I mean they stopped Office Max from merging with Staples, to avoid a monopoly in the "office super store" category, I would think that preventing a monopoly on Public information would be a top concern, right?
I submitted this story a couple of days ago, and it was rejected right away, but anyway I do think its a bad and creepy idea, The two companies together have so much potential to control the media that its genuinely frightening. And to think that they would actively censor there users E-mail like that only makes the situation worse.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
That's why I don't pity the Windoze users when they BSOD. (Or at least I try not to show any compassion.) They put money into Microsoft's pockets instead of hiring good people.
Yeh, but what about all us software pirates?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion, which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
Yes, that's exactly what I think. The best thing is to find a balance between the necessary capital incentive for development, and the cost of not allowing the ideas to go free.
Two possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis, or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs.
It's also important to remember that 3rd world countries can simply choose to ignore our patent claims. This is what South Africa (though not a 3rd world country, per se) Is doing with HIV suppressors.
The best solution I think is to try and tweak the situation we have until its optimal. Perhaps that's what this bill/law/whatever is trying to do, perhaps not. Of course, none of us can tell, because its written in some of the most obtuse legal-ees I've ever seen:P
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Ever heard of public institutions like universities I'm attending a university right now, as a matter of fact. One of the few with a genetics major. There spending most of there money researching corn DNA.
Think about the computer industry. Do you really think that all of the advancements that we have today would be here if we relied solely on Universities? 90% of the pure science aspects even come from corporations. IBM, Xerox, independent think-tanks are the innovators, not the EE departments of major universities (other then MIT, maybe)
The same is rapidly becoming true of the genetics industry. Sure, we could ban genetic patents, and let Universities do all the work, but I guaranty you not anywhere near as much work would be getting done.
Where exactly do you think the drugs that suppress HIV come from? I'll give you a hint it wasn't universities. Oh, and all those anti-viral agents are patented, btw. Do you think the companies that made them would have if they hadn't been able to make money?
as for Gibson's world, are you talking about the sprawl series, or the last three (the bridge series?)
I think he's dead on as far as the new books go, unfortunately (I'd say his old books are just to weird to use as predictions:P, I've only read Neromancer though).But that has more to do with the media, IMO then anything with genetics. Think About it, in Virtual Light, DJ Shapely's DNA was harvested by a Corporation to cure AIDS, not a university.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I guess I should apologies for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive.:)
Yes, that's the general Idea I've been trying to get across. At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you're going.
You can't apply rationality to nothing and end up with the best course of action, you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind. In this case, creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world).
I don't think that maximum corporate profits are a valid goal, in this field.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
3. Also in 740.13, to, in part, take into account the "open source" approach to software development, unrestricted encryption source code not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code can, without review, be released from "EI" controls and exported and reexported under License Exception TSU. Intellectual property protection (e.g., copyright, patent, or trademark) would not, by itself, be construed as an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code. To qualify, exporters must notify BXA of the Internet location (e.g., URL or Internet address) or provide a copy of the source code by the time of export. These notifications are only required for the initial export; there are no notification requirements for end-users subsequently using the source code. Notification can be made by e-mail to crypt@bxa.doc.gov.
Wow, thats certanly great, I hope this does pass.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents.
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly. When it comes to biotech, the faster advances are made, the more human lives are saved. If we have to wait 100 year, or even 25 for a cure that would have come about that many more hundreds of thousands of people will have to suffer through Alzheimer's disease.
I think we need to be pragmatic about this. What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Certainly some research would be done in genetics, but anywhere near the current rate without patents. By slowing down the research system, you would literally be killing people. I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Yes the situation you describe could happen, but let me propose another one
The patenting of genetic information is banned. Company X was about to start research on the DNA that does cause Alzheimer's. This research, if done, will result in a potential cure, however there projected costs for the project are $300 million dollars. Now, were they to do this research under your new proposed guidelines they wouldn't make any more money then the companies that didn't spend all that money, so they decide to scrap the idea, and decide to start researching new kinds of tastier corn.
Under the current situation, what you describe is possible, one company for about 17 years will be the only company that will be able to cure Alzheimer's disease. However, I believe this would be preferable to having no cure for Alzheimer's at all don't you?
You're not morally right if you not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
IIRC, patents do cover discoveries. Think about it though, if you couldn't patent discoveries how could anyone patent conventional drugs? They only consist of common chemicals, so there 'invention' is only the act of discovering there positive effect on the body (or there ability to get you high:P )
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I must admit first of all that I didn't actually read the article.
Well, then you are certainly qualified to comment on it, now aren't you.
Anyways, my feelings are strong on this subject. Flat out, companies should NOT be able to patent our DNA. DNA is should be part of the public domain. God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption.
DNA is not encrypted. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a genetic scientist, and I don't really understand exactly what it is that we are trying to patent. But I will agree that I don't think that companies should be allowed to patent genetic pattern that appears to be in a large number of humans already.
It is not something that we as a species can afford to allow to be locked away as Corporate Trade Secrets. Some day, the very existence of the species may depend upon this knowledge being as common and easily available as a Gideon Bible.
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge. The whole idea behind patents is to expand human knowledge by making it easier for a company to have a limited time monopoly on there discovery of invention, as opposed to trying to keep it trade secret.
Play a few hands of blackjack at www.GreatWorldCasino.com and let me know what you think of my Java Servlets!
Thank you for creating technology the sole purpose of witch is to cheat money from the stupid, and then having the audacity to claim the moral high ground.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Would you prefer it if pharmaceutical companies did not patent there discoveries, instead holding them as trade secret? If that were the case then the information would never become a part of human knowledge.
I don't think its to unreasonable to allow a company, if it finances its own research to claim genetic patents, however I do draw the line at patenting DNA witch is a majority of human beings. When a patent is filed it usually means that if it were not, that knowledge would simply not exist at all.
The genetic industry, much like the computer industry in past few decades is rapidly becoming a market driven system, meaning that most of the research and development in the field is going to be done by corporations rather universities. If a corporation cannot gain a competitive advantage by having spending the money to research, then it will not do research at all.
Rather then cause the genetic field to grow, it would do more to retard it. Imagine if no computer companies were allowed to gain patents. Do you honestly think that we would get any good new technology if we had to wait for it to come out of a university? We'd probably all still be using 5micron CPUs.
Under current law, a patent doesn't last forever, about 17 years (or 29 for a drug, I'm not sure what would apply here), I'd be willing to be that in a zero-intellectual property environment we probably wouldn't see the advance for at least that long
I think that its best for us to consider what will be the best course of action for the advancement of science, and the human race as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on what we believe to be the 'moral' course of action.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I have to think that the idea of patenting DNA is not necessarily the terrible idea that everyone makes it out to be. I agree that things like patenting the human genome is ludicrous, but we have to remember that most of us don't really understand how the Genetic field works. What we have to ask is how these changes will affect scientific research.
At first glance it may seem that any patents in the genetic field are bad for it, after all if one scientist can't build off what someone else has done, how can science move forward? But I don't believe that this is necessarily true, for instance would current genetic research get as much funding as it currently is no patents were granted at all? In my opinion it wouldn't. What's the point of "liberating" a scientific field if no one is paying for research?
Like many slashdot readers I don't really understand exactly how genetic patenting works. I'm pretty sure that as of now, there are almost no new genes being developed, only discoveries as to the effects of genes commonly found in nature. I've heard some of you say that patenting a "discovery" is against the idea of patents, but I don't think that definition holds to the Genetic industry anymore then it does to the pharmaceuticals industry. I mean, how can any new drug not be just a discovery of the effects of some certain compound on the human body.
I'm not saying that we should allow any kind of genetic patent, but at the same time I think that the idea of genetic patents is not completely without merit. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I like many of us not in the genetics field are not really qualified to say where that line should be drawn (or even where it would be possible to draw a line)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Graffiti was on the palm before palms were a product of USRobotics. USR purchased Palm Computing witch made Palm pilots, and before that Graffiti for the newton and other PDAs.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Pray tell, what of PARC's ideas were used in the Apple II?
I think your defintion of "PC" is a little narrow. In both the broad sense of "personal computer" and "IBM PC CLONE" a graphical user interface is required...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
So, basicaly what there doing is patenting anything they come up with, waiting for someone to come up with the same idea, and sue them? I'd say that's a load of crap, why would anyone want to work there?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Slashdot Mirror
Can the FTC stop this, do they have grounds to?
I mean they stopped Office Max from merging with Staples, to avoid a monopoly in the "office super store" category, I would think that preventing a monopoly on Public information would be a top concern, right?
I submitted this story a couple of days ago, and it was rejected right away, but anyway I do think its a bad and creepy idea, The two companies together have so much potential to control the media that its genuinely frightening. And to think that they would actively censor there users E-mail like that only makes the situation worse.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
That's why I don't pity the Windoze users when they BSOD. (Or at least I try not to show any compassion.) They put money into Microsoft's pockets instead of hiring good people.
Yeh, but what about all us software pirates?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion, which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
:P
Yes, that's exactly what I think. The best thing is to find a balance between the necessary capital incentive for development, and the cost of not allowing the ideas to go free.
Two possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis, or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs.
It's also important to remember that 3rd world countries can simply choose to ignore our patent claims. This is what South Africa (though not a 3rd world country, per se) Is doing with HIV suppressors.
The best solution I think is to try and tweak the situation we have until its optimal. Perhaps that's what this bill/law/whatever is trying to do, perhaps not. Of course, none of us can tell, because its written in some of the most obtuse legal-ees I've ever seen
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Ever heard of public institutions like universities I'm attending a university right now, as a matter of fact. One of the few with a genetics major. There spending most of there money researching corn DNA.
:P, I've only read Neromancer though).But that has more to do with the media, IMO then anything with genetics. Think About it, in Virtual Light, DJ Shapely's DNA was harvested by a Corporation to cure AIDS, not a university.
Think about the computer industry. Do you really think that all of the advancements that we have today would be here if we relied solely on Universities? 90% of the pure science aspects even come from corporations. IBM, Xerox, independent think-tanks are the innovators, not the EE departments of major universities (other then MIT, maybe)
The same is rapidly becoming true of the genetics industry. Sure, we could ban genetic patents, and let Universities do all the work, but I guaranty you not anywhere near as much work would be getting done.
Where exactly do you think the drugs that suppress HIV come from? I'll give you a hint it wasn't universities. Oh, and all those anti-viral agents are patented, btw. Do you think the companies that made them would have if they hadn't been able to make money?
as for Gibson's world, are you talking about the sprawl series, or the last three (the bridge series?)
I think he's dead on as far as the new books go, unfortunately (I'd say his old books are just to weird to use as predictions
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I guess I should apologies for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive. :)
Yes, that's the general Idea I've been trying to get across. At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you're going.
You can't apply rationality to nothing and end up with the best course of action, you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind. In this case, creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world).
I don't think that maximum corporate profits are a valid goal, in this field.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
From the paper
3. Also in 740.13, to, in part, take into account the "open source" approach to software development, unrestricted encryption source code not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code can, without review, be released from "EI" controls and exported and reexported under License Exception TSU. Intellectual property protection (e.g., copyright, patent, or trademark) would not, by itself, be construed as an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code. To qualify, exporters must notify BXA of the Internet location (e.g., URL or Internet address) or provide a copy of the source code by the time of export. These notifications are only required for the initial export; there are no notification requirements for end-users subsequently using the source code. Notification can be made by e-mail to crypt@bxa.doc.gov.
Wow, thats certanly great, I hope this does pass.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Well, IIRC some proposal like this happened before, only to be bastardized in committee into something worse.
On the other hand, it may be passed to make Al Gore look better to all the High-tech companies that the DC whores all want to get into bed with
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents.
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly. When it comes to biotech, the faster advances are made, the more human lives are saved. If we have to wait 100 year, or even 25 for a cure that would have come about that many more hundreds of thousands of people will have to suffer through Alzheimer's disease.
I think we need to be pragmatic about this. What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Certainly some research would be done in genetics, but anywhere near the current rate without patents. By slowing down the research system, you would literally be killing people. I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
That doesn't make sense at all. There is no differentiation between "content" and "code" in DNA.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Yes the situation you describe could happen, but let me propose another one
The patenting of genetic information is banned. Company X was about to start research on the DNA that does cause Alzheimer's. This research, if done, will result in a potential cure, however there projected costs for the project are $300 million dollars. Now, were they to do this research under your new proposed guidelines they wouldn't make any more money then the companies that didn't spend all that money, so they decide to scrap the idea, and decide to start researching new kinds of tastier corn.
Under the current situation, what you describe is possible, one company for about 17 years will be the only company that will be able to cure Alzheimer's disease. However, I believe this would be preferable to having no cure for Alzheimer's at all don't you?
You're not morally right if you not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
We'll just patent the X chromosome.
:P
Or, maybe I should just patent the X chromosome and force everyone to pay me royaltys. twice as much from the woman
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Is imposible for me to make heads or tails of.
I think andover should take some of ther much-buckos and pay a patent lawyer to read over this and tell us what it actualy means...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
IIRC, patents do cover discoveries. Think about it though, if you couldn't patent discoveries how could anyone patent conventional drugs? They only consist of common chemicals, so there 'invention' is only the act of discovering there positive effect on the body (or there ability to get you high :P )
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I must admit first of all that I didn't actually read the article.
Well, then you are certainly qualified to comment on it, now aren't you.
Anyways, my feelings are strong on this subject. Flat out, companies should NOT be able to patent our DNA. DNA is should be part of the public domain. God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption.
DNA is not encrypted. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a genetic scientist, and I don't really understand exactly what it is that we are trying to patent. But I will agree that I don't think that companies should be allowed to patent genetic pattern that appears to be in a large number of humans already.
It is not something that we as a species can afford to allow to be locked away as Corporate Trade Secrets. Some day, the very existence of the species may depend upon this knowledge being as common and easily available as a Gideon Bible.
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge. The whole idea behind patents is to expand human knowledge by making it easier for a company to have a limited time monopoly on there discovery of invention, as opposed to trying to keep it trade secret.
Play a few hands of blackjack at www.GreatWorldCasino.com and let me know what you think of my Java Servlets!
Thank you for creating technology the sole purpose of witch is to cheat money from the stupid, and then having the audacity to claim the moral high ground.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Let me ask you something.
Would you prefer it if pharmaceutical companies did not patent there discoveries, instead holding them as trade secret? If that were the case then the information would never become a part of human knowledge.
I don't think its to unreasonable to allow a company, if it finances its own research to claim genetic patents, however I do draw the line at patenting DNA witch is a majority of human beings. When a patent is filed it usually means that if it were not, that knowledge would simply not exist at all.
The genetic industry, much like the computer industry in past few decades is rapidly becoming a market driven system, meaning that most of the research and development in the field is going to be done by corporations rather universities. If a corporation cannot gain a competitive advantage by having spending the money to research, then it will not do research at all.
Rather then cause the genetic field to grow, it would do more to retard it. Imagine if no computer companies were allowed to gain patents. Do you honestly think that we would get any good new technology if we had to wait for it to come out of a university? We'd probably all still be using 5micron CPUs.
Under current law, a patent doesn't last forever, about 17 years (or 29 for a drug, I'm not sure what would apply here), I'd be willing to be that in a zero-intellectual property environment we probably wouldn't see the advance for at least that long
I think that its best for us to consider what will be the best course of action for the advancement of science, and the human race as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on what we believe to be the 'moral' course of action.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I have to think that the idea of patenting DNA is not necessarily the terrible idea that everyone makes it out to be. I agree that things like patenting the human genome is ludicrous, but we have to remember that most of us don't really understand how the Genetic field works. What we have to ask is how these changes will affect scientific research.
At first glance it may seem that any patents in the genetic field are bad for it, after all if one scientist can't build off what someone else has done, how can science move forward? But I don't believe that this is necessarily true, for instance would current genetic research get as much funding as it currently is no patents were granted at all? In my opinion it wouldn't. What's the point of "liberating" a scientific field if no one is paying for research?
Like many slashdot readers I don't really understand exactly how genetic patenting works. I'm pretty sure that as of now, there are almost no new genes being developed, only discoveries as to the effects of genes commonly found in nature. I've heard some of you say that patenting a "discovery" is against the idea of patents, but I don't think that definition holds to the Genetic industry anymore then it does to the pharmaceuticals industry. I mean, how can any new drug not be just a discovery of the effects of some certain compound on the human body.
I'm not saying that we should allow any kind of genetic patent, but at the same time I think that the idea of genetic patents is not completely without merit. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I like many of us not in the genetics field are not really qualified to say where that line should be drawn (or even where it would be possible to draw a line)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Graffiti was on the palm before palms were a product of USRobotics. USR purchased Palm Computing witch made Palm pilots, and before that Graffiti for the newton and other PDAs.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Xerox didn't think up any of this crap. It was all an implementation of Douglass Egalbart's ideas.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
The apple hand writing sucked, and no one liked it. (accsept for you)
Palm's grafiti kicks ass and everyone likes it (acsept for you).
So Palm and Apple should team up, and create a product that you like, but everyone else hates... um, how 'bout no.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Pray tell, what of PARC's ideas were used in the Apple II?
I think your defintion of "PC" is a little narrow. In both the broad sense of "personal computer" and "IBM PC CLONE" a graphical user interface is required...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
So, basicaly what there doing is patenting anything they come up with, waiting for someone to come up with the same idea, and sue them? I'd say that's a load of crap, why would anyone want to work there?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
The Newton never used Graffiti, IIRC. Apple had a completely different technology that was called (I think) rosetta.
No, palm computing sold graffiti as a Newton application before they sold Palm Pilots
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Palm sold Grafiti For the Newton before they started selling Palm Piolots.
People talking about Grafiti for the Newton are refering to Palm computings software package for the newton, not Apples broken hadwriting recognition.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Graffiti was available as a 3rd party product for quite a while on the Newton
And who made Graffiti for the Newton? say it with me people "Palm!"
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
The os may not be cloned but the system is. Remember PCs used to be called "clones" to, even though they used a licensed OS
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",