Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
Seriously? That's the problem that you see there?
The problem is that they patented the gene itself, thereby stopping anyone else from creating their own test or any other treatments. If there were multiple tests available, maybe they would be cheap enough for an insurance company to pay for.
And the specifics are not that she was 'too vain' to cut off her tits. The specific were that none of us know if we have this gene or not without this expensive test. Do you think that we should all have double mastectomies, just in case? How would you feel if it were your testes at risk?
Anyway, you're an idiot who is so blinded by your agenda that you can't even see the problem with letting a company patent an invention of nature.
Most of the time you're bitching about every conceivable infraction against free speech.
Yes, we don't want the government to abridge our speech.
Now you complain when some idiot gets a wild hair up and uses that right to send out poorly-thought-out nastygrams.
Yes, because they shouldn't have been granted that trademark (if they were). Also, because the previously mentioned freedom of speech allows us to criticize speech that we don't like.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
You statement is an error of fact and debunked nothing.
No, my statement is both factual and well-documented, right here on this site.
There would be almost no expired drug patents if drug companies actually had the power to do what you say.
My statement didn't address the expiration of patents. It addressed the ability of competitors to compete after said expiration. Again, patent holders can and do sue their competitors in order to keep them from competing with them once the patent runs out.
I think your 'bottom of page' tactic is hilarious.
To future readers, he posts at the bottom instead of replying in hopes that we won't notice he replied and debunk whatever he says, and his post will stand alone.
People here apparently like to hear only what they want to hear.
No, we generally welcome constructive dissent, which you used to provide. In fact, I've defended you from other trolls on several occasions. Now, it's like you're just trolling us for shits and giggles.
You frequently run away, like the conversation about the Report button being used to censor the asshat who compared rape to copyright infringement. Also, this conversation.
What once was one of my favorite dissenting commentors around here has for some reason morphed into a petulant asshat that apparently gets some joy out of simply riling others up rather than adding anything substantive to the discussion. What was once links and citations coupled with what appeared to be an honest curiosity about the merits of issues has transformed into a defensive stance backstopped by a few seemingly informative citations that, once argued against reasonably, get repeated over and over again for what appears to be no other reason other than you can't admit you are or might be wrong.
I agree with this so hard. I think maybe he internalized our previous belief that he wasn't a troll, and stopped trying to not be a troll.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
Everyone benefits from much lower prices after the patents expire.
I already debunked this statement. Remember when I mentioned that our current laws allow patent-holders to sue competitors into not competing when the patent runs out?
On the post: Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet
Re: Cyber
If only because I frequently had to walk to the library back then. :P
On the post: DailyDirt: More Commercial Spaceships On The Way
Re: Re:
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
The problem is that they patented the gene itself, thereby stopping anyone else from creating their own test or any other treatments. If there were multiple tests available, maybe they would be cheap enough for an insurance company to pay for.
And the specifics are not that she was 'too vain' to cut off her tits. The specific were that none of us know if we have this gene or not without this expensive test. Do you think that we should all have double mastectomies, just in case? How would you feel if it were your testes at risk?
Anyway, you're an idiot who is so blinded by your agenda that you can't even see the problem with letting a company patent an invention of nature.
On the post: 'Urban Homesteading' Trademarked, Lots Of Urban Homesteaders Told To Cease Using The Common Term
Re:
Yes, we don't want the government to abridge our speech.
Now you complain when some idiot gets a wild hair up and uses that right to send out poorly-thought-out nastygrams.
Yes, because they shouldn't have been granted that trademark (if they were). Also, because the previously mentioned freedom of speech allows us to criticize speech that we don't like.
These two positions aren't mutually exclusive.
On the post: 'Urban Homesteading' Trademarked, Lots Of Urban Homesteaders Told To Cease Using The Common Term
Re:
Of course, sensible people like us don't get to earn money by making crap mistakes like this.
On the post: 'Urban Homesteading' Trademarked, Lots Of Urban Homesteaders Told To Cease Using The Common Term
Re: Re: Re: I wonder what...
On the post: DailyDirt: More Commercial Spaceships On The Way
D.D. Harriman, where are you?
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
No, my statement is both factual and well-documented, right here on this site.
There would be almost no expired drug patents if drug companies actually had the power to do what you say.
My statement didn't address the expiration of patents. It addressed the ability of competitors to compete after said expiration. Again, patent holders can and do sue their competitors in order to keep them from competing with them once the patent runs out.
Here is one example. is one example. Here's another and another.
But I dislike suffering or dieing even more than I dislike pharma.
If you dislike pharma, suffering, and unnecessary deaths, then you love the idea of abolishing pharma patents.
On the post: 'Urban Homesteading' Trademarked, Lots Of Urban Homesteaders Told To Cease Using The Common Term
I wonder what...
I also wonder if the authors of those books could combat the trademark, since they used the term for written media first.
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're going to go back and respond to the conversation about censorship on Techdirt? That would be great, thanks.
On the post: The NFL Or SkyNET: There Can Be Only One
Re:
On the post: The NFL Or SkyNET: There Can Be Only One
On the post: The NFL Or SkyNET: There Can Be Only One
Re: Dah!
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Color in Context
To future readers, he posts at the bottom instead of replying in hopes that we won't notice he replied and debunk whatever he says, and his post will stand alone.
This guy is sad and pathetic.
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we generally welcome constructive dissent, which you used to provide. In fact, I've defended you from other trolls on several occasions. Now, it's like you're just trolling us for shits and giggles.
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with this so hard. I think maybe he internalized our previous belief that he wasn't a troll, and stopped trying to not be a troll.
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Vivaelamor's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: missing for how long ???
I already debunked this statement. Remember when I mentioned that our current laws allow patent-holders to sue competitors into not competing when the patent runs out?
You know, it was the comment that you replied to?
Next >>