The aircraft shown on Iranian television today was not the American stealth drone that crashed in Iran last week, as the Iranian government claimed, but was likely just a model, U.S. officials told ABC News.
Minutes after a Pentagon spokesperson said that military personnel and others were examining the footage broadcast today of what appeared to be an undamaged stealth RQ-170 Sentinel, multiple U.S. officials said that based on inconsistencies with the design of the drone, along with clues from imagery of the actual drone's crash site, the drone shown was not the Sentinel. U.S. officials previously confirmed that an RQ-170 did, in fact, crash land somewhere in Iran.
Wrong. Plant breeders have been selling the results of their work since 1930 under plant patent protection per the plant patent act.
How the hell does is it ok for Luther Burbank and Thomas Edison to do it and suddenly not ok for a modern genetic engineer to do it?
35 U.S.C. Â 161: âoeWhoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.â
Analysis of Percy's crop show that it was 98% fucking percent Roundup resistant. The only way you can get that is by a carefully planned MULTIPLE dose of Roundup treatment plus segregation of the seed from the rest of the non treated crops Percy was normally growing and saving seed from.
OP claims that patenting use of facts is somehow beyond all reasonable bounds for patent material.
I point out that all patents in fact must cover use of facts for the patent material to actually work.
You reply patents can't cover facts.
I point out that the OP was talking about USE of facts, not facts per se.
You reply that patents constructed so that they EFFECTIVELY restrict facts by covering the sole use of facts should not be patentable subject material.
My reply -
Why should we restrict patents from covering a use of a fact that was hitherto useless knowledge? If some person was clever enough to discover a new fact and find a use for it, OR was able to find a use for a previously useless fact why should we punish him for his cleverness because nobody else was able to find a use for this fact? Aren't patents supposed to be based on novelty and un-obviousness? By making this restriction you eviscerate the idea of patents encouraging progress by restricting them to using facts for which there are already other uses. Now all of a sudden you can't use previously un-useful facts to build patentable inventions.
Complete BULLSHIT. The cases where Monsanto sued farmers all involve instances where farmers intentionally planted seed which they knew contained unlicensed genetic material. There has never been a case including the famous Monsanto vs Schmeiser where accidental pollination was the sole event.
I'm a patent holder. Twelve of them to be precise. In a field other than software. And you can bet that every time I read one of these patent articles on slashdot I get worked up - at the utter ignorance of most of the commentators regarding the US Patent system.
I have a question for you - you have expressed a opposition towards the current system in the US. And you have expressed disdain towards those who think democracy should be a spectator sport.
OK, HAVE YOU ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN A POLITICAL PROCESS TO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.
And don't give me BS about the process being rigged. Look at what happened to H.R.3261 after a few phone calls.
HD TV's calling is watching movies. Without commercials. A good setup is a huge upgrade over the disgusting experience of going to a theater.
Then you realize that you can also show the few made for TV shows worth watching (mostly done by the BBC) also without commercials you start to appreciate what that medium can achieve, and realize how broken the normal delivery is.
The problem is not so much that TV offerings are garbage, because that is not universal. The problem is that when the non-garbage is shown it is chopped to bits by commercials.
Netflix has decided that it ISN'T splitting off Qwikster.
And while their streaming costs for a title may be lower, the content they offer that way is about 10% of their total catalog. Per title streaming costs a lot more.
The problem is that throwing a few greedy bastards out on the street doesn't change anything - they just get replaced by other greedy bastards, and you get a depression as a side effect.
This is just a short term market manipulation which will let Pfizer maintain some of its profit over the next six months. As more generic manufacturers enter the market the price will drop to the point where it won't be worth while for them to continue this strategy.
They have a huge profit margin because of the stunning breakthrough they funded when they backed Bruce Roth.
Roth first synthesized atorvastatin in 1985. For the discovery, he received the 1997 Warner-Lambert Chairman's Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, the 1999 Inventor of the Year Award from the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, the 2003 American Chemical Society Award for Creative Invention, the 2003 Gustavus John Esselen Award for Chemistry in the Public Service, the 2005 Iowa State University Distinguished Alumni Award, and the 2006 Pfizer Global Research and Development Achievement Award.
Roth was named a 2008 Hero of Chemistry by the American Chemical Society (ACS).
The plot you referenced showed US specific numbers. Don't you think that growing globalization might mean that job creation might be happening outside the US??
Or maybe the fact that China's productivity growth being 3x that of the US might be causing this?
Slashdot Mirror
The aircraft shown on Iranian television today was not the American stealth drone that crashed in Iran last week, as the Iranian government claimed, but was likely just a model, U.S. officials told ABC News.
Minutes after a Pentagon spokesperson said that military personnel and others were examining the footage broadcast today of what appeared to be an undamaged stealth RQ-170 Sentinel, multiple U.S. officials said that based on inconsistencies with the design of the drone, along with clues from imagery of the actual drone's crash site, the drone shown was not the Sentinel. U.S. officials previously confirmed that an RQ-170 did, in fact, crash land somewhere in Iran.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-rq-170-sentinel-stealth-drone-shown-iran/story?id=15115781#.TuEsofJbeV0
Percy successfully sued Monsanto for contaminating his crops and collected damages.
What the heck is the problem?
Wrong. Plant breeders have been selling the results of their work since 1930 under plant patent protection per the plant patent act.
How the hell does is it ok for Luther Burbank and Thomas Edison to do it and suddenly not ok for a modern genetic engineer to do it?
35 U.S.C. Â 161: âoeWhoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.â
Yeppers.
Analysis of Percy's crop show that it was 98% fucking percent Roundup resistant. The only way you can get that is by a carefully planned MULTIPLE dose of Roundup treatment plus segregation of the seed from the rest of the non treated crops Percy was normally growing and saving seed from.
Yes but if Mickey Mouse gets written in more than half the time you will probably get better candidates the next time.
Let's go through this again.
OP claims that patenting use of facts is somehow beyond all reasonable bounds for patent material.
I point out that all patents in fact must cover use of facts for the patent material to actually work.
You reply patents can't cover facts.
I point out that the OP was talking about USE of facts, not facts per se.
You reply that patents constructed so that they EFFECTIVELY restrict facts by covering the sole use of facts should not be patentable subject material.
My reply -
Why should we restrict patents from covering a use of a fact that was hitherto useless knowledge? If some person was clever enough to discover a new fact and find a use for it, OR was able to find a use for a previously useless fact why should we punish him for his cleverness because nobody else was able to find a use for this fact? Aren't patents supposed to be based on novelty and un-obviousness? By making this restriction you eviscerate the idea of patents encouraging progress by restricting them to using facts for which there are already other uses. Now all of a sudden you can't use previously un-useful facts to build patentable inventions.
It is a nonsensical idea.
The GP post referred to the USE of facts. Not mere facts per se.
All patents are fundamentally the use of facts.
Complete BULLSHIT. The cases where Monsanto sued farmers all involve instances where farmers intentionally planted seed which they knew contained unlicensed genetic material. There has never been a case including the famous Monsanto vs Schmeiser where accidental pollination was the sole event.
I'm a patent holder. Twelve of them to be precise. In a field other than software. And you can bet that every time I read one of these patent articles on slashdot I get worked up - at the utter ignorance of most of the commentators regarding the US Patent system.
I have a question for you - you have expressed a opposition towards the current system in the US. And you have expressed disdain towards those who think democracy should be a spectator sport.
OK, HAVE YOU ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN A POLITICAL PROCESS TO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.
And don't give me BS about the process being rigged. Look at what happened to H.R.3261 after a few phone calls.
Logically that is a ridiculous statement. Anything technological must be based on the use of facts or it wouldn't work.
The development of a novel process or device with utility is simply the use of facts in a way that hasn't been previously accomplished.
I think that the real chances of winning a case involving reverse robocalls would be based on jury nullification.
HD TV's calling is watching movies. Without commercials. A good setup is a huge upgrade over the disgusting experience of going to a theater.
Then you realize that you can also show the few made for TV shows worth watching (mostly done by the BBC) also without commercials you start to appreciate what that medium can achieve, and realize how broken the normal delivery is.
The problem is not so much that TV offerings are garbage, because that is not universal. The problem is that when the non-garbage is shown it is chopped to bits by commercials.
Netflix has decided that it ISN'T splitting off Qwikster.
And while their streaming costs for a title may be lower, the content they offer that way is about 10% of their total catalog. Per title streaming costs a lot more.
That's ridiculous. I routinely get next day first class mail, including my Netflix disks.
I call bullshit on this. The US is a net FUEL i.e. refined oil product exporter, not net energy exporter.
The US imports FAR more energy than it exports and an increases in oil prices damage the economy.
Wot? Deflation is NOT a mechanism for recovery. It is a mechanism for a self accelerating collapse.
You have money in a bank savings account that you are expecting to grow faster than inflation?
The mind boggles.
The problem is that throwing a few greedy bastards out on the street doesn't change anything - they just get replaced by other greedy bastards, and you get a depression as a side effect.
I'd rather not have the depression, thanks.
Legally fraud is a form of theft, i.e. theft by deception.
This is just a short term market manipulation which will let Pfizer maintain some of its profit over the next six months. As more generic manufacturers enter the market the price will drop to the point where it won't be worth while for them to continue this strategy.
Atorvastatin is not one of the statins found in Red Rice not do Pfizer's patents affect the use or sale of Red Rice in the US.
They have a huge profit margin because of the stunning breakthrough they funded when they backed Bruce Roth.
Roth first synthesized atorvastatin in 1985. For the discovery, he received the 1997 Warner-Lambert Chairman's Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, the 1999 Inventor of the Year Award from the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, the 2003 American Chemical Society Award for Creative Invention, the 2003 Gustavus John Esselen Award for Chemistry in the Public Service, the 2005 Iowa State University Distinguished Alumni Award, and the 2006 Pfizer Global Research and Development Achievement Award.
Roth was named a 2008 Hero of Chemistry by the American Chemical Society (ACS).
The plot you referenced showed US specific numbers. Don't you think that growing globalization might mean that job creation might be happening outside the US??
Or maybe the fact that China's productivity growth being 3x that of the US might be causing this?
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci13-8/ci13-8.html
Pbbbbt. The tax decrease comes from providing services more efficiently, not stopping the service.
Very paternalistic and ignoring the fact that people are all different in how they approach their jobs.
Of course the lower level workers will ignore any such edicts due to their own French individualness.