In related news, Intel has also begun trademark infringement proceedings against 784 million 'Jon Doe's for more trademark infringement. Says one Law Hacedor, 'It's the principle. The primary motivation for our ____ inside trademark, in lieu of the more specific (noun) inside trademark, is our initial original idea that what is inside makes a difference. Imagine, millions of people are infringing on the Intel trademark by using the phrase 'Look Inside'. Every day it happens again--whether it is a computer, or a box, a house, an envelope, or anything that could possibly have an inside, our _______ inside trademark is obviously being infringed, and now we must protect it... We have spent billions of dollars building the concept of an inside, as opposed to an outside, and feel that we finally can claim all of the many insides..."
Stock in Intel has dropped an $1.93 since the announcement, and Eldum Bint, an analyst, commented, "Just imagine, changing all those dictionaries...". Meanwhile, dictionary publishers have seen a small increase in stock prices.
Of the geneticists who said they intentionally withheld data regarding their published work, 80 percent reported it required too much effort to produce the requested information, 64 percent said they were protecting the ability of a student or junior faculty member to publish and 53 percent said they were protecting their own right to publish further findings
No, 80% SAID that it was either too much effort, they were protecting the ability of a junior member to publish, or their own right to further publishing.
Since when has the scientific community assumed that once you publish on a topic you have a further right to publish more? Since when is not sharing science helping anyone else publish? Furthermore, just publishing your methods does not prohibit future PhD students from using them. What it does allow is future PhD students that are unaffiliated with you to check and perhaps contradict your results.
And since scientists are apparently withholding information that relates to their research, why assume that they are perfectly honest with reguards to disclosing their reasons? Perhaps the summary really should say that 80% say it would take too much work--above and beyond the patent application.
Slashdot Mirror
In related news, Intel has also begun trademark infringement proceedings against 784 million 'Jon Doe's for more trademark infringement. Says one Law Hacedor, 'It's the principle. The primary motivation for our ____ inside trademark, in lieu of the more specific (noun) inside trademark, is our initial original idea that what is inside makes a difference. Imagine, millions of people are infringing on the Intel trademark by using the phrase 'Look Inside'. Every day it happens again--whether it is a computer, or a box, a house, an envelope, or anything that could possibly have an inside, our _______ inside trademark is obviously being infringed, and now we must protect it... We have spent billions of dollars building the concept of an inside, as opposed to an outside, and feel that we finally can claim all of the many insides..."
Stock in Intel has dropped an $1.93 since the announcement, and Eldum Bint, an analyst, commented, "Just imagine, changing all those dictionaries...". Meanwhile, dictionary publishers have seen a small increase in stock prices.
No, 80% SAID that it was either too much effort, they were protecting the ability of a junior member to publish, or their own right to further publishing.
Since when has the scientific community assumed that once you publish on a topic you have a further right to publish more? Since when is not sharing science helping anyone else publish? Furthermore, just publishing your methods does not prohibit future PhD students from using them. What it does allow is future PhD students that are unaffiliated with you to check and perhaps contradict your results.
And since scientists are apparently withholding information that relates to their research, why assume that they are perfectly honest with reguards to disclosing their reasons? Perhaps the summary really should say that 80% say it would take too much work--above and beyond the patent application.