Slashdot Mirror
Patents: Two For The Road (To Hell)
Jim Lochowitz writes "A friend of mine just sent me this ( posted with permission) :
I just looked at Judge Zagel's ruling from yesterday in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 99 C 0626, which is currently pending in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Eolas alleges that Microsoft has infringed its patent, #5,838,906, issued November 18, 1998. If memory serves, the gist of the suit is that both Windows and Internet Explorer infringe the patent.
If you want to look at the text of the patent again, it can be found on the PTO's website [here]. (Or search for the patent #5,838,906 from [this] page.)
At this point in the case, the court is trying to resolve exactly *what* the patent covers before it can consider whether or not whatever Microsoft did infringed it. Yesterday's ruling had to do with what was meant by the following key language in the patent (found in Claim 1 and Claim 6):
"wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application".
As Judge Zagel put it,
"What is an executable application? What is
type information that must be associated with
the object? What does it mean for the type
information to be utilized by said browser
to identify and locate the executable application?"
Experts testified as to the answers to these questions. Eolas' expert was Edward Felten, who is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Princeton. Microsoft's experts were H.E. Dunsmore, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Purdue University, and Michael Wallent, Product Unit Manager for Internet Explorer.
Judge Zagel found that (as used in the patent language), an "executable application" is computer program code which is launched to enable an end-user to directly interact with data, and one which is not an operating system or utility. He found that "type information" "may include the name of an application associated with the object." Finally, he found that "utilized by said browser to identify and locate" meant that those functions are performed by the browser.
Now that Judge Zagel has determined what this key language in the patent means, the court is now in a position to determine whether Microsoft has, in fact, infringed the patent. Trial could be the next step. It will be interesting to see what happens! I suspect that no matter who wins at the trial court level, there is likely to be an appeal. It will be a while yet before we learn what the resolution will be.
If you want to read the text of the opinion yourself, you can find it on CourtWeb as [this] pdf file.
Many of the rulings thus far in the case are available online. Put in "Northern District of Illinois," hit the "proceed to CourtWeb" button, and then enter the case number on the next screen. (The case # is 99cv0626.) Put in the date range you want- note that the case was filed in February 1999.
"
last time i looked, you couldnt patent un-processed natural resources.... well i would think that human genes would be a natural resource
Hash Bang Slash Bin Slash Bash
Here's a link to Unisys' information about the license. Notice how LZW compromises alot of standards: GIF, TIFF-LZW, PDF, Postscript-2 and V.42bis. To use them you have to pay Unisys outrageous license fees. Those using Windows, are already indirectly paying license fees for Microsoft products. This does not give you any rights though, and you must make sure you are licensed yourself.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
--
To all of you who are giving knee-jerk "why should genes be patented?" reaction, remember why patents exist in the first place. It's to foster innovation, not to retard it.
Well part of the original idea of a "patent" was that you had to actually invent something. Rather than simply discover something or discover what it did.
Are we now going to start having patents on transurainc elements, at least the applicant would have some claim to having made something.
Why would a drug company spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, identifying a gene for a disease, developing a cure, and then the day after they ship the drug, it's immediately mass produced by every other drug company?
Why do they need a patent on a naurally occuring gene in order to produce a drug.?
Maybe more radical approachs need to be taken to address the issue that whilst drugs tend to be cheap to produce the reseach and testing needed are not. But IMHO making a fundermental change to patents is not one of them...
If we can patent parts of the human genetic code, I'm running down to the patent office right now and patenting a few genes. Therefore, I would partially own the human populace and charge people royalties for existing.
Patent the bonding of the base adenine and phosphate. Then you have a patent on all DNA, all RNA, ADP and ATP. Thus owning every lifeform on the planet.
I'm totally colorblind... does that count?
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro." - HST
I know it's popular on /. to be rabidly anti-patent, and to fly off the handle whenever patents like this are mentioned. But there are legitimate reasons for all this, which you'd realize if you thought, and of course RTFA.
First, the color-blindness thing. Remember, patents exist to encourage innovation, not retard it. Millions of people have been wastefully failing to see the red-green portion of the spectrum for thousands of years, for no marketable purpose whatsoever! Think about that for a minute-- it's not innovation, it's imitation. Here we have a good corporate citizen finally taking that trend and making it marketable. That's the whole point of capitalism! To all those people claiming "prior art", I say to Russia with all of you, you godammed communists-- get off the not seeing the red-green portion of the spectrum bandwagon, and wake up to the new economy.
As far as the software patent goes, it's hardly a patent at all-- it's a well-written patent of the sort of idea that has been patented for generations. Why, just look at the text of it: "wherein said embed text format is parsed by said browser to automatically invoke said executable application to execute on said client workstation in order to display said object and enable interactive processing of said object within a display area created at said first location within the portion of said first distributed hypermedia document being displayed in said first browser-controlled window." Genius. Sheer genius. Overly broad? Nay, I say. Here are the limiting statements: "A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object." If that's not narrow, I'm not sure what is. Ambigious? Hardly. If you understand what I quoted above, you understand most of the patent-- and what could be simpler?
I know it's also popular to blame all this misunderstanding on lawyerese. I admit that even I couldn't understand this line: "running an application program in a computer". But most of the patent is easy to follow, and I encourage you to read it before these knee-jerk reactions. I really think it's all a big misunderstanding about these patents, and once people understand that their rights and thoughts don't count unless they have millions of dollars, it'll all go much more smoothly.
They cover anything and everything one could possibly want to do with those genes.
"Dear Joe Blogg, please be informed that your activities of mitosis and meiosis infringe on patent X. Please either pay up or drop dead."
If you make a gene up on your own that doesn't have prior art (it's not in any other existing DNA) go ahead and patent that.
How different should it be from existing DNA to be patentable though?
"Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto"
(I am a man: nothing human is alien to me)
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
When, oh when, will people realize that these patents are not covering genes???
The patents we're discussing cover some specific test methods which make use of genetic information. They don't own any part of the information itself, just one way it can be used.
THINK, people. The misconception around this issue is astounding, even for this crowd.
Can I sue these guys for my condition? Do they realize what misery is being created by their 'invention'? Drawing on the 'Racism at Microsoft' example, I think 5 billion (each) might cover it.
Is "each" per person or per copy (i.e. cell)?
Opponents of software patents alledge that instead of protecting actual innovators the system benefits large corporations with the will and resources to use patent suits for legal extortion. Those corporations with large patent portfolios and legal staff will readily pay royalties to one another as there is little net loss to any of them and these settlements provide evidence in support of the validity of their patents. This then can be used when suing smaller entities which can more easily be intimidated. How then are are we to consider the following as a defence of software patents:
That is but one of many examples of the double edged quality of the arguments made in the cited article.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
No, since prior art must be published. You could have invented something in your basement 50 years ago, but if it was never published than it's not prior art. For genes this usually means the genetic sequence.
:)
Define "publish", if it involves putting something on paper then these have been "published" since paper was invented
Of course, even if God had patented them, his patent would have long since expired.
Is there an expert in the rules of the "Devine Patent Office" (e.g. a priest) who can indicate if such "patents" would be time limited?
You mean how Linux wasn't developed because it couldn't be patented? How about gnome? El Gamal? IP? Vorbis? The Browser? HTML? C? C++? Python? PERL?
Oh wait, all those things, and more, were developed and released without one single patent. Your argument assumes that the only economic model is to sell patented technology, and that simply is not the case. Lots of things are invented and not patented. Clearly the patent process does not need to exist to foster innovation.
Python
Python
Well the current patent system doesnt foster innovation, it actualy makes it harder, because everyone applies for any patent that covers anything, and the sues. And yes, the current patentsystem does retard innovation.
Suppose you are company A. You have this idea, that you start working on. Someone else, independent of you, gets the same idea, and also starts develloping it. Though you start "innovating" before company B, they "innovate" faster than you do, for some unknown reason. So, they apply for the patent, yet you got the idea years before they did. Guess who gets the patent ?? What about all those millions you invested in innovating ?? They are lost. Even if you have a better product, and thats why you were longer innovating.
And yes, it has happened countless times before, and will again. Take the phone, we think graham bell was the inventer. Well, he wasnt the only inventor, a woman named Elisa Grey (as far as i remember) also invented it, but applied after graham bell, though she might have had the idea first. The current patentsystem just isnt good enough.
Britney Spears makes music. She has no patent on music, yet she keeps on producing more and more music. Noone (legaly) copies her work, and sells identical copies. Or even closely related to that. If they do, the have to pay her money. The same thing could be done to protect a company's investment, they dont need patents for that, but could do with some sort of "copyright"
That is not correct. For a long time you couldnt patent software and mathematics in europa, and you still cant. Yet still we have european mathematicans thinking up new mathematics, and we have european software companies producing software, even though they cant patent it.
It pays to be the front runner, you have experience before others arrive, and technology isnt moving slower. So, if you invent something, that is smart, and takes years, it will also take other people a long time, perhaps not as long. If it doesnt take them this long, then you arent any good at innovating.
I agree that direct copying of your product doesnt seem like the best option for you to invest money in somethings, but when ever you innovate, you risk that someone else thought of this before you, and you just dont know it, or that they will think of it, but innovate faster than you for some reason. Therefore, if you get an idea, you invest money in it, even though there is just a small chance for it to pay off.
ion++
I'd want to see the patent itself before I go foaming at the mouth.
How to determine what a patent really claims:
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
If i have color blind kids, am i violating the DMCA?
I hearby offer my genes as evidence of prior art.
I'm red-green (how many colourblind readers of slashdot are there?)
So a company with one solution to the problem claims to have patent protection on the genes and one genetic test. So you can only get that test from a facility affiliated with this company with a treatment. This should raise a red flag (take my word for it, it's red).
Isn't Gene patenting similar to the buckyball patenting situation. Certain scientists discovered/created buckyballs and tried to patent them. They soon found out that they existed naturally and were denied the patent. Doesn't this issue similarly fall under the same category?
Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear!
So if they can patent genes, and genes are made by that other wonderful invention, people, what's to stop someone from patenting people? Or the manufacturing process - sex?
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
I could be wrong, though.
--kwerkey
To all of you who are giving knee-jerk "why should genes be patented?" reaction, remember why patents exist in the first place. It's to foster innovation, not to retard it. The point is to allow people to spend a lot of money developing something, without the danger of having it immediately stolen.
Think about it. Why would a drug company spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, identifying a gene for a disease, developing a cure, and then the day after they ship the drug, it's immediately mass produced by every other drug company? Hey, that'd be a great business -- simply wait for drug companies to develop cures, and then mass produce their labor.
You have to give companies the ability to recoup their expenses in developing these things, or they are simply not going to spend the money to develop them.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"
If you've published your genetic sequence before that patent was filed for, then yes, you have prior art. Care to provide a citation to your publication?
"
Define publish,
Is writing it on a piece of paper publishing?
Is putting it on a webpage publishing even though it can only be read with the aid of an expensive electronic device.?
Is having it as a DNA sequence publishing even though it can only be read with an expensive sequencing device?
Why is the third not publishing if the first two are?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
This discurages research into drugs or processes that cannot be patented.
e.g. new uses of old drugs
That way, not just the MRI would have been patented, but the use of MRI to detect tumors of the head, the use of MRI to detect tumors of the spinal cord, etc. Clearly, those had novel applications until the MRI actually existed,
But as soon as the technology of MRI was widely avaliable they became blatantly obvious applications. Which is the point here whilst a technical method of doing X might be innovative using that method for any superset of X certainly is not.
As she explained it to me, the patent process, like the criminal justice system, is adversarial. There's no way the patent office can staff experts in every field in which it grants patents, so it relies on testimony from persons and/or organizations that have cause to oppose the patent in order to understand the issues involved.
So it looks to me like the system has built-in opportunities for activism. Does anyone know more about this, or have any links to any well-documented patent battles? Such might be instructive in replacing the usual whining about the idiocy of the system with an understanding of how to influence it.
zo.
You are absolutely right: all that will count in court is what is in the claims. I did not see the patent number mentioned anywhere, but I think it may be US5837461 which is fairly short and has only six claims of which only the first and fifth stand alone (the rest depend on 1 or 5). The claims are explicitly about "A method of detecting [...] vision disorders", and there is not even the slightest hint of the idea of patenting a gene.
If the company thinks they have bought the right to the gene, they are fooling themselves; I think it more likely that their PR people have just gone for an attention grabbing phrase.
If you read the abstract and the rest of the patent, it's clear there is no claim on the gene itself. All that is stated is
A method of detecting cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method comprises the steps of examining the amino acid sequences of a patient's L or M photopigments and correlating the amino acid combinations associated with vision disorder.
That's all the abstract says, absolutely nothing like patenting human genes. That simply is a poorly written press release by the company. The only thing that is disturbing is that nobody must have questioned that statement and double checked its legitimacy.
One more thing, what can actually be patented. From the FAQ of the patent office, there are several key statements made
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
Any person whoinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
This makes clear several things- firstly The Onion article about the patenting of one's and zero's by Microsoft cannot come true, that gravity and genes can't be patented as well, and finally processes such as the infamous one-click shopping system are legitimate (which is of course why some of those got past in the first place). The question lies in whether or not it's a new and original idea.
No, but you may need a licence to make copies...
I can't speak to LZW, but the RSA patent is not a very defenseable patent.
Actually, RSA is not a defensible patent because it expired in September 2000.
I'm not sure about LZW, but wasn't that patent issued back in the 70's as well?
- cicadia
Living better through chemicals
Revolutionary test - bleah. I have a much simpler test: Hey you - which of these is the red one and which is the green one? Can't say? You're colorblind then. Need no sophisticated machinery either. The "revolutionary" may fail, for example for people who became color blind in other ways than the standard genetic fault. (Lead poisoning can do this, for example.)
I believe patent application fees are somewhere around the $3000 level (it's on the USPTO site, but I'm too lazy to look it up) so we're already within an order of magnitude of what you want. Individual inventors do get a discount, around 50% off IIRC.
Right now I believe the patent office ONLY gets paid if they accept a patent.
Not so. Application fees must be paid whether the patent is accepted or rejected. There is a separate type of fee, known as a maintenance fee, which must be paid occasionally during the lifetime of a granted patent to keep it active, however.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Didn't the human genome project publish every sequence? Sure - they haven't necessarily figured out what each sequence is for, but they got them all.
would I be circumventing the said color blindness gene, which is patented? Then could they make it illegal to use the cure?
---
It's not an article, it's a company press release. Hardly an objective, unbiased source of information. I'd want to see the patent itself before having an aneurism about it.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
We have had more inventions in the past 150 years than in all the rest of human history
That is true - but so is the fact that we had reached a 'boiling point' & that fundementals are being applied usefully.. we are all truely standing on the shoulders of giants.
I do believe that we would have fewer inventions if people didn't have the hope of getting rich.
Im sorry - I have more faith in humanity than that. People perform to their environments, we are all trying to survive. The point is we are continueing with needless toiling and enslavement - why cant we construct a system where this is unnecessary? Shouldnt a free, sustained, comfortable, enjoyable, fulfilling existance be the goal of our work? Why the hell are we not bringing down the barriers from this goal? Collectively (everyone on the planet) has the same needs - why do we continue building a system that prevents this - and not try and resolve it?
Raise your standards - expect more from your community.
Do I have to pay a licensing fee to use my eyes now?
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Going one step further from this:
- Company A has a patent on a drug for some disease or other, which covers all derivative products.
- Any other company or individual that improves that drug (for bigger efect; reduced side-efects; more precise dosage) or creates a new medication which uses, amongst others, the that drug, will have to pay royalties (maybe very big ones) to company A to distribute said product - there will be thus less tendency to make that investment.
- If there is only that drug in the market for that disease, company A will also not improve the drug for things like ease-of-use or less side-efects since:
- Any other company trying to enter that market will have to use a completly different approach (specially if copany A has a really broad pattent), and thus will have a really big barrier to entry (bigger that company A initialy had, because they were the first so they could try anything)
- Consumers don't have any other choice
Think AIDS.- Several drugs are out there but none cures the disease
- Possibly some of those drugs could be improved upon and turn into cures
- The other companies in the market will not invest in derivative/improved drugs because there is little money to be done from it
- Only non-profit institutions will try it because they are not in it for the money - let's say they represent 10% of the research investment that could otherwise be done
- The companies that manufacture the drugs will not invest in transforming them from "survival drugs" into "cure drugs" because that will make them loose money - why sell something once per-person when you can sell it once every month for the whole life of said person
Actually if you extend this tought further, it's in the best interest of any for-profit drug companie to investigate a venue of attacking the disease just long enough to be able to patent it, and then move into the next venue.Given enough time any disease will be surrend by a mure of patents covering any-and-all pathway to cure, and a constelation of maintenace-take-it-the-rest-of-your-life drugs.
This won't happen.
As I ranted in [a previous post,] in the Digital TV copy restrictions article, Corporations are systematically creating an environment where people don't count.
Overly broad patents are one way of accomplishing this. It stifles what the public is independently allowed to do, let alone what other companies may do.
The entire point is to replace individual human rights with Corporate Rights.
As an example of this movement, consider air pollution. A law was passed in Canada banning the use of MBTA as a fuel additive. (MBTA is a replacement for lead, and has been found to be even less healthy than lead.) A US manufacturer of MBTA sued and won, claiming damage to business.
My right to breathe clean air is being challenged by that Corporation. If the penalty had been stiff enough, there's every chance my government would have folded like a house of cards and re-allowed use of MBTA in gasoline.
What a fucking joy *that* would be: I get to have cancer, because some bastard business in *another country* doesn't like *my* country's clean-air laws.
Gene patents are just an extension of this Corporate-First attitude. The patents reduce competition, by discouraging research into the claimed field. The result: drug prices remain high, Corporations make big bucks, and people suffer as fewer therapies, tests or cures are discovered, due to the reduced research for the patented gene.
And you know what? This whole Corporate Government/Corporate Rights/Corporate First trend is a helluva juggernaut, and not a one of us is in any position to stop it.
Somewhere in the Declaration of Independence is a line about "The public will endure suffering passively, until the suffering becomes insuffering, and they rise up in revolution."
Well, it ain't insufferable yet. Won't be for a good long time...
...and maybe by then, the 1984/Brave New World mindset will be so entrenched, that people won't even realize that it's insufferable. They'll continue to endure what we'd take up arms against, because they know no better.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Hello, Red Green. I like your TV show.
ColorMax acquired a broad patent license covering the human genes for color vision from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The patent also covers a revolutionary test for color blindness based on a simple analysis of the actual genes that cause the problem.
Instead of thinking of it from the point of view of the leftist geeks we are, let's think about it from Big Company's point of view. (Intentionally singular possessive there)
Big Company sees all the other companies patenting stuff left and right -- like the human genome project, and what-have-you. They finish work figuring out what bits of DNA they're interested in and want to make sure they can keep working on it. If those other patents are going to hold, obviously Big Company is going to need to protect their own investment thus far -- so they fill out the paperwork with their team of lawyers and send it off to DC. The patent application gets rejected? Great. That means everyone else holds invalid patents as well and Big Company can continue to work on (or rather "not abandon the work they've done on") their color blindness project. The patent gets approved? Great: not only do we not have to stop working on the project, but we can stop everyone else from working on similar things.
It doesn't necessarily mean we had a self-serving, evil goal from the beginning, but it means that we can send our kids to college and retire without needing those social security checks.
....
Okay, we can go back to being liberals now.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Then perhaps there press release should be more clear. It should say they have aquired the patent to a test for colorblindness, but that is not all it states.
The press release says they've received a patent for the genes themselves. The press release may be wrong, but then this companies PR group should be taken out back an flogged.
No one can use their Heart to pump blood - unless they pay me royalties first.
if you can't pay royalties, you'll have to find another, unpatented device to circulate your blood.
Does this entitle everyone with Red/Green color blindness to sue for defective product?
Isn't it odd that no reference to the patent was actually given in the story.
Stop griping and get a grip! This is a legitimate medical testing patent.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
The expression "The three of knowledge" transmits several ideas:
- Them bigger the three the more knowledge you have and the more venues of knowledge (simbolized by the leafs) you can take
- Knowledge is built from existing knowledge
- To get to any leaf you have to start from the root and travel through a lot of wood (OK, this one came out a bit strange)
My point (finally):If every scrap of knowledge, every piece of any procedure, every splinter of every method is patented, you end up in a situation in which any advance is confronted with with a wall of patent royalties, or, keeping with three methaphor, if every cell of the trunk tries to eat-up as much water and nutrients as it can, all the leafs will die!!!
And this is one of the indefensible ones.
Running MacOS over a network conforms exactly to the patent - type information with the document causes a progam to be selected and executed. Circa 1984, December, IIRC
If you've published your genetic sequence before that patent was filed for, then yes, you have prior art. Care to provide a citation to your publication?
I'm not defending it, just explaining it.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I'm not defending the system, just explaining it.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Then you'll be happy to give us the citation where you published the genetic sequence of those genes, for that is what prior art would have to contain.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Secondly, improvements on previous inventions are perfectly patentable. This FDA paper describes the tinted lenses, but not the genetic testing described in the press release.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I'm not defending it, just explaining it.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Not just put down on paper; it has to be available to the general public. Writing it on papaer and locking it away in a safe is not publication; writing it on paper and distributing it throughout your company, while making clear it is confidential and not distributing it outside the company is not publication; writing it in a journal or book which is available for sale to the general public is publication. Putting it on a (publicly-accessible) web page is probably also publication, although I don't know whether that's been tested in the courts.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Now if you can show us where she's published her genetic sequence, we can invalidate the patent.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
In and of itself, no. If the paper is available to the general public, yes.
Is putting it on a webpage publishing even though it can only be read with the aid of an expensive electronic device.?
Assuming it's a publicly accessible web page, probably yes, although I don't think that's been conclusively determined by the courts.
Is having it as a DNA sequence publishing even though it can only be read with an expensive sequencing device?
No.
Why is the third not publishing if the first two are?
This is law, not science. You can't start from general principles and extrapolate specifics in law the same way you can in science. It's a common mistake made by scientists/engineers/etc. when trying to understand law.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Even granting the argument that DNA is a good storage medium, in order to be considered prior art, it must be published--that is, accessible to the general public. Have you made your DNA available to the general public?
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Just because some P.R. idiot claims their company has a patent on a gene, doesn't mean they do. A search for the /real/ patent turned up this;
USP #5,837,461 - Detection of cone-photoreceptor-based vision disorders.
So it's a method of detecting the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.
Note that the original article doesn't contain a patent number - usually a sign of unreliable info.
If something sounds to stupid to be true,
uh... well... ok, forget that, but hey - it doesn't hurt to at least do some basic checking.
Stupidity, then at least I could make money when these things are patented also. Come to think of it i would be makeing a whole LOT of money ;)
Teamwork is a bunch of people doing what I tell them.
Wow. That company is still around?
I first heard of them 4 or 5 years ago, complaining that they had a patent on the EMBED tag, & that Sun's Java was infringing on their patent. This might be the same patent.
Has Eolas actually created any useful products & sold them to anyone? Or are they a perpetual startup, stuffed with IP of dubious value? In other words, a bush-leagure version of Rambus?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Can anyone point to the best online apologia favoring software patents, or perhaps suggesting higher thresholds for them?
I would really like to see something like this, too. Anyone?
While I agree that there have been many silly patents out there, I'm not comfortable with falling completely on one side of the issue. I believe there's probably a good case for software patents out there somewhere, and, as with most things in life, I suspect there's a happy medium.
My father is a patent agent (generally not in software, though), and it's actually a line of work that I had considered. However, I want to consolidate my own position on software patents before I make any move in that direction. To do that, I want to hear both sides of the story (until then, and maybe even after then, I continue with software development...).
I suppose Slashdot isn't the best forum to look for that side of the argument.
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Of course, even if God had patented them, his patent would have long since expired. How long depends on your religion. :)
-Puk
The reason for that is twofold. First, patents on genes and their products actually directly allow the patent holder to control their use in research. Second, even if there were a research exemption (which there isn't) or even if the patent holder allows research to proceed, the patent takes away much of the financial incentive for others to develop treatments using the gene if they have to fear that they can be extorted for patent licensing fees once they have developed a cure.
I think the patenting of genes is ludicrous, as is the patenting of straightforward genetic testing based on such genes, which is applying standard techniques of molecular biology to known genetic sequences. Only if a test or a cure involves some genuinely novel ideas should it be even considered for a patent, in my opinion.
From the article - "ColorMax acquired a broad patent license covering the human genes for color vision from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The patent also covers a revolutionary test for color blindness based on a simple analysis of the actual genes that cause the problem. The new test is the first major improvement in color vision testing in the last half of a century. It is also the first totally objective color vision test that can consistently classify color vision deficiencies. As such, it offers a solution to the problem of setting uniform standards in the workplace. And, for the first time, accurate testing of preschool and kindergarten aged children will be possible."
--
Free Mac Mini
Good idea, except you can't patent things that don't exist.
First of all, RTFA.
ColorMax acquired a broad patent license covering the human genes for color vision from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The patent also covers a revolutionary test for color blindness based on a simple analysis of the actual genes that cause the problem. The new test is the first major improvement in color vision testing in the last half of a century. It is also the first totally objective color vision test that can consistently classify color vision deficiencies. As such, it offers a solution to the problem of setting uniform standards in the workplace. And, for the first time, accurate testing of preschool and kindergarten aged children will be possible.
Yes they did patent the genes. I don't know why but they did. Second of all, if you read that ONE paragraph they also patented a genetic test for colorblindness (which is perfectly fine IMO). I can understand a lot of you being upset over this Co patenting the discovery of which genes cause color-blindness but it's not a completly bad patent. So I think maybe they shouldn't be strung up for this patent, just have all their people in one of those stocks in the middle of a town square for about a week.
"Me Ted"
BOSTON SUCKS!
Sounds to me like they patented the genes.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
Is having it as a DNA sequence publishing even though it can only be read with an expensive sequencing device?
The other thing I should have mentioned in my previous post is that there's quite a difference in magnitude between the two.
Your "expensive electronic device" to view a web page can cost under $1000 (and even better, you don't have to buy one, you can use one for free at many public libraries) and can display the web page in a matter of seconds.
Reading the sequence of a single gene takes tens of thousands of dollars, and dozens if not hundreds of person-hours of work.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I take issue with your statements, perhaps because I'm (just a slight bit!) less idealistic. While the role of government may be to represent the people, I doubt that history has ever seen one which fulfills this function in practice. Rather than talk about what /should/ be, then, I prefer to talk about what /is/ and what /practical/ improvements can be made.
The government is not the same as the people. The government provides services to the people -- public education, law enforcement, financial rules. It has the authority to do this because the people give it such. However, the government no more is the people than I am the guy who fixes my car. He may provide me services (because I pay him money), but we're two separate individuals. The same is true everywhere. The government provides us with services because we pay them money -- no different than any corporation. Similarly, just as corporations maintain their own adjenda, so do governments. You think that Louis Freeh really had your best interests in mind?
The government does not determine the rights of the people (thank [deity]!). It has no place to do so. Only the people can determine their own rights -- and the people are not the same as the government. While the government may be paid to enforce those rights which the people have, it is not the place of the government but the people to determine them.
While making the government accountable is indeed different than making it smaller, I submit that keeping the government's actions in line with those that benefit the individuals (note that I didn't say "the people" -- I don't care about how any people is treated, only individuals) governed is most easily done when that government is as small as possible. Thus, while accountability and size may not be one and the same, there is most certainly an inverse correlation.
Secondly, the sequence published by the HGP is taken from a handful of people. It probably wouldn't count as novelty-destroying prior art (what most /.ers mean when they say "prior art") against variations of those sequences which might be found in other people.
Thirdly, don't forget about the "prior" part of "prior art". A sequence published by the HGP in 2000 wouldn't help against a patent for which the application was filed in 1998, for example, even if the patent wasn't granted until 2001.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Why do you need a damn patent for it? Just don't tell anyone which one it is. If I find it on my own, you can't keep me from using it.
That's how the NIH's Genome chief felt. :-)
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Uh, right. Keep up that sense of humor.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
My son was born color blind and you're going to charge me a licensing fee?! Great, why don't you patent incontinence too, and sell my aunt a license?
- rozzin presents (and timothy does not correct) as a direct quote text which does not even appear in the linked press release. The press release claims that ColorMax licensed the patent rights from the Medical College of Wisconsin, not that ColorMax had a patent granted to them.
- Yes, the press release says that the genes were patented. I'm not buying it. Company press releases aren't exactly unbiased sources of information. The only patent I could find remotely resembling what is described in the press release is US 5,837,461. (And I search patents for a living, so I know what I'm doing.) Know what? It doesn't claim the gene. That patent claims:
- If the gene were patented (and the people who are saying you can't patent genes and those who say you can are both right, in a way; technically, you can't patent the gene itself, but you can patent use of the gene to do X, Y, or Z, where X, Y, and Z are so broad as to cover virtually any use of the gene), you would not be prior art just because you were color-blind. Prior art must be published. That thing you've made in the basement for 50 years but never told anyone about is not prior art. For genes, generally the genetic sequence must be included. So unless you've sequenced your gene for color-blindness and published it, it's not prior art.
Here's my general guidelines for determining what a patent really claims:Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Then the article was misleading. One cannot patent a genetic code itself any more than one can patent a landscape. The genetic code is a simple transcription, and nothing more. The article was sensationalist.
Let me get this straight- they claim a patent on shamelessly attacking the US Govt.?!
I think /. has lots of prior art here...
--- In the battle between the axis of evil and the one of stupidity, choosing intelligence is disloyal.
in that case i think i will get a patent for the gene that makes ppl think...and everyone will have to pay me royalties
please
And, yes, I do believe that we would have fewer inventions if people didn't have the hope of getting rich.
While they are handing out patents, could I have one in all fields of math and science, please?
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Oh, how silly. They have a Self Test which behaves differently when viewed on different monitors and systems.
*meekly raises hand*
I am red-green color blind. I do not want to be patented. it's very scary to think about someone patenting part of your own genome. yikes.
I post links to stuff here
Does this mean I can patent the gene that causes large breasts? .
Imagine the possibilities. .
"Can you lift up your shirt, ma'am? I've got a patent on those."
I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. I think. . .
The patent office did allow patenting genes. The idea was if you've identified a gene that does a particular thing (emphasis here on figuring out what a gene does), you can protect yourself for the limited time the patent offers to make money from that discovery. That doesn't bother me, and the press release about the colour blindness genes stated the discoverers of the genes sold the rights to the company. Those two researchers spent a lot of time and money to find those genes and determine their function, so I have no problem with that.
The problem I have is when a company like Celera(sp?) makes blind patents. They just went wild and patented all the genes/base pairs they found in the human genome. It's a bit like staking a claim over an entire territory hoping someone else will figure out what's there and pay you money for it. They've done no work, and in fact, if an independent laboratory finds a crucial gene without even remotely using Celera's work, Celera can claim they own that gene! That lab does all the work and gets none of the benefits. It's a private tax. Plain and simple.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
The high cost of Health Care in the US is due, in huge part, to the costs of prescription maintenance drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are the worst abusers of the patent system for using it to leech enormous profits off the medical illnesses of our citizens.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
If a company has exclusive rights to research something that has the potential to affect us all, we should ALL be able to sue them for impeding our ability to 'pursue happiness', is that not in the Constitution? Perhaps they are not the best ones to conduct the research (for the interests of humanity) and the patent prevents anyone else from doing so, potentially hurting all of humanity. Talk about a 'class action' lawsuit!
"Ummmm..."
Jesus Christ, did anyone actually READ the fucking press release? They didn't patent anything, they licensed the patent from the Medical College of Wisconsin. Further, it appears that the biggest and most important part of their patent is a genetic test that can test for hereditary deficiencies.
As well, they misquoted the press release. Intentional or not? You decide.
Did anyone bother emailing them to ask about their technology before declaring a price on their head? Probably not. Did the editor? Hell no.
We do not have a controlled experiment for this. there is no patent exempt, but otherwise similar, pharmaceutical industry to compare against. You have no way to know if the drug would not exist in the absence of patents. we can verify from history that some drugs have been discovered and marketed before patents existed.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
I'm a firm believer that patent (and copyright) lifetimes should be linked directly to the innovation happening in that field. Hopefully promoting lengths that allow companies to recoup their costs and make some profit, but still make it possible for the works to enter the public domain within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, as long as governments are firmly within the grasp of corporate owned special interest groups, the age of insane patents and eternal copyright may not end anytime soon.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
The testing part may not be as easy to disprove, but a blanket patent on the genes for red/green color blindness is impossible due to prior art. Even excluding the living population of this planet, all you would have to do to prove prior art is to find a deceased corpse who had the same color blindness!
-- Terry
"
>Why is the third not publishing if the first two are?
This is law, not science. You can't start from general principles and extrapolate specifics in law the same way you can in science. It's a common mistake made by scientists/engineers/etc. when trying to understand law.
"
Scientists generally believe everything should work in a logical fashion without self-contradiction and tend to search out and test borderline / interesting cases. The also tend to believe that similar situations should behave the same way.
Maybe if lawyers asked scientists questions more often then the laws would make more sense and all work in the same way.
Anyway, your answer was "because it's not" which frankly is a dumb way to decide what the law should be.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Can i get a patent on a pair of lips, my a$$, and a combination of the two?
      I just don't get this whole thing. It sounds as though ANY HTML enabled web browser is now an infringement on a copyright agreement...what a load of crap!
      As for genetic patents, companies have already found genetic defects responsible for some diseases, and they have patented these things. Just a good way to make money off of human suffering. Business as usual
from their own press release: ColorMax acquired a broad patent license covering the human genes for color vision from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The patent also covers a revolutionary test for color blindness based on a simple analysis of the actual genes that cause the problem.
They patented the genes AND the test for the disease.
On a different topic, wouldn't there be prior art...like God?
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
I'm color blind :)
-m
Dear God, thank you for Ziggy comics, little baby ducks, and 'Sweatin' to the Oldies,' volumes one, two and four.
"My right to breathe clean air"?
Sorry, positive rights don't exist. You have no more entitlement to clean air than you have to a Boeing 747. If there were no clean air to go 'round in the first place (but no acts of pollution in progress), you couldn't complain that your rights were being violated by anyone, could you? What you DO have is a right to property. If someone pollutes your air, they violated your property rights; if they pollute public air, then they violated the property rights of the general public and should be damn well be sued by the government (as keeper of public property) under tort law (for treble damages if they were aware of their offense).
I also take issue with your entire contention that "corporate rights" are being favored. There's no difference between human rights and corporate rights. Show me one place in the DMCA where it states that "only corporations shall be able to prosecute under these laws". The (extra, abusive) powers given to corporations are given to individuals as well -- only problem is that very few individuals are able to exercise them. It isn't a corporate-first attitude, it's a rich-first attitude; the corporations just happen to be the ones with the money right now.
Corporations aren't at fault. Corporations alone don't threaten your rights because, unassisted by government, they can't. The government threatens your rights when it lends its power to the rich. There are two means of resolving this issue: Restrain the rich, or restrain the government. You favor the first. I favor the second.
It's government-passed laws (like the DMCA, or the law which permitted the MBTA-producing company to sue over "damage to business") that are dangerous to individuals. Restrict the government via a strictly interpreted and enforced Constitution, and corporations no longer have this unfair means of gaining power.
Let me ask you a question: Can you name any instance in which a corporation legally violated an individual's rights (not positive rights, I don't acknowledge that those exist) except through operation of government?
I've asked this question many times, but haven't been given an example yet.
Mind you, he's not the only one who they have sued, these fuckheads go from major companies (GM, Toyota, Intel) and ask for licensing fees for using their patent (pretty much extort money from them). Over 10 cases have been settled out of court and this company has quite a few $
A quick look at the employees shows a bunch of fucking lawyers who specialize in buying patents and enforcing them. There are no techies among them, nor any scientists, nor anyone who has a clue about the real world.
Oh... One more thing, their page fucking sucks. I'd expect more from the gods that patented http.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
If something was observed/discovered/"found in nature" then it was not "invented" AND SHOULD NOT BE PATENTABLE.
:)
"Cave man" looks up moon and gives it a name.
"Modern man" looks up at moon and patents it with patent registration number 123635343450489.
Imagine if Christopher Columbus was allowed to patent "Discovering America" or Einstien his work on splitting the atom or some stupid company could patent the human genome... oh wait: SHIT!
I think perhaps the answer is that patent registration cost 10,000+ dollars for company's
and have to be paid to patent office even if the patent gets rejected. For individuals citizens [with no corporate affiliation in patent] would not have to pay that much.
1) This would give the private inventor a chance against big companies
2) while detering those same big companies from making stupid patent claims
3) And give the patent office less incentive to accept any patents.
Right now I believe the patent office ONLY gets paid if they accept a patent. This just gives the PO every reason to just screw it and have everything be patented.
I miss the Karma Whores.
As much as I hate to suggest doing anything that might actually add to the patent frenzy, it seems like it might actually be time to create a free patent library, and patent everything immaginable.
/.'ers think?
The idea would be to collect a library of patents questionable or not on everything that Free Software enthusiasts can think of. The patents would be licenced free to Free projects, but at a royalty for Commercial project.
Of course it will cost money. IP lawyers are expensive. Specifically it would cost a lot of money to get started, however once the FPF was actually awarded a patent for anything useful perhaps royalties charged to corporate users could probably pay the bills quite nicely.
Maybe some IP lawyer could take it on speculation? I seem to recall one in Chicago that writes for a punk rock fanzine and might be approachable... More on that later...
What do you
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
We have to make very painful decisions!
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
Technically, discoveries and solutions considered obvious to practicioners of the art/trade in question aren't patentable under current patent law. This should include existing genes and the brick under the tire you mentioned. It's just that the US patent office has forgotten their own rules.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
IANAL, but from what I've read there, it sounds like its "using a filename to launch a program". How is that patentable? Or did Multics, et al, do that sort of thing holistically, without actually using the filename to scan for inodes?...
Of course, prior art and obviousness seem to mean nothing in the computer world these days.
On a somewhat related track: People on slashdot mentioned recently that journals/repositories/etc should be set up to collect "prior art" for every obvious damn thing we can thing of. I would find it only mildly ironic if this actually would get Microsoft out of a bind. :)
This might be reduntant, I don't know, but it seems to me that this company patented the "rights to further research" on the genes that cause color blindness. Basically if you are a scientist and want to cure color blindness, youb will have to pay this company royalties. I still think that is f*****d up only because genes have existed in nature for millions of years, no one can "own" them or "own" rights to research them. But because this has happened, now it is proved that anyone can patent any part of the human genome.
A clever disguise, Senator Hatch, but we all still remember your anonymous posts about the benefits of extending the Claritin patent...
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
The eye patent? They didnt make the gene. They should be entitled to the patent. They didnt invent it. There are lots of theorys about where we came from but none of those gods have filed a patent and if they did im sure they wouldnt want to deal with the US patent office.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
You should be able to patent gene-therapies for genetic conditions (ie here's a drug that will fix your genetic red-green colour blindness) but surely not the genes themselves
Even if there is a God, and the earth was created, then there's 6000 years of prior art. My belief (atheism) says different, but then there is even more.
I thought patents had to be simple, elegant, and non-obvious. Genes have two (simple and elegant) but non-obvious is not one of them. If you can sequence genes, and sample large populations intelligently, you can find out what pretty much any gene does. This, to me at least, is obvious (even though the technology for sequencing is something outside my personal expertise, I know people who can do this).
Mind you: genes aren't going to obsolete in a hurry. And patents only have a limited lifespan.
... and today's pet project has
patent: 1. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time. ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=pat ent )
Wouldn't that then be God or nature (depending on your theology)?
So does mean that if you have a child that is colour-blind, that they can sue you for infringement?
Geez. Considering how stupid some of the patents that get granted, I might as well submit a patent application for a "patent". Who knows, maybe the drones at the USPTO might self destruct while trying to figure out this recusive loop.
I think the appropriate person to claim prior art would be my mother. Wait till she tells all of her friends at bridge that she's a big time inventor!
Everything's been downhill since the TRS-80
Can I sue these guys for my condition? Do they realize what misery is being created by their 'invention'? Drawing on the 'Racism at Microsoft' example, I think 5 billion (each) might cover it.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
I am beginning to hate patents with a vengance.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
It would seem that anyone who is color-blind, and was born before this patent was filed, could claim prior art, no?
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html
Shouldn't they have to license that from GOD?
-------
Username taken, please choose another one.
Isn't DNA a perfectly good data-storage medium? If it can be published on a computer disk, what's wrong with a nice, compact mollecular form. We've dug up enough 50,000 year old men to predate just about anyone's patents.
IANAL, but couldn't you sue them for making a faulty product? They own the rights to a faulty gene, so doesn't the "lemon-laws" of several states somehow cover their now patented "product"?
Maybe the US Patent Office should take the year off and go back into the real world. Maybe they'll find their common sense they lost so many years ago. Of course, you can say that about anybody in government service (especially congressmen).
If anybody should receive the patent on genes, it should be God. He created them.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Wow, a simple hidden text message amid some coloured circles can now be used to send people to jail for patent infringements!
Read the patent. This statement is misleading. They have no proprietary right to the gene in its basic form, only the specific application of genetic knowledge as described in the claims of the patent. Nothing more.
IMHO, the human genome should not be patentable, nor should any individual gene or group of genes. If current genetic patents continue, then we might only be 20 years away from an X-Men scenario.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Here's a suggestion. Make patents available only for unique ideas that don't fall under the category of evolution (human or commercial) and aren't obvious solutions. Putting a brick under the tire of a car to keep it from rolling down the hill should not be patentable, even if you design a special block to fit the need.
Human genes should not be considered patents. Why should the companies researching those genes get any protection? Can I get a patent on the AIDS virus, leaving only me to do research on it, making me the only one to profit from a cure?
This is synonymous with calling shotgun for a ride in your friends new car. And doesn't the reservation of genes eliminate any possible competition? Everybody is just getting a little too greedy. Actually genes should just be licensed under GPL.
I can guarantee that not one reader has passed these links on to others outside slashdot.
/. promising to boycott Sony) and the next day everyone has moved on to some other subject and forgets about the prior or does a whole 180 and starts pumping up a product (PSX2) without any mention of the previous posts.. C'mon slashdot. Lets shape up and start being more pro-active!
WHAT BULLSHIT! I for one tell at least 5 people everyday to look at NUMEROUS articles on slashdot. My number one conversation mover is to talk about the stories that are slashdot. I spread the word of all these, YRO, Patent, Space(gotta love nasa) to as many people that will listen. I have even printed out some of these articles and mailed them to users without computers! Who the hell are you to guarantee something about another person. That makes you no better then the patenters themselves.
But I do agree with you in one area. WE NEED TO DO MORE. Slashdot has become a bunch of Cause-eds (PCU) one day we're bitching and moaning about something (ie: the comments made from Sony's VP that had 90% of
Not to say that such is the case here, but to just shoot a broad generality at you... A lot of pharmaceutical companies are patenting various genetic items. These are useful in finding a cure for whatever condition... however, a pharmaceutical company would cut their own throat if they actually CURE anything. Why not patent the researchable material to discourage others from trying to cure what you profit from treating the symptoms of? Obviously this doesn't so much apply to color blindedness. Hrm... maybe cancer though? How much Listerine would we sell if they cured gingivitis and halitosis? Yep, they're outta business.
-
http://www.bustpatents.com
You think Aharonian's a hero? You don't know the half of it - he's being sued by an intellectual property holding company for patent infringement. The basis of their suit include such claims as the accusation that Aharonian Read about it in Patent Fight Pending.Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
sure I'll defendt them. Not all software patents are defensable however.
Although it causes us pain, LZW and RSA are both defenseable patents. They are useful, and they were discovered. Someone went through effort to discover those algorythms, and that should be rewarded. Copyright works, but copyright protects a specific implimentation. Patents are broader but don't last as long.
An arguement can (should) be made that because comptuers are new we should not yet allow patents because there are so many easy and obvious algoryithms that have not been found yet. Patents should reward significant effort to create something invative, not something that wasn't needed before but is now. Before the invention of gears (Or maybe it was something else but lets use gears) there was no need for patents because there was so little that could be done. Once we had gears there were many obvious things to build. AFter a few years someone working for years on end devolps something complex, only to have someone else copy it. The first person did all the work, he is the one who should be rewarded for the work, not any latter person who is smart enough to make a copy but not create to begin with. Once the point is reached that complex algorithms are all that we patent, then we need that protection, until then we don't.
Unfortunatly the patent system doesn't differentiate important. If the machine above also contained the discovery of oval gears, that would be worth more protection then the machine, because the gears are useful in many more ways. (Oval gears have existed for years, they are difficult to get right, but they do have advantages in some situations.
Does anyone have a better explanation?
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
--
Many moons ago I collected what I thought were particularly cogent articles both in favour or against software patents. Here are the two best ones in favour of software patents:
1) Colormax did not acquire the patent. They "exclusively licensed" the patent from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
2) According to the press release, the patent involved covers both "the human genes responsible for common, hereditary, red-green colorblindnes," and "a revolutionary test for color blindness based on a simple analysis of the actual genes that cause the problem."
So it's still a dumb patent, but be sure to include institutions of higher learning within range of your flamethrowers for stupid shit like this. I can see patenting the test...but the genes? Hell, probably 1/4 of our species is prior art. It's not as if they artificially created the gene (like in some biotech industry patents); they just found it.
I'm sure if Newton discovered gravity today, he'd just be a doctor at Cambridge, and the school would immediately patent it. What a fscked-up world this is.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Is it just me, or is that second patent basically a patent on using MIME typing?
The patent is for "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document" Translated from patent-ese to english, this means using a MIME type (i.e. text/html) to determine what application can interpret the data. Netscape was doing this long before 1998.
Of course, the generality of the patent makes it just "type data" instead of "MIME type" So it would also include extensions, and how long has Windows been associating extensions with programs? Since version 3 as i recall. This just adds a network to the equation. So the file is downloaded instead of being created on the local machine, is that really enough of a difference that it can be patentable? I think not.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
[I've said this before when the US patent system has been the topic of a posting.]
The length of time for patent protection of inventions should be shortened from 17 years to 17 months.
On 2nd thought, with the ridiculousness factor increasing so fast, perhaps the time protection should be shortened to 17 seconds.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
According to the patent they applyed for this in 1994. lets see this is just 10 years after the mac and 8 after windows which both do just this, not to mention MIME which also can do this.
As far as I can tell the major "inovation" is that they do this in hypertext but I think that goopher did this too. There is some much ovious prior art here its not funny. I don't now is hypercard could lanch other applications does anyone remember?
Grey (Chris Lusena)
The suit that MS is involved in seems really stupid to me. Doesn't this patent basically describe MIME types?
-Ben
Say what you mean, mean what you say! But please know what #$@% you are talking about!
No they haven't. They are lawyers and they are playing this game for themselves. They are trying to change the rules.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Repeat after me people:
GENES ARE NOT PATENTABLE
No one has ever patented a gene, but people have, like in this case, patented various tests and processes that are BASED on genes. These are completely different, the this misconception, while it does stir up attention, leads to people being completely misinformed about this issue.
Slashdot, of all places (well..) should know better than to continue leveraging hype off of this misconception. And from the looks of the other comments, people actually still think you CAN patent genes. You can't, anymore than I can patent a tree. Get with it.
If so, get me some shares in that company. Yee haw!
Come to think of it, a few months ago, I used my browser to download and play DeCSS_source_read_aloud.mp3 . In doing so, it turns out I have violated not only the above-mentioned patent, but also the DMCA *and* the hotly debated Fraunhofer mp3 patent! A 3-in-one! Somebody better lock me up.
So I was looking at Colormax's website, and apparently they have "proprietary technology" which will "enhance color discrimination" in color-blind people. My question is, could this technology be modified so as to provide someone like me (non-colorblind) with tetrachromatic vision, or even pentachromatic vision? I can see it now: "Geordi La forge glasses sold here!" I'd buy it.
Aren't you dead?
If I patent X and Y chromosones, then I can charge licensing fees to all babies born after the patent takes effect, right? This has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Being spectrally-challenged (A PC term I heard for color blind), I am insulted. That means that this sham of a company is the only ones that will ever be helping this condition. My confidence is underwhelming.
Fast, cheap, correct. You get to pick two.
I could patent color, and then charge them a licensing fee.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
in a world without bounderies or fences, who needs Gates anyway?
Does this mean that everybody with Red-Green color blindness will have to pay ColorMax for the use of the genes?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Umm, I've found prior art. I work with a color blind guy.
Slashdot is infringing on the colorblindness patent. See the story on MS being sued for racism. So when we can expect the problems? Better yet, when can we expect the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters to be passed so we can start rounding up the colorblind world wide?!
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
Does this mean anyone who suffers from color blindness can be sued for patent infringement? "This person admittedly suffers from a form color blindness, your honor. My client owns the patent to said color blindness. The defendant has not paid any royalties to possess such color blindness, and is therefore guilty of patent infringement."
This patent-everything-we-can-think-of stuff got out of hand a long time ago. Now its just plain ridiculous.
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
You know, I think there may be more to this than is first apparent. With some of the silly business-model patents I've seen lately, this really isn't that much of a stretch. My real question is, if we're all so up in arms over patents, why hasn't something like this happened? It may well take a truly restrictive, ridiculous patent to make the patent office/corporacrats realize extending the reach of patents/IP law may not necessarily be in either their or the public's interest.
pharmaceutical industry is one area where the patent system actually works. We can see this by the phenomenal successes that it has seen in the last century, the majority of them on the drugs fron done by private companies
Your basic premise is that companies are actually responsible for these inventions - which is false. PEOPLE are really responsible for these inventions. In the entire history of man it was not until the last 150 years that this privately owned corporate monster was born. In the past these inventions occurred from the works of scholars and engineers - by people practicing their craft. It has only been recently that NO ONE can sustain themselves without being involved in a 'corporate' world. The ability for people to grow, live, work, love, laugh and all else is being subverted by the needs of 'corporations'.
Do you really think that without these corporate entities to take more than their share and exploit people's work for profit to be collected by the few we would have had less progress? If people were given more reward from their community (i dont mean simply more $$$$$$$) you'd find that people would work just fine towards these goals - and they would have an incentive to achieve them.
What you are failing to see is the basic, fundamental problem with our corporate-centric culture... there is ample evidence it DOES NOT WORK.. we need to fix the problems before the only answer is revolution...
The real question is whether you approve of patents at all. If you do, you cannot just eliminate software patents. Why? Because software and hardware are realistically inseparable. Any competent patent attorney (or layperson for that matter) can couch a software patent in terms of memories accessed and data displayed. Then, it sounds like hardware. So there is no easy solution to outlawing software patents.
Thalia
Read this guy's comment. Read this guy's sig. Put two and two together. Whatever.
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
Let me ask you a question: Can you name any instance in which a corporation legally violated an individual's rights (not positive rights, I don't acknowledge that those exist) except through operation of government?
Your question is nonsensical - as the governments role as the framer of those rights, no-one else could empower a corporation to do so. You suffer from the all too common problem of separating the people from the government, they are in concept, if not in practice, one and the same thing.
The governments role is to represent ALL the people, whilst a corporation is there to represent its shareholders. Making government accountable is not automatically the same as making it smaller.
.sig
Cryptnotic
My other first post is car post.
Why the fuck we agnostic /. readers must we always
support those pathetic christian integrists that
talk of God everytime they can't get an intelligent argument in any conversation...
Did you Read The (F'n) Article??
The genes weren't patented. The test process was. The PTO has problems, yes, but allowing the patenting of genes is not one of them.
I know that people get annoyed that they can patent things that already exist and that we all carry around with us, but I actually think that the pharmaceutical industry is one area where the patent system actually works. We can see this by the phenominal successses that it has seen in the last century, the majority of them on the drugs fron done by private companies. The fact that after a time, the knowledge becomes publically available softens the blow and makes up for the rather strange nature of these patents, at least for me.
Thanks for reading!
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
I just came to the realization that this absurd 'if it moves, patent it' stuff could be a force for good as well as evil. What we should have done is patent every idiotic copy-protection concept being floated (as per this SlashDot story) just to tie them up and make sure they're never used. Unfortunately, it looks like we're too late. Alas.
With all the patenting of such basic processes and ideas, perhaps someone should patent the process of rendering an idea or concept into a document suitable for submission to a patent office. Perhaps patent the business model/process for making money by acting as a patent lawyer who prepares patent documents.
Has anyone patented the business model of filing patents on software and/or business concepts and then going around getting licensing fees for such patents without actually producing anything of use otherwise? That sounds like a distinct, just-as-patentable business concept as some of these others out there. Or perhaps patent the business model of controlling information distribution through patenting decoding technology to prevent third parties from making their own decodes...
Well not really but it does ride the fence. http://www.heckel.org/Heckel/ACM%20Paper/acmpaper. htm#Confront
I read the article and it states they patented both the genes AND the test to find them.
The patent office is utterly worthless unless it stops this crap.