Given the fact that the European patent-examiners are required to have a University degree (as opposed to their USPTO counter-parts), do you think the `quality' of the European patents is better due to this fact?
Or does the EPO have better standards and/or rules than the USPTO?
Just to put it in other words: do you think the quality of service is determined by the men or by the machine?
The cells having been removed at one time
from an actual human does not imply the cells
which have propagated are actually a part
of that same human. Remember you shed skin
cells by the dozens, loose hairs, etc. every
day again. And cells alone do not make a human.
The actual work done is _not_ by the human which
has donated/been ripped off its cells, but by
the researchers or analysts. This is
completely different from slave labour where
the work done _was_ in fact by these people being
sold
Bottom line: the donor did not add anything
substantial to the cells being propagated
apart from having it abstracted for her own
benifit (getting medical care) and thus
does not have right to any compensation.
The case of patenting genes is of a completely
different order. Here research is not rewarded
its "just" compensation through a patent,
but is effectively all FUTURE research being killed off.
This last fact can e.g. prohibit finding a cure
for a disease simply because it involves the
malfunction of a patented gene, and the patentees
do not find it cost-effective to do the research
themselves.
Bounty Hunters? Seems to me yet another
typical American (read USofA-n) solution.
But than again, I can just imagine how this
would work. Me and my laptop are happily
enjoying a nice vacation in France, and suddenly
I find myself tied in the back of a van waiting
for the next cargo flight to the USA --- just
because I had forgotten to wipe my MP3's....
There must be a better way.
There goes my karma...
Why oh why is everybody so paranoid
with respect to this topic?
First of all, the Netherlands are not
the US of A;) Things are (on a sociological level) quite different here!
But seriously, I think your comparison with WWII
goes somewhat lame, since it is quite a different
period in time, and quite a different level
of technological development with respect to
storage and protection of documents.
I personally think it is a very good idea to centralize information, especially if it is as
`sensitive' as this (with sensitive being very
relative, here). This is because decentralization
means more difficult (social) control over
the actual usage. Amd the best protection
of information is the socially
implemented protection; i.e. through laws and
regulations proposed and accepter
through a democratically controlled body.
But since the internet community may be anarchistic in its roots, they may find
this hard to swallow.
But just think about it: using only non-social (technological)
protection of information will ultimately develop
into an information monopoly for those who possess
the technology. And besides this, you implicitly put your trust into those who possess and control the technology -- which again can degenerate
into 1984-ish proportions. (Unless you ultimately
believe in the goodness of mankind, that is; to
which I only can say, clap in your hands like
a Zen buddist monk to remind yourself life is
much more complex than you ever imagined;)
Socially regulated protection can
balance this. On the one
hand you have the technological sophistication
to enforce and implement
control, but you are bound to socially
accepted parameters with respect to its usage
and thus (effectively) to its control.
Maybe this is all quite different in the
decentralized social contruct of the USA,
but on the mainland of Europe, this is
most definitely the best way to go
Slashdot Mirror
Given the fact that the European patent-examiners
are required to have a University degree
(as opposed to their USPTO counter-parts),
do you think the `quality' of the European
patents is better due to this fact?
Or does the EPO have better standards
and/or rules than the USPTO?
Just to put it in other words: do you think the
quality of service is determined by the men or
by the machine?
The cells having been removed at one time
from an actual human does not imply the cells
which have propagated are actually a part
of that same human. Remember you shed skin
cells by the dozens, loose hairs, etc. every
day again. And cells alone do not make a human.
The actual work done is _not_ by the human which
has donated/been ripped off its cells, but by
the researchers or analysts. This is
completely different from slave labour where
the work done _was_ in fact by these people being
sold
Bottom line: the donor did not add anything
substantial to the cells being propagated
apart from having it abstracted for her own
benifit (getting medical care) and thus
does not have right to any compensation.
The case of patenting genes is of a completely
different order. Here research is not rewarded
its "just" compensation through a patent,
but is effectively all FUTURE research being killed off.
This last fact can e.g. prohibit finding a cure
for a disease simply because it involves the
malfunction of a patented gene, and the patentees
do not find it cost-effective to do the research
themselves.
Regards,
Bounty Hunters? Seems to me yet another typical American (read USofA-n) solution. But than again, I can just imagine how this would work. Me and my laptop are happily enjoying a nice vacation in France, and suddenly I find myself tied in the back of a van waiting for the next cargo flight to the USA --- just because I had forgotten to wipe my MP3's.... There must be a better way. There goes my karma...
Fuck it. Let's nominate the kid for a Darwin award.
First of all, the Netherlands are not the US of A ;) Things are (on a sociological level) quite different here!
But seriously, I think your comparison with WWII goes somewhat lame, since it is quite a different period in time, and quite a different level of technological development with respect to storage and protection of documents.
I personally think it is a very good idea to centralize information, especially if it is as `sensitive' as this (with sensitive being very relative, here). This is because decentralization means more difficult (social) control over the actual usage. Amd the best protection of information is the socially implemented protection; i.e. through laws and regulations proposed and accepter through a democratically controlled body.
But since the internet community may be anarchistic in its roots, they may find this hard to swallow.
But just think about it: using only non-social (technological) protection of information will ultimately develop into an information monopoly for those who possess the technology. And besides this, you implicitly put your trust into those who possess and control the technology -- which again can degenerate into 1984-ish proportions. (Unless you ultimately believe in the goodness of mankind, that is; to which I only can say, clap in your hands like a Zen buddist monk to remind yourself life is much more complex than you ever imagined ;)
Socially regulated protection can balance this. On the one hand you have the technological sophistication to enforce and implement control, but you are bound to socially accepted parameters with respect to its usage and thus (effectively) to its control.
Maybe this is all quite different in the decentralized social contruct of the USA, but on the mainland of Europe, this is most definitely the best way to go
Regards,
If I recall, the gene is activated whenever the cell's DNA structure tends to get too old, measured with respect to the tail of the chromosomes.
Anyone got any idea whether this is the same thing?
<()>
Why then takes this more than ten hours?
My suggestion was a compromised server, since
the trace stopped dead somewhere in the states.
Hmmm...