Utah Wants To Own State Microbes; May Demand Royalty On Any Products Developed
from the all-your-bugs-are-belong-to-us dept
This one's from about a month ago, but I can't find any info on whether or not the bill has gone anywhere. It's yet another crazy proposal coming out of the Utah legislature, which seems to really lead the field in crazy proposals out of state legislatures. This one, sent in by Kevin Cummings, is about a proposed bill that would effectively grant Utah control over the state's organisms/microbes. Seriously. Apparently the legislator wants to create a patent-like regime that would force anyone to pay up if they made anything with Utah organisms:"If they're using Utah organisms, we think Utah as a state should benefit from royalties. Like a patent," said Sen. Lyle HillyardOf course, that's a total bastardization of what a patent is for. A patent is supposed to be a limited incentive to invent in an effort to promote the progress -- and, in exchange for the patent, you're supposed to teach the invention. None of those other aspects apply to what Hillyard is discussing here. There is no limit. There is no incentive (if anything, it takes away incentives from doing stuff in Utah). It doesn't promote progress (just giving money to the state) and there is no teaching or disclosure involved. In other words, it has all of the worst parts of a patent and nothing good at all. It's basically a blatant money-grab, highlighting the concept of ownership culture, where people try to claim ownership of things that cannot and should not be own-able.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanna know dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They use markers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They use markers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If....
That's a shitty law,
bbb
wheatus.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If....
Although it's hardly a scarce resource, so you'd need to copyright your DNA to really have any control.
And lots of swabs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Sigh
Because those positions were discovered upon golden tablets perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Bigger Sigh
You may have legitimate critisms of my religion, but I doubt any of them have a place in this discussion. Don't group it with these neo-conservative nutjobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even Bigger Sigh
Though Utah does seem to have alot of nutjobs in high places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even Bigger Sigh
I humbly apologize not only to you, but to all your wives as well....
JOKING!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even Bigger Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even Bigger Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even Bigger Sigh
Thanks for the apology, though! Are we friends now? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even Bigger Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cooties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cooties
So what's the market like for Utah-grown trichinosis? Or scabies? Or chiggers? Or herpes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and how is this news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO....
I would think so - since they are claiming ownership. It would be like someone's dog biting you and their fault for not keeping it under control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, shit. I just copied and pasted that argument template from somewhere, but it doesn't even really apply here...sorry guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slavery again?
What's the precedent for this? Do they own all of the living organism in the state? And if they do, are they responsible for the actions of those living organisms?
Do they own all of the stray cats? Do they own all of the gophers?
Where does there "ownership" end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Utah's microbes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repeat as needed with any other disease until legislature gets the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chinatown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seriously, these people are so far backwards and up there own Mormon ass they cant smell there own shit and cant see where they are walking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well if the world needs a stupid pill
yup now no one will want to do a damn bit there.
GOOD JOB GOVT screw tech out buy claiming you own every molecule right down to the center of the earth YES think of the profits oh wait what if no one else does this.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's dem tablets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually they might have a point but they're going the wrong way
That itself is wrong, discoveries in nature should not be patentable.
Utah may think they have found a smart way to hit back and take some of the profit themselves - but they would be better off backing those who are trying to rein in patent law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't pass
Moreover, it can't be copyrighted either, being as how it's naturally occurring.
They could patent novel ways to *use* their organisms, and copyright analysis and collected data about the organisms.
The stupidity of politicians never ceases to amaze me. Of course, it comes from an electorate that follows the same trajectory.
I'm *so* glad I moved out of that country before the fall. Hopefully, I can disengage my financials sufficiently before the collapse and the desperate grab for cash that will immediately precede it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probable reason for this
Of course the products are pure crap, wasting resources to make money from suckers who believe a pill or a drink is the key to health. With the pendulum continuously swinging towards buyer beware nowadays it makes you wonder if it will ever swing back again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would it change? Why should anyone have to pay a royalty to Utah for any of those things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you really trying to compare excavation of private property with people doing something with a microbe?
I just want to confirm that you really want to make perhaps the most ridiculous argument you've ever made on this site -- and you've made a lot -- before destroying it as being idiotic.
I'll give you a chance to admit that you didn't really want to go down this path. I suggest you take it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It helps to first read a bill before waxing poetic.
The scope of the bill pertains only to lands owned by the "public" at large (in this case by Utah and its political subdivisions, and not federal land which encompasses most of the state (and which, by the way, Utah is apparently considering a showdown with the federal government by exploring the possiblity of the state using its emminent domain power to condemn federal land), and such "public" land is no different in kind than "private" land.
I express no opinion on the wisdom of such a law, nor do I express any opinion on any infirmities it may have vis a vis possibly relevant federal law. All I point out is that the concept is not something that can be dimissed by the mere waive of a hand and trying to relate basic law associated with real property to patent law.
If anything is ridiculous, it is your seeming reluctance to entertain for even a moment the notion that more may be in play than what your article might otherwise suggest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did, in fact, read it. Why you assume otherwise is beyond me, but is typical of you.
The scope of the bill pertains only to lands owned by the "public" at large (in this case by Utah and its political subdivisions, and not federal land which encompasses most of the state
And that somehow makes it okay?
I express no opinion on the wisdom of such a law
Yes, you did, actually. Don't try to back down now.
All I point out is that the concept is not something that can be dimissed by the mere waive of a hand and trying to relate basic law associated with real property to patent law.
Sure it is. I recognize that you have made it clear that you think that any law must be a good law and we should shut up about it, but I'm going to express my opinion, and not hide behind some lame false statement like you do.
This is a dumb law. It makes no sense and I have no problem explaining why. Comparing it to mining for gold is, frankly, ridiculous.
If anything is ridiculous, it is your seeming reluctance to entertain for even a moment the notion that more may be in play than what your article might otherwise suggest.
Not at all. First, I am always willing to entertain that there's more in play. That's why we leave the comments open so people can add more information and we can have a discussion. But you had no interest in having a discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I noted the article did not make the distinction that the pending bill was limited to public land retained by the state of Utah. Moreover, the subject of the bill has absolutely nothing to do with patents.
Contrary to what you assert, I expressed no opinion on the wisdom and so stated. I likewise expressed no opinion on whether or not this type of law might run into problems with federal law. Thus, I am at a loss trying to figure out from what I should be backing down.
A more pertinent point that I believed you might raise is that unlike oil, gold, and other natural resources, organic matter such a plants, microbes, etc. are self-replicating, and that this might be a distinction worth exploring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
microbes and ownership
Article 3. Principle
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]