I agree with everyone that it's ridiculous to patent a gene whent he company did nothing other than see that the gene's there. However, I don't think that you would make much money selling a cure for cancer that you invented, if it were just a pill without a patent.
While you would have to charge a significant amount for it because you'd have to recoup the money spent developing it, other companies could sell it dirt cheap because they have no prior investment to recoup.
Nobody would be likely to buy from you.
My ideal gene patent system: A company can patent drugs or processes that affect a particular gene for 5 years or so.
This is not to say that I support gene patenting.. but I believe the reason for it is to provide an incentive for companies to research genes. If there was no such thing as a gene patent, then it would probably be much longer before we got a cure for cancer and whatever other genetic diseases there are.
And since a lot of companies started expensive gene researching under the impression that they could patent the genes, it would be pretty cruel to reject their patents (to the companies and their stockholders.)
Perhaps a good compromise would be to limit the patents to 5 years or so?
I've always thought that humans should be removed from fighter planes simply because they can't handle the G's... I've seen videos of pilots gasping and passing out in the cockpit. Seems silly to take that risk... the plane could fly faster and turn sharper without a human's weight and fragility.
Basically you cannot simply throw money at someone an expect "innovation", it's simply something people come up with on the spur of the moment.
The majority of innovations are not brought about by some guy sitting on his couch suddenly yelling "eureka!". And copyright law does not inhibit these, anyways.
Innovations like a cure for cancer or aids, or a new type of metal, are brought about by millions of dollars of research, which narrow down possibilities and lead to the actual innovation. If the companies did not have rights to what they innovated/invented, then they would have no reason/incentive to spend the millions in research.
Where it might take lots of money is in creating a product from an inovative idea.
Yes, this takes a lot of money, but getting to the idea can also cost a lot of money.
Maybe copyright should then be tied to the terms investors consider reasonable.
Although this is not totally out of the question, it would probably not work. Few investors would voluntarily want their copyrights or patents to be taken away after a certain amount of time. The rules must be defined before money is invested.
AFAIK none would want to tie up their money for nearly a century.
What?
Well, first of all don't say "No"... I said that it would isolate it, and that it would only alter *that state's* electoral votes. And that's accurate.
One point is that *my* state's votes are not tampered with, and that the other states' votes are their business.
Another point is that millions and millions of votes could have been changed in certain states in the electoral college system and it would have *no* effect, while in the popular vote system if every vote will *always* change the results.
There are some drawbacks, but I think that both the fraud isolation potential and the protection and encouragement of states' rights and power, more than makes up for the drawbacks.
copywrite law exists to ensure that there's an incentive for development. It costs millions to develop an OS, or a drug, or the design for a new car. If there was no protection for these, and therefore less return on their investment, there would be millions lost, and there would be *much* less incentive to innovate.
If you think that a company's product is useless or overpriced, then don't buy it. Nothing lost; without the copyright law, that option probably wouldn't even exist.
And if you think you can develop this thing and that it shouldn't cost money, go ahead and GPL it. Once again, nothing lost.
The only disadvantage is that if something is already copyrighted, and you develop it yourself not realizing that it already existed, you cannot sell it or even GPL it. Can anyone think of a way around this?
-----------
Agree with this? It'd pay to check out
http://www.lp.org/, the libertarian party.
Another nice thing is it isolates voter fraud. If one state is terribly fraudulent and inaccurate, the only results it changes are the state's own electoral votes.
My problem with Nader is that every idea he supports is backed up by a flood of funds that come out of *my* pocket. If I want to support a cause, I'll do it myself, I don't need him to choose which charities/causes I support.
Also, if the government funds a program, even if it's open-source, then it has control over that program because it can withdraw funds whenever the program doesn't do what the gov't wants it to.
Don't believe me? Just look what the federal gov't does when it wants to change laws it has no control over like drinking age, road issues, etc... it withdraws funding and the states inevitably comply.
Check out a party build on principles- Libertarian
This is the only way I could think of it happening: The light from a candle (or, actually, probably a laser) would hit a mirror at such at angle that it got reflected back to *almost* the same spot, then *almost* the same spot on the other mirror, and then *between* the first two spots on the first mirror, and eventually it would all be funnelled kindof into one thin line. Kindof like when we put the automatic pool cleaner in my pool, and at first it works, but then it just goes straight across and back, and we have one clean strip, and crap across the rest of our pool.
This way, the light would never actually hit the candle/laser/whatever.
However, they say it is an *almost* perfect mirror. This means that it's not really perfect, and even if it reflects. 99.999999999999999999% of the light, with the speed that light moves it would all be gone in a fraction of a second. (probalby, it's summer, I refuse to do the real math.)
And, btw, to test if the light was there, you just stick your hand in the box. If there's a blinding flash of light and your hand turns black and charred, it worked.
Slashdot Mirror
While you would have to charge a significant amount for it because you'd have to recoup the money spent developing it, other companies could sell it dirt cheap because they have no prior investment to recoup.
Nobody would be likely to buy from you.
My ideal gene patent system: A company can patent drugs or processes that affect a particular gene for 5 years or so.
------------
The libertarian party
And since a lot of companies started expensive gene researching under the impression that they could patent the genes, it would be pretty cruel to reject their patents (to the companies and their stockholders.)
Perhaps a good compromise would be to limit the patents to 5 years or so?
-------
Libertarian party
I've always thought that humans should be removed from fighter planes simply because they can't handle the G's... I've seen videos of pilots gasping and passing out in the cockpit. Seems silly to take that risk... the plane could fly faster and turn sharper without a human's weight and fragility.
The majority of innovations are not brought about by some guy sitting on his couch suddenly yelling "eureka!". And copyright law does not inhibit these, anyways.
Innovations like a cure for cancer or aids, or a new type of metal, are brought about by millions of dollars of research, which narrow down possibilities and lead to the actual innovation. If the companies did not have rights to what they innovated/invented, then they would have no reason/incentive to spend the millions in research.
Where it might take lots of money is in creating a product from an inovative idea.
Yes, this takes a lot of money, but getting to the idea can also cost a lot of money.
Maybe copyright should then be tied to the terms investors consider reasonable.
Although this is not totally out of the question, it would probably not work. Few investors would voluntarily want their copyrights or patents to be taken away after a certain amount of time. The rules must be defined before money is invested.
AFAIK none would want to tie up their money for nearly a century.
What?
Well, first of all don't say "No"... I said that it would isolate it, and that it would only alter *that state's* electoral votes. And that's accurate.
One point is that *my* state's votes are not tampered with, and that the other states' votes are their business.
Another point is that millions and millions of votes could have been changed in certain states in the electoral college system and it would have *no* effect, while in the popular vote system if every vote will *always* change the results.
There are some drawbacks, but I think that both the fraud isolation potential and the protection and encouragement of states' rights and power, more than makes up for the drawbacks.
copywrite law exists to ensure that there's an incentive for development. It costs millions to develop an OS, or a drug, or the design for a new car. If there was no protection for these, and therefore less return on their investment, there would be millions lost, and there would be *much* less incentive to innovate.
If you think that a company's product is useless or overpriced, then don't buy it. Nothing lost; without the copyright law, that option probably wouldn't even exist.
And if you think you can develop this thing and that it shouldn't cost money, go ahead and GPL it. Once again, nothing lost.
The only disadvantage is that if something is already copyrighted, and you develop it yourself not realizing that it already existed, you cannot sell it or even GPL it. Can anyone think of a way around this?
-----------
Agree with this? It'd pay to check out
http://www.lp.org/, the libertarian party.
Another nice thing is it isolates voter fraud. If one state is terribly fraudulent and inaccurate, the only results it changes are the state's own electoral votes.
My problem with Nader is that every idea he supports is backed up by a flood of funds that come out of *my* pocket. If I want to support a cause, I'll do it myself, I don't need him to choose which charities/causes I support.
Also, if the government funds a program, even if it's open-source, then it has control over that program because it can withdraw funds whenever the program doesn't do what the gov't wants it to.
Don't believe me? Just look what the federal gov't does when it wants to change laws it has no control over like drinking age, road issues, etc... it withdraws funding and the states inevitably comply.
Check out a party build on principles- Libertarian
This is the only way I could think of it happening:
The light from a candle (or, actually, probably a laser) would hit a mirror at such at angle that it got reflected back to *almost* the same spot, then *almost* the same spot on the other mirror, and then *between* the first two spots on the first mirror, and eventually it would all be funnelled kindof into one thin line.
Kindof like when we put the automatic pool cleaner in my pool, and at first it works, but then it just goes straight across and back, and we have one clean strip, and crap across the rest of our pool.
This way, the light would never actually hit the candle/laser/whatever.
However, they say it is an *almost* perfect mirror. This means that it's not really perfect, and even if it reflects. 99.999999999999999999% of the light, with the speed that light moves it would all be gone in a fraction of a second. (probalby, it's summer, I refuse to do the real math.)
And, btw, to test if the light was there, you just stick your hand in the box. If there's a blinding flash of light and your hand turns black and charred, it worked.