerk(s) that issued the patent should be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree. What an idiot. He probably barley even understood what he was issuing. Just someone who recently got the job and will find another job somewhere else in another few months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I patented your genes
Seriously though, how in the world can you PATENT something that occurs in nature? Yes, you spend gobs and gobs of money researching the genetics of breast cancer. I truly appreciate that and I fully believe that you should be rewarded. Perhaps sell your research to a company that can then make a drug, or treatment, or at least a test.
You can't OWN something you discover! Patents are supposed to cover invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see what you did there
"you make it clear that your position is radical"
Nice work trying to say that anyone who thinks patents are bad and not needed at all are radical thinkers. I would suggest you realize you don't get to decide what is radical. You would need a large group consensus to decide that. It may differ from your groups opinion yes, but there is hardly enough people on your side and few enough on the other to make the other side radical.
@Bettawrekonize
You may want to pay more attention before arguing with post number 18 at all. Notice that the post is by "RIAA". This indicates that it was somebody posting here to make fun of that group. That group often equates copying to stealing, which it is not. In those cases it is infringement. Also, there is no point in arguing with the person who goes by the name "angry dude". He is a troll who comes here from time to time. His statements are only ever "you are wrong" and a bunch of insults. That is all he has to offer. No rational thinking.
That being said I would say that indeed, they have stolen nothing from nature. They patented a gene (or something to that effect, I didn't read the patents). A gene that appears naturally in nature. While they may have patented it, it was not stolen. The only thing that could possibly be considered stolen, is all the other scientists ability to do tests on it. Even then, it wasn't really stolen. Now that the knowledge is out there, they can use it, and so can everybody else, all for the advancement of mankind. The only thing is they may choose to be assholes and try to hold back our race's development of sciences through the use of their patents. I still would not say it is stealing at all. Just poor decision of a confused government granting monopolies where they don't belong and a stupid company thinking it can own knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see what you did there
"you make it clear that your position is radical"
Nice work trying to say that anyone who thinks patents are bad and not needed at all are radical thinkers. I would suggest you realize you don't get to decide what is radical. You would need a large group consensus to decide that. It may differ from your groups opinion yes, but there is hardly enough people on your side and few enough on the other to make the other side radical.
It happens so often on message boards, there should be a verb for reacting to what you think is stated based your own preconceptions rather than what actually is stated. Case in point: when did I say that I get to decide what is "radical"? What I referred to in my original post is the "average person". Regardless of the merits of the argument for eliminating the patent system, I think it's a very safe bet to say that the vast majority of people -- a "large group consensus", if you will -- would think that eliminating patents would be a radical move. Do you honestly think otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekoniz is Amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bettawrekoniz is Amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The idiots at the patent office don't know any better. They're not highly educated and they're probably switching from job to job. They probably barley understand half the patents they issue. I already suggested ways of fixing this to make patents more rare in other threads.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090426/1855224648.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/arti cles/20090414/0248514500.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah. I agree. It is obvious that the microprocessor came straight from nature. While we are at it, so did the microwave oven and the rifle. Same with the internal combustion engine. All these things are obviously from nature. Why, I got an internal combustion engine off the tree in my back yard last week...
Time to go get my meds now.
@Anonymous Coward (the patent defending one):
You still didn't answer the legal theory behind patenting a GENE. You loose wonder boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that said, the idea of patenting genes borders on the insane, and is Definitely stupid.
right up there with terminator crops [if I'm using that term correctly].
the only practical application I can see for either is the intentional destruction of large segments of the human population, or at least the threat there of by way of forbidding positive intervention by other parties, in what amounts to grand extortion. or possibly slavery, depending how it's applied.
also, the whole 'stolen from nature' thing would be fine... if every single tech dirt comment thread didn't define 'stealing' very differently and spend page after page after page making the distinction between stealing and copying.
by the definitions used here, it was copied from nature. by the definitions used by pretty much every big corporation trying to defend their own idiocy and/or wallets, it was 'stolen'. unless they did it. then it was a shiney new discovery for which they should be well payed even if they never do anything with it other than block people who Don't pay them.
you see the issue, I'm sure.
'course, i figure that the biggest problem isn't really the patent system etc [much as they may have problems] so much as the utter insanity that is 'legal person-hood' for corporations. the mear fact that one has to SPECIFICY 'real person' in law to mean, you know, an actual person, should make that one blatantly obvious. there's a limit to how often an individual can do something monumentally stupid and avoid liability, or at least having it bite them in the arse, without the whole corporate 'person' to cover it.
not to mention particularly problematic individuals are a lot less assassin resistant if all other avenues of redress fail :D
whee! yay for getting off topic. oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Post #46
Unfortunately, this is correct. Interferon is a perfect example. Interferon was discovered by a scientist who had a patient that should have died from a specific type of cancer, but didn't. He researched the guy's blood, and discovered that he had a certain type of white blood cell that was gung-ho about killing certain types of cancer cells. He isolated the cell, and created Interferon. BTW, he never acknowledged or paid the cancer patient, and Interferon earns the patent holder a buttload of money every year. The patent on that particular med/blood cell means that if any scientists outside of the patent holder/holders experiments and/or improves on it, they have to get the patentholder's permission, and if they do get permission, pay them a cut of anything developed from there. Any scientist who tries to use or discovers something similar in a different patient can be sued for infringement. At least, that is how it was explained to me.
"Even then, it wasn't really stolen. Now that the knowledge is out there, they can use it, and so can everybody else, all for the advancement of mankind. The only thing is they may choose to be assholes and try to hold back our race's development of sciences through the use of their patents."
This is also true. Big medicine firms will block anyone from developing anything better, in order to keep themselves in the red in an accounting sense. Cancer meds that fight rather than cure earn the firms more money. Too bad if it also means that more people suffer and die. Bastards.
"I still would not say it is stealing at all. Just poor decision of a confused government granting monopolies where they don't belong and a stupid company thinking it can own knowledge."
Too true. Hopefully, someone can bring this crap before the Congress-critters and bring a stop to it. I think they did the same thing regarding the patenting of life-saving surgical proceedures (rather than life-saving devices, which CAN be patented).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Addendum to comment #52
It also occurred to me that the cancer patient cannot go to a different doctor and ask that doc or scientist to do something else with his white blood cells, without getting permission from the patent holder. In a way, that could mean that the man isn't free to do as he pleases with a part of his own body. Doesn't that violate the Constitutional amendment regarding slavery or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Addendum to comment #52
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patenting a fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't even know who that is. Perhaps I haven't been around here long enough. I would also never choose a name like that. My name on forums has almost always been Bettawrekonize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You must not talk much. I Googled your name and you had only 10 hits at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where the heck did I make any such statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Nothing that was patented was "innovative" it was simply stolen from nature...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You took that out of context. I clearly meant that within the context of the subject matter of this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly. That's how I interpreted it too. When you said...
"Nothing that was patented was 'innovative' it was simply stolen from nature"
...I took that to mean you believed anything that has ever been patented was "stolen from nature". Perhaps you intended this to only refer to patenting of genes, but your statement, at face value, so closely fits a particular (what I would consider) radical viewpoint out there on the patent system, that the interpretation makes sense.
Incidentally, I personally believe that it is wrong to grant patents on genes in the manner described in the TD post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generating Traffic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Generating Traffic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interferon doesn't kill cancer itself and has serious side effects. It may be a good delivery method when combined with other drugs. Of course, there is quite a bit of research going on with Interferon, so I guess your point about it not being used isn't really true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@IP fanbois
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @IP fanbois
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TROLL. TROLL. TROLL. TROLL.....TROLL.
You know why you haven't given a rational/logical defense of patenting a GENE. I'll tell you: IT DOESN'T EXIST.
END TRANSMISSION...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Bettawrekonize...
Several billion dollar-selling drugs took hits due to potential safety issues last year. Sales of the diabetes treatment Avandia fell after the Food and Drug Administration added new warnings to its labeling, pointing out concerns about heart problems. Sales of the cholesterol drug Vytorin fell after a study released in January showed it was no better than an older drug, Zocor, at reducing plaque buildup in neck arteries. Zocor is available in generic form for about 80 percent less.
Sales of Amgen's Aranesp and other drugs used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia have been sliding for two years, since studies connected the drugs to the faster growth of some tumors. Medco said safety issues also affected sales of osteoporosis drugs and hormone replacement therapies, and product recalls hurt sales of migraine and cough and cold therapies.
So, generic versions of Zocor is going to be banned because the patents are expired and Vytorin's patents remain in force. I look forward to the article on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahaha, 79 posts and I actually agree that you shouldn't be able to patent a gene.
There is one problem with the Techdirt article though, in the article referenced it states
"So far, however, two panels of government experts who have looked at the issue have not found significant impediments to research or medical care caused by gene patents. A 2006 report from the National Research Council found that patented biomedical research “rarely imposes a significant burden for biomedical researchers.”
Of course, Techdirt wrote
"Yet, the Patent Office has continued to issue such patents, even as they have been shown to cause significant problems in diagnosing and treating certain illnesses."
So who is wrong? Techdirt or the New York Times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability?
I smell settlements...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See the difference? Apparently not. Later TROLL-boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did not patent the gene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did not patent the gene
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
They are claiming a molecule, DNA, that is isolated (ie, not in its natural source cell, human, or any other creature) that codes for a certain protein.
That never existed until these inventors went and searched through all the genetic information, figured out what part coded for the peptide they wanted, and then pulled that gene out of the morass and stuck it in a test tube. That is all they have claimed. The claimed object is a product of human inquiry, ingenuity and hard work, not nature. Since when did nature take the gene for BRCA1 and isolate it from all other sequences and offer it for human use? They cant claim it as it existed in nature, but they can claim it in its state transformed by human activity.
If you say this case is about patenting that which is in nature, you are wrong. You don't get the issue. You are free to keep saying it, but you have revealed yourself as one not in command of the issues, allowing the rest of us to treat you accordingly.
This is the same issue as any pharmaceutical patent. $$$$$. That is all. If you pay, you get it. If you dont, you dont. The price is inflated due to the patent. So, we have the policy issue of whether life saving medicine should be subject to patent. That is the discussion point. The gene issue is a distraction, it gets people riled and supportive of the cause because they dont understand it and are frightened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They did not patent the gene
So if i recognize that the molecule O2 is present in our atmosphere but I isolate a sample of it then I can then patent it?
I say no
If I come up with a PROCESS or invent a MACHINE to isolate O2 then I can patent that. But if someone comes up with a new process or machine then there's nothing I can do to stop them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They did not patent the gene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They did not patent the gene
Brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They did not patent the gene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did not patent the gene
by Grimace - May 13th, 2009 @ 12:15pm
It is stated as fact in the NYT's article that they indeed DID patent the gene. If it was done through some convoluted logic, so be it, but they claim to own the gene. Read the article and get back to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The companies successfully argued that they had done something that made the genes more than nature’s work: they had isolated and purified the DNA, and thus had patented something they had created — even though it corresponded to the sequence of an actual gene.
There ya go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I could understand trying to patent the process of isolating. But patenting the output? That makes no sense whatsoever.
It's like saying you took a lawnmower and cut some grass, and you now deserve a patent over the cut grass, because it didn't occur in nature until you cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I totally disagree. You could get a patent on the machine for cutting grass. But the cut grass itself... that should not be patentable at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did not patent the gene
by Grimace - May 13th, 2009 @ 12:15pm
It is stated as fact in the NYT's article that they indeed DID patent the gene. If it was done through some convoluted logic, so be it, but they claim to own the gene. Read the article and get back to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing
Let me help you.
"to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."
"To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own."
Let me help YOU out
In order to steal something, you must take it away from the person whom your are stealing.
eg. If someone stole $5 from me, I no longer have $5
Show me how "stealing" an idea leaves the creator of the idea without the idea. Does it magically disappear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing
Speaking of new, you must be new around here to not know that that the legal definition of theft does not apply to infringement. In short, you can't steal something that isn't owned.
Religious theft:
Show me a religious text that mentions intellectual property. If you did a search on, for example the bible, for the word theft or thief, I think that 100% of the cases would apply to taking something that deprives the owner of its use, which of course does not apply to infringement.
Standard theft:
I think the problem with the "standard" definition of theft is that people -- for example, you -- haven't really thought too much about the distinction between what real theft is and infringement. Because we don't have a word for infringement that has the same weight as "theft", people -- like you -- tend to lump both concepts under the same umbrella in spite of the fact that they are quite different things. Are they similar in some respects? Sure. They're similar enough that most people tend to conflate the two concepts. But, in this case, most people -- including you -- are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stealing
Legal Theft:
There are numerous examples of where courts, judges, and lawyers have used the term "theft" to apply to various intellectual property issues. Some state laws and international laws are beginning to incorporate the word theft in statutes relating to information. Yes, many of these laws relate to theft of personal information, but it is information nonetheless, and the usage is spilling over into non-personal information. You may dispute the use, but the fact remains that it is used regularly in this manner.
Attorney James Rogan refers to the theft of intellectual property in an interview with Religion and Liberty.
http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_interview_448.php
18 USC 1831 describes the "stealing" of trade secrets. Because the government realized there are many people who struggle with simple English, they also threw in many equivalent terms, including copying, duplicating, takes, carries away, appropriates, etc.
Religion & Theft:
Here is a nice summary of the general feeling among various religions regarding theft of intellectual property and the eighth commandment:
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment08.htm
Dr. Claude Mariottini has a nice discussion of the numerous ways to steal, including the theft of intellectual property, which he believes is covered by the eighth commandment.
http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2008/05/you-shall-not-steal-deuteronomy-2015.ht ml
MisterNifty, a resource for churches, describes the copying of software as "theft."
http://www.misternifty.com/church-copyright/is-your-church-guilty-of-theft/
Standard Theft:
I have thought about the difference a lot. You can justify depriving a creator of their constitutional rights all you wish, but I look at copying of someone's intellectual property as a kind of intellectual plagiarism, which is defined as theft in the dictionary. However, I am not the only one...millions were brought up with similar, religiously based teaching. The sin is not in the deprivation, but in the taking. That said...
Here is a reporter noting that plagiarism or whatever you would like to call it is theft. Hardly definitive, since reporters frequently call it theft of intellectual property.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjQyY2Y5MjczOGJlNGUxNzkyN2ZjNzRjM2JjN2VlMWM=
If I type "theft of intellectual property" into Google, I get 131,000 hits. If I type "infringement of intellectual property" into Google, I get 112,000 hits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
My position is simply this..."theft" and "stealing" refer to illegally depriving someone of something they own and that while this may be similar in some ways to infringement, they are not the same things and should be distinct concepts and therefore have different words.
Attorney James Rogan refers to the theft of intellectual property in an interview with Religion and Liberty.
I fail to see how the statements of someone, even an attorney, prove that the legal definition of theft is the same as infringement. From that article...
"So we should not distinguish between property rights and allow the ease and popularity of stealing some types of property to serve as a justification for the theft."
This is a common mistake. People, such as myself, who make a distinction between theft and infringement, do not do so to justify infringement or not even to be pedantic. It's to introduce clarity into the conversation about two related, but distinct topics.
Here is a nice summary of the general feeling among various religions regarding theft of intellectual property and the eighth commandment:
This may be a bit off topic, but in my opinion, I think that redefining the eighth commandment to include infringement is yet another example of how god's immutable truths are adapted by the church to fit the whims of the day. If infringement is a sin, then Hell is full of people who were sinning and didn't even know it. Presumably, when they appeared in Hell, the Devil had to take each one aside and explain to them that they'll be spending an eternity suffering unspeakable torture because they didn't understand the intricacies of intellectual property law.
Dr. Claude Mariottini has a nice discussion of the numerous ways to steal, including the theft of intellectual property, which he believes is covered by the eighth commandment.
I believe that the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer. It is not property. It is a set of rights. You can't steal what isn't owned.
You can justify depriving a creator of their constitutional rights all you wish
Please do not put words into my mouth. You've leapt to the conclusion that just because I make a distinction between theft and infringement, that I believe infringement is justified. This attitude is both misguided and reason for much of the conflict between the different sides of this argument.
I look at copying of someone's intellectual property as a kind of intellectual plagiarism, which is defined as theft in the dictionary.
Well, actually it's not. I hate to quote a dictionary definition, but here's the dictionary.com definition of theft...
"theft. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another;
larceny."
Intellectual Property is not actually property, so infringement is not the same thing as theft.
If I type "theft of intellectual property" into Google, I get 131,000 hits. If I type "infringement of intellectual property" into Google, I get 112,000 hits.
You should have stopped before you got to this one. I disagree with your arguments above, but at least they were sensical. You can't honestly think that something is true just because it gets more Google hits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
When I was growing up, I was taught that taking something that was not mine to take was stealing, regardless of whether the person or entity from which I took was "deprived" of anything. Yes, this viewpoint is religiously based rather than legally based, but I have another comment on that later.
Attorney James Rogan refers to the theft of intellectual property in an interview with Religion and Liberty.
I fail to see how the statements of someone, even an attorney, prove that the legal definition of theft is the same as infringement. From that article...
"So we should not distinguish between property rights and allow the ease and popularity of stealing some types of property to serve as a justification for the theft."
This is a common mistake. People, such as myself, who make a distinction between theft and infringement, do not do so to justify infringement or not even to be pedantic. It's to introduce clarity into the conversation about two related, but distinct topics.
Again, we are fighting over a definition rather than the legality of an act and whether the act of infringement is legally equal to the act of theft. As I will discuss further below, in the end all these arguments are beginning to sound like solipsisms.
Here is a nice summary of the general feeling among various religions regarding theft of intellectual property and the eighth commandment:
This may be a bit off topic, but in my opinion, I think that redefining the eighth commandment to include infringement is yet another example of how god's immutable truths are adapted by the church to fit the whims of the day. If infringement is a sin, then Hell is full of people who were sinning and didn't even know it. Presumably, when they appeared in Hell, the Devil had to take each one aside and explain to them that they'll be spending an eternity suffering unspeakable torture because they didn't understand the intricacies of intellectual property law.
First, I find it interesting that various Christian organizations are independently coming to the viewpoint that the eighth commandment covers the theft of intellectual property, considering that they frequently have problems in agreeing on much else.
Second, there is now a growing movement among Christian teens to abstain from making copies of songs and movies because, terminology aside, the wrongful taking of something is theft and is covered by the eighth commandment.
Third, Islam is beginning to take the same viewpoint. I have yet to see what the Jewish, Hindus and Buddhists think, but that would be interesting as well. If only Christianity was "twisting" infringement to be a violation of the eighth commandment, I might consider that "twisting," but when other religions classify infringement as a variation of theft, I take notice.
Fourth, if you look up the history of "infringement," you will find that the church decided that intellectual property could be stolen as far back as the Middle Ages. There are references to the Catholic Church's position on this dating to the 14th century. Hardly seems like the "whims of the day," unless the whims of the day equate to nearly 700 years.
Dr. Claude Mariottini has a nice discussion of the numerous ways to steal, including the theft of intellectual property, which he believes is covered by the eighth commandment.
I believe that the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer. It is not property. It is a set of rights. You can't steal what isn't owned.
It is more accurate to say "intellectual property rights." However, we are human and intellectual property rights are often shortened to intellectual property. However, with some intellectual property rights there is in fact property.
Consider patents. A patent is a right to prevent making, using or selling. Thus, the right covers actual property resulting from the right, not some abstract concept that cannot be owned. In fact, you could create an entire set of drawings that, if turned into a physical product, would infringe the right. If the product was an assembly, you could even produce all the components and assemble them to the point just shy of what the claims in a patent covered, but until the property is established in some form the right does not exist.
You can justify depriving a creator of their constitutional rights all you wish
Please do not put words into my mouth. You've leapt to the conclusion that just because I make a distinction between theft and infringement, that I believe infringement is justified. This attitude is both misguided and reason for much of the conflict between the different sides of this argument.
Okay. I will cover this topic further at the bottom of this post.
I look at copying of someone's intellectual property as a kind of intellectual plagiarism, which is defined as theft in the dictionary.
Well, actually it's not. I hate to quote a dictionary definition, but here's the dictionary.com definition of theft...
"theft. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another;
larceny."
Intellectual Property is not actually property, so infringement is not the same thing as theft.
I offer the Merriam-Webster definition of plagiarize:
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
Also, from your reference, dictionary.com, the definition of plagiarize:
1. to take and use by plagiarism.
2. to take and use ideas, passages, etc., from (another's work) by plagiarism.
Also from dictionary.com, the definition of steal:
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
If I type "theft of intellectual property" into Google, I get 131,000 hits. If I type "infringement of intellectual property" into Google, I get 112,000 hits.
You should have stopped before you got to this one. I disagree with your arguments above, but at least they were sensical. You can't honestly think that something is true just because it gets more Google hits.
There was a reason I brought the Google search into this discussion, which also relates to a point I said I was going to make throughout this post.
I remember many years ago in an English class we were discussing living languages versus dead languages. We began to discuss the evolution of living languages, and that grammarians wanted the English language to be more fixed and static than it was (and continues to be). However, most grammarians have accepted the truth that English is a living, evolving language.
Why is this important? Because a huge percentage of our population equates patents, copyrights, and trademarks as property. A similarly large percentage of our population refer to "infringement" of intellectual property as stealing.
Is it "wrong" to do so? That question is silly. It is no more wrong for an average person to refer to "infringement" as theft than it is for an average person to refer to a doughnut as a donut or to refer to an automobile as a car. You may try to keep the definition of each separate, but people will determine the meaning of words by usage and the only place the distinction is important any longer is in court - and even courts, especially judges, are starting to refer to the "theft" of information and the "theft" of intellectual property. Yes, the actual crime with respect to intellectual property may be infringement, but it is quite common to refer to this crime as theft.
Are you right (a solipsist argument), or are the millions of people that equate the two right? I suspect it is too late to turn the tide on this one, but you can try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
Fair enough. Language is dynamic and the meanings of words can change over time. But in your original post you stated that making a distinction between theft and infringement was "creating a NEW definition of stealing". I would contend that it is people that hold your position who are doing the redefining. Traditionally, "theft" has refered to physical property or, in some cases, intangibles that could be owned. The redefinion took place with the introduction of the concept of IP. (In the cases the term "theft" has been applied to infringement, it's either because it fit the political motivation of IP owners or it was just simpler for a layperson to use in daily conversation.)
I accept that to much of the public "theft" would apply both to the traditional kind of theft and to infringement, but because there are such fundamental differences between the two concepts and how they should be treated under the law, it's perfectly fair to make the distinction, especially in the context of the comments section of a web site that deals with intellectual "property" rights. No, I don't think that infringement is morally right, however I think that because of the unique nature of copyrights and patents its violation should not be treated the same way. It is for this reason that I believe that when talking about this topic, it's perfectly OK to make the distinction even if the same distinction isn't made by Joe Bloggs on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
May you live in interesting times. These times are pretty darn interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
Unless you were raised by intellectual property lawyers, I'm betting that what you were taught didn't mention anything about depriving. Which is exactly my point, that what I am calling infringement was only later lumped in with the concept of "theft".
Again, we are fighting over a definition rather than the legality of an act and whether the act of infringement is legally equal to the act of theft.
It is for the very reason that I don't think that theft and infringement should be treated the same in the legal system that I believe there should be separate terms for the concepts. If you conflate the two concepts into one term, you're shortcircuiting the argument that they should be treated differently. Pointing out that infringement is not theft is not a way to justify illegal or immoral actions; it's to prevent the argument from being over before it's even started because the terminology you use presupposes that they're the same thing under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
Why not make non sequitur arguments like many other people here? Or arguments based on conspiracy theory sites? Do you really have to be logical when so many other people here read tea leaves and occasionally sacrifice a chicken to read its bones?
I think where I have a problem is when people try to justify patent infringement because patent infringement does not "harm" the owner of the patent. After all, the owner still has the patent and has been deprived of "nothing." The patent owner still has everything he had before the infringement. Legally, that is inaccurate, but try to explaining the legal complexities of infringement to a person who thinks an inventor has been deprived of nothing when infringement occurs.
I despair with people twisting morality into a pretzel. If you feel the law is wrong, then change the constitution and the law and do away with all intellectual property. Of course, doing so in only one country puts that country at a disadvantage in some respects, but hey, no one is "deprived" of anything, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
This may surprise some who have read my comments in this thread, but I actually agree with you a 100%. If Person A illegally downloads a song which is "owned" by Company B, then Company B is not deprived of the use of that song, but it can be argued easilly that the percieved value of that song is now marginally less than what it was before the infringement. (Of course, the kind of logic used by the BSA which equates every illegal download to a lost sale is ridiculous, but this is not to say that the download has no effect on the percieved value.)
Sure, if you are a progresive musician/businessperson, you can set up a system in which free distribution of copyrighted songs works into an overall profitable business model, but -- as the infringement-equals stealing crowd is so fond of pointing out -- it is the right of the copyright holder to decide what their business model is, even if it means they'll eventually fail in the new business environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing
Here's a shock: I agree with everything you just said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stealing
Legal Theft:
There are numerous examples of where courts, judges, and lawyers have used the term "theft" to apply to various intellectual property issues. Some state laws and international laws are beginning to incorporate the word theft in statutes relating to information. Yes, many of these laws relate to theft of personal information, but it is information nonetheless, and the usage is spilling over into non-personal information. You may dispute the use, but the fact remains that it is used regularly in this manner.
Attorney James Rogan refers to the theft of intellectual property in an interview with Religion and Liberty.
http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_interview_448.php
18 USC 1831 describes the "stealing" of trade secrets. Because the government realized there are many people who struggle with simple English, they also threw in many equivalent terms, including copying, duplicating, takes, carries away, appropriates, etc.
Religion & Theft:
Here is a nice summary of the general feeling among various religions regarding theft of intellectual property and the eighth commandment:
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment08.htm
Dr. Claude Mariottini has a nice discussion of the numerous ways to steal, including the theft of intellectual property, which he believes is covered by the eighth commandment.
http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2008/05/you-shall-not-steal-deuteronomy-2015.ht ml
MisterNifty, a resource for churches, describes the copying of software as "theft."
http://www.misternifty.com/church-copyright/is-your-church-guilty-of-theft/
Standard Theft:
I have thought about the difference a lot. You can justify depriving a creator of their constitutional rights all you wish, but I look at copying of someone's intellectual property as a kind of intellectual plagiarism, which is defined as theft in the dictionary. However, I am not the only one...millions were brought up with similar, religiously based teaching. The sin is not in the deprivation, but in the taking. That said...
Here is a reporter noting that plagiarism or whatever you would like to call it is theft. Hardly definitive, since reporters frequently call it theft of intellectual property.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjQyY2Y5MjczOGJlNGUxNzkyN2ZjNzRjM2JjN2VlMWM=
If I type "theft of intellectual property" into Google, I get 131,000 hits. If I type "infringement of intellectual property" into Google, I get 112,000 hits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
So, because intellectual property is not actually property, but instead a set of rights granted to a legal entity, you agree that infringement is not the same thing as theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can exaggerate the efforts made to discover this all you want (to justify the patent though I HIGHLY doubt that the cost of making such a discovery comes close to the money made on such patents), but the question we should ask is if it weren't for the patent system, would this have been discovered by someone else who encountered the same (or a similar) problem? Is the patent system necessary for this discovery to be made? Or is the discovery simply a product of trying to find a solution to a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Mike would not consider the view that we don't need patents to be that extreme.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004156568.shtml
and since I'm pretty close to holding that view I think he would agree with me on a lot on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aspartame was a newly patented product around the time it got approved by the FDA. An explicit reference to patents shouldn't always need to be necessary to implicate the notion that it was a monopoly on aspartame that strongly influenced the lobby for its approval and the eventual FDA approval.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are making assumptions without necessary predicate facts, which undercuts your arguments. Moreover, even if a patent lurked in the background, that in and of itself does not demonstrate any causal relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some times, as in the case of fluoride, the lobbying was for public health. In fact, dentists were concerned that fluoride might reduce their business so much that there would be less need for dentists (turned out this concern was unfounded; there will always be people who take terrible care of their mouth).
Since you failed to submit facts regarding who was lobbying and their justification for lobbying, it is hard to devine any intent from the lobbying. There are lobbyists who push to keep oil drilling out of our national parks. There are lobbyists who push for the opposite. Neither involves monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is incredibly disputed, since the lobbying for fluoride (which is the correct spelling) actually began with the metals industry (US Steel, owned by you-know-who). Flouride is a byproduct of the metals industry. It was first tested for its placating effect on massive groups of people by the IG Farben industry on the slave labor found in concentration camps in Germany.
www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.cdc.gov/Fluoridation/pdf/natures_way.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
www.preferrednetwork.com/FLUORIDE_STUPIDITY.htm
www.tuberose.com/Fluoride.html
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3295310.ece
Fluoride, simply put, has a toxicity level that is higher than lead. It is also a component drug that can be combined w/others to induce complacency at a variety of levels (for instance, the date rape druge known as roofies, or Rohypnol, is essentially fluoridated valium), hence its use in concentration camps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
stanford.wellsphere.com/complementary-alternative-medicine-article/scientific-study-finds-f luoride-horror-stories is a health site
blog.epa.gov/blog/2008/05/29/drinking-water-and-fluoride is where the EPA details why they CONSTANTLY oppose fluoridation
http://www.nationalwatercenter.org/epa_&_fluoride.htm is an opposition explanation from teh National Water Center union in Arkansas
But hey, what do they know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you like me to start finding horror stories about plain, pure water? There are a lot of them. Considering how many problems water causes, we should outlaw water - except we need water for our bodies to function.
You will forgive me if I am a doubting Thomas regarding flouride research. The CDC says it is safe. Independent studies say it is safe. Can it be abused? Water can be abused. You can die from eating too many Twinkies. Aspirin will kill you faster than fluoride, and probably has killed people. If you have chosen fluoride as your personal crusade, then have fun. I have bigger concerns than connecting fluoride, Nazis and space aliens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Would you like me to start finding horror stories about plain, pure water? There are a lot of them."
Yes, please do, and remember to omit the stories about OVERconsumption of water, since that's not what I've pointed to with fluoridation. Since the govt. has decided to institute how much fluoride we ought to have in our system and that's the dosage that is causing dangers, I'll go ahead and await a study on the dangers of drinking the recommended amount of plain, pure water. The common figure is 8 glasses a day. Go.
"Considering how many problems water causes, we should outlaw water - except we need water for our bodies to function"
Great, except we don't need fluoride for our bodies to function, so I'm not sure what to make of such an incoherent thought. Again, Fluoride is a TOXIC substance, a byproduct of the production of aluminum, and has doping properties. The EPA is against it. The EPA. THE EPA. Not just the "crazies" and "conspiracy theorists", the damn EPA.
"You will forgive me if I am a doubting Thomas regarding flouride research"
I will forgive you. Its history is convoluted and it's tough to discern fact from fiction, particularly with all of the spin on information out there. I'm not 100% sure all of my conclusions are 100% correct, but some things are fact: It's Toxic, it was used by Nazis as a pacifying agent to quell prisoners, and our govt. is putting it in our public drinking water today. That doesn't sound right to me.
"The CDC says it is safe. Independent studies say it is safe."
Absolutely true. But....the EPA says it isn't safe, like at all, and there are "independent" studies saying the opposite. Now of course I don't believe that either side of the issues studies are ACTUALLY independent. For instance, I won't trust a single word that comes out of the NHO's mouth, since they're so closely tied to the Rockefeller foundation, and that family owns so much of the Metal industry (where fluoridation comes from) and Big Pharma (aspartame, etc.).
"If you have chosen fluoride as your personal crusade, then have fun. I have bigger concerns than connecting fluoride, Nazis and space aliens."
Yes, it's one of a few "personal crusades", and it's something I find interesting. However, shockingly, not a big alien believer. The Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox are so ill conceived, that it's easier to believe we are alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://riskometer.org/library/Risk_Paper.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, by your previously stated theories linking the expiration of patents and the banning of products, this product, for which the patent expired 17 years ago, should also have been banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abortion is legal today. Tomorrow, it might not be. Things change. Copyright might go away, so file sharing will be common place (at least legally commonplace) or it might draw greater punishment, depending on the mood of the country.
Things change, get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the public wins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I determine that it has value. This right is inherent to the creator of the song, poem, etc., YOU did not create it.
I BY MY OWN DECISION, NOT YOURS get to decide whether I want to charge 5 cents or 5 billion dollars for it. If you don't like it, you don't have to pay. Just don't sit there with a straight face and say you're not taking something which doesn't RIGHTFULLY belong to you. You guys (DEFENDERS OF STEALING) are the biggest two-faced jackasses I have ever had the displeasure of reading/listening to. I'm not a copyright lawyer, I don't like DRM, and I don't like the majority of crap done by the RIAA, MPAA, or other multi-national corporations greedy bastards. That doesn't justify your desire to take whatever you want, download music, take movies and burn them onto your video game players, etc.etc,etc. Is it for sale by someone who created it? YES.
Do you take it without paying? YES. That makes you a thief.
Sorry if the truth hurts. Argue for a century, hold your breath till you pass out, it doesn't change that. I can't help that a whole generation is being brought up in fantasy land. PEACE OUT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In case you aren't a troll...
DEFENDERS OF STEALING
I know this is a long thread, but no where did I see anyone comment that infringement was morally OK or even legal. This seems like another classic case of lack of reading comprehension and/or jumping to conclusions.
BTW, what I take TD's opinion to be is that in spite of infringement being illegal, in many cases it's actually part of a good business model, but that companies get so caught up in the legal aspect, they can't see they're cutting of their nose to spite their face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If by "all over TD", you mean Techdirt posts, then I think you're flat out wrong. If you mean in the comments sections, I'd say you're almost all wrong. If you did a search, I bet you'd find far more instances of people complaining about comments that infringement is OK than actual instances of comments that infringment is OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happened in Maryland not too long ago. Ask any dentist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/water-intoxication.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Water_intoxication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An na_Wood_(schoolgirl)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]