I thought the maiar and the wizards (Istari) were different. Sauron is a maiar, but Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, etc. are not of that stature, but are one step below.
For an interesting question, speculate on where Tom Bombadil fits into all this. Is he maiar? Valar? Illuvatar him(it)self?
I think one objection to exporting computer technology is the capability it gives other countries to perform, among other things, detailed nuclear bomb test simulations. Much of the US nuclear program is now performed with computer models, using computing technology we protect from other countries.
Computers allow you (or are at least an integral part) to build things like rockets. I think that is the basic reason for limiting computing exports. Maybe it is no longer an issue, so Bush is lifting the bans. However, I do seem to remember lots of republicans lambasting Clinton for relaxing some tech export laws to countries like China, which was on this Bush list too....
Prosecutors don't even need good reasons to decline cases. They have prosecutorial discretion, and can basically pursue the cases they want and drop those they want. Abuse of prosecutorial discretion is very hard to prove, and even pretty hard to commit since they have broad discretionary powers.
Not sure why the DMCA in Dmitri's case is "false." It was passed by congress, no? And the DMCA is not limited only to corporate employers of people who violate the act. The individuals are certainly within the reach of the DCMA to charge. Not sure where you are getting these ideas. Who mods this stuff up? Why can't I make new memories?
If a US company has any assets in a foreign country, they are subject to jurisdiction in that country. At least the assets are. It is called "in rem" jurisdiction, if I remember rightly. Such assets can be used to satisfy any judgment a court of that land makes. If any company representatives shows up to defend the suit, then they have just agreed to personal jurisdiction there too.
The fact that the letter writer (1) is not a lawyer and (2) quotes from the abstract rather than from the claims of the patent bodes well for you. They might just be trying to bully you into stopping.
You must look at the claims. That is what determines the scope of a patent. The abstract cannot even be referred to in court for interpreting the claims--it is legally meaningless, and the fact that the letter writer pointed you to the abstract as evidence you are infringing indicates he/she has no legal patent knowledge, or else maybe that their claims are not that good and they are just trying to scare you. Look at the claims.
Re:Great, now we can't eat either
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 1
In Percy's case, I have not heard Monsanto offering him any apology or compensation for their contamination of his crop. Which is wrong. Wrong. And also wrong.
What exactly are Percy's damages based on? How did the seeds damage him? They did no damages. I am not really trying to argue that Monsanto is the good guy in this, or that patenting seeds doesn't present some problems. But I do think that Percy is not the best poster child for your side of the argument. Read the court opinion, it tells the facts of the case. If Percy had wanted the seeds removed, he could have called Monsanto. They have a hotline for just that purpose, and the opinion mentions that they have done exactly this (i.e., remove unwanted migrated patented seeds from other farmers fields who asked). Monsanto does this at their own cost, exactly as you suggested they do.
Percy did not ask for this. He knowlingly harvested the seeds and patented them. Just because they were on his land does not mean he owns them, especially the patented part. That would be like claiming that because a patented airplane fell on my property, I now have the right to assemble and sell similar patented airplanes--hey, one fell on my property! It's mine now! This is ridiculous. Possession of the chattel itself does not give you a right to violate IP rights embodied in that chattel.
I disagree with the "no matter how I look for it" part, because the company only had patented the method for finding teh gene, they did not have a patent on the naturally existing gene. No one can (legally) patent the naturally occurring gene.
If the episode said what you assert, the episode was misleading. Now I can see them thinking that, because the patented method is the only way to screen for the gene, then no matter what you have to pay the company to get the screening. This is true, but if so, then there is NO OTHER WAY to screen for the gene. In this case, why shouldn't the company get paid? You don't want them to develop gene screening techniques? Without the company, the person would not have been able to screen for the gene at all. They would be feeling for lumps instead.
I personally am willing to pay a royalty to have these methods available. The alternative is no research (or greatly retarded research) in this area.
Re:Great, now we can't eat either
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 1
Percy had no choice about having the Monsanto plants on his property, it was Monsanto's(and his neighbor's) fault for not containing the pollen that polluted his crop.
Percy knew in 1996 that some of his plants were from patented seeds. He harvested seeds from those plants and used them in one field in 1997. He used the seeds from that field to plant all his fields in 1998.
He knew from the beginning that he was using patented seeds. Other farmers who knew they had reoundup resistant plants on their farms called Monsanto. Monsanto came and removed the seeds. At their own cost. Percy did not call Monsanto. He knowlingly planted and sold the patented material. I don't see the problem here.
I need to stop reading about this. Some of the people here on slashdot need to start reading about it.
Please mod this down so no one can read it.
Re:Patent procedures must improve first
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 1
I am not against patenting seeds, but a clear yardstick should be applied for verifying claims before granting patent registration. And considering the track record of US patent office this is not happening.
I agree. Write your congressman and tell them to let the patent office keep the money they earn from fees, rather than siphoning that money away to other areas. When you strangle the PTO, you get a weak patent system. It ain't their fault. Last year the gubbament once again decided this appropriation of the PTO's fee earnings was acceptable. Write your congressman. I did. (And got back the standard "I too share your concern on X..." letter--about as satisfying as a vacant stare. Thanks Kay Bailey Hutchinson.)
Re:Royalties until you take a dump?
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 1
Will he be sued for selling the crop?
Yes he will indeed be sued. It's happening right now. See this link: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Your answer is either wrong or misleading. Go read the court opinion you cited for us. The defendant (the farmer) found some seed in 1996 that survived roundup spraying. He knew it was patented at that time. He harvested those seeds and used them to create his 1997 crop in one field. That field's seeds he harvested again, and used those seeds to plant every one of his fields in 1998. The 1998 use of patented seeds were the ones he was sued for.
At other parts of the court's opinion, the judge mentions that other farmers who had found patented plants on their property did not act as Schmeiser did. Schmeiser harvested the seeds, mixed them, and replanted--two consecutive years and in such a way that every field he had the second year had something like 50% to 70% patented plants--depending on which side you believe. The farmer knowlingly selected those seeds. Monsanto claims they found out about him becasue he was bragging around town about the fact that he was using patented seeds without paying for them.
The other people who had found such plants volunteering on their land told Monsanto about it. Monsanto came and removed the plants at their own expense.
So farmers who had seed blown into their fields (which has happened) were *not* sued. Monsanto themselves paid to remove the offending plants. The only farmer that was sued was the one who harvested the seeds for a few years and eventually was planting his whole crop with the patented seeds. Knowingly.
I can see how this case is a great one to get people riled up against patents and big companies. But both sides of this issue will be happy to skew the facts in their favor.
I can also see that, regardless of how badly this farmer acted, this kind of thing does raise some serious questions about patenting seeds. For example, was Monsanto *required* to remove their seeds from farms that they migrate to? They did not sue, they acted in good faith and removed the plants at the farmers' rquests. But did they have to? Not sure there. Such practice may be necessary for them to continue to enforce their patent claims. Then again, it may not be. Not sure.
Finally, this was canadian court. Not that that is bad or anything, just not US law we are talking about here.
First, I'd like to point out that if no one had ever added red and blue together, then the guy who does it first should get a patent. If he hadn't done it, we wouldn't have purple.
The case about the yellow beans is indeed disturbing. But if you read the article, it looks like a comment on the quality of examination in the PTO, rather than a statement on the quality of the patent system in general. If these beans indeed exist in nature, then the first time the patent owner tries to enforce the patent, the defendant will have a chance to argue the patent is invalid. And it sounds like, in this case, the defendant would have a good argument. That too is part of the patent ssytem--patents are not inassailable, and bad patents may be relatively easy to invalidate.
If patented seeds spring up on someone's property unintended, it is not established that they would have to pay the company anything. I would think that the farmer would have a claim of some kind of trespass for one thing--the company's property has trespassed on the farmer's land, and the company's property (the patented seeds) is even readily identifiable!
The only cases I have read where someone got into trouble for using patented seeds they did not buy (but which grew on their land), the farmer was aware that he was using patented seeds, even though he got them from unintended invasion of his land. When the farmer knows he is using patented seeds, he doesn't have much of a defense against patent infringement.
I have not seen any cases where a company discovered, unbeknownst to a farmer, that the farmer was using patented seeds and sued the farmer. That will be an interesting case in this area. I hope the farmer gets a good lawyer, because such a case could make some long lasting law. There would be powerful public policy reasons for the farmer to win--letting a corporation sue for patent infringement in such a case would provide incentive for companies to create invasive species of seeds, so that the seeds patented genetic trait would invade as many farms as possible. This could not be sustained. It would be intentional tresspass. Farmers could point to tangible economic damages from such seeds, like the cost of policing the farm against them, removing them. Such costs could be the basis of a suit against a compnay that created and released such seeds.
Until I see a case where companies are farmers who unknowingly use patented seeds, I won't be too upset by all this.
Go here to get some info on gene patenting. From that site:
Gene Tests
As disease genes are found, complementary gene tests are developed to screen for the gene in humans who suspect they may be at risk for developing the disease. These tests are usually patented and licensed by the owners of the disease gene patent. Royalties are due the patent holder each time the tests are administered, and only licensed entities can conduct the tests.
I bet this was what the 60 minutes episode was about. They patent the detection test, not the naturally occurring gene.
I do agree that there are problems with gene patenting, but it is not the issue most in the public think it is. They think companies are patenting the genes in their body (probably from watching misleading 60 minutes episodes;). The companies are actually patenting related technology (tests, identification methods, etc.), which may be just as important money-wise, but which is not quite as offensive.
I am not familiar with that 60 minutes episode. But are you sure that the reason you would have to pay the company is not because the only way to detect that gene is with a patented method? I am not a genetic scientist of any kind, but I think that detection of particular gene sequences is largely new art, and when people find a way to isolate/detect a particular gene sequence, they can patent that method of finding the gene. I am positive that you can't patent things existing in nature, and a breast cancer gene definitely exists in nature.
Like I said, not a biologist, but I would like to see a cite on that 60 minutes article.
Re:Monsanto and "Round-up Ready Canola"
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 1
"Without his knowledge or consent" is not exactly true. The farmer knew, if you read the account. He also bragged about town that he was using Monsanto seeds without paying for them. Lots of people knew he was doing it evidently. That is how Monsanto got involved.
Even if the seeds did blow onto his land without his help (which it appears is the case) then once he figures out what they are (for example, they do not die when doused with Roundup), he can't use them. If he does it unknowingly, he has a much better defense. Ideas that the pollen could spread throughout the world, making Monsanto rich off mandatory royalties from hapless victims are not realistic, though they can and do abuse their power just the same.
I do agree that it is too easy for companies to strong arm farmers, but the answer is not to do away with GM or patents. Without patents, we would not have any of these seeds or this research. What shareholder would buy stock in a company that could not protect its investment?
One last point, and I admit this is a bit nickpicky, but relevant, so please forgive: In a patent suit, you are not fined, the penalty is damages to the plaintiff, which have to have some basis in fact--what the seeds would have cost, etc. If the farmer was sued for $19,000, then that must have been the cost of the seeds or his take on the seeds. (Though there might be punitive damages if he KNEW he was infringing--whcih this guy appears to have known--not sure there.)
I don't think you can patent a pre-existing gene. The patent law only allows patenting of new ideas. Things existing in nature are not patentable.
I believe that the patents for genetics are usually for innovative ways to isolate or identify genes, or ways to modify them. If I come up with a way to make someone's eyes turn from brown to blue, I can patent that process, and sue anyone who uses it to change their eye color. However, I can NOT use it to make anyone with naturally blue eyes pay me. Get the difference?
Re:Constitutional Law pays off
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Here is the problem with the JEM case- it allows UTILITY patents, the same as on any invention, on Plants. Not only is this CONTRARY to the PVPA, but it gies companies 17 years of exclusive use. The dangers here- farmers cant replant seed. If you dont understand why this is dangerous, you aren't close enough to your agrarian root.
True, this case allows utility patents on plants, a practice that has been going on for over a decade. This case just specifies that the practice is OK.
As far as the dangers of not being able to replant, nothing is preventing the farmers from replanting unmodified seeds. Farmers can still do business exactly as they did before, just not with GM patented seeds for which they sign an agreement that they won't replant. Not to be cynical, but if they don't want to agree to this, they shouldn't buy the seeds. And if the seeds are so great that they must buy them, then such an agreement doesn't sound so bad--since the farmers are getting such great seeds. That, and the fact that if we want such seeds, we absolutely must allow companies who develop them to reap profit. They can't do this if farmers replant.
As far as this being CONTRARY to the PVPA, the court specifically ruled that this is NOT CONTRARY to the PVPA. The PVPA has lower thresholds for protection, and offers less protection. Patent law has stricter standards, and offers better protection. Nothing in the patent laws nor the PVPA nor the PPA says you can't patent plants. (Or so sayeth the Platonic Nine--or Eight, since O'Conner didn't participate.)
You also say the court overturned congressional intent. They address that too. Congress has known about patenting of plants for over a decade, they have made vast changes to parts of the patent code during that time. But they have never suggested that you should not be able to plant patents, and they have had ample chance. According to the court in their opinion.
As far as patenting gene sequences, I have envisioned a world in the future where you take out a license on a genetic trait--blue eyes, for example. You take an inhaler or injection that modifies your genes, modifies them by a patented process. You sign a license when you do this that says every year you will pay $100 to keep your blue eyes. If you don't, you infringe.
Now, the person with natural blue eyes, he would obviously not infringe. He did not use the innovative patented process for changing eye color genes. And since his eye color OCCURS NATURALLY, no one can patent it. No one. Except GOd, because he invented it.
Re:The 'terminator' genes
on
Patented Seeds
·
· Score: 1
"Then again, I don't recall ever hearing of seed companies sending armed thugs around to farmers hinting that they'd better not buy 'reproducible' seeds, either..."
Exactly. We are all bitching about "having" to buy seeds every year, but that is only if you want the genetically modified seeds! You are free to continue planting your old seeds as long as you like.
This case does not change the law, the patent office has recognized plants as patentable subject matter since the mid 80's. All this case does is specify that the plant patent act adn plant variety protection act do not preclude patenting of plant life under the patent laws. Again, the pto had been allowing such patents for over a decade, so this case only establishes current practice more securely as law.
I agree that the idea of requiring farmers to buy new patented seed every year sounds bad, but if the patented seeds are not that great, then why not just keep using the normal seeds? And if using the normal seeds is no longer ok (becuase the patented ones are so much better) then why gripe about the license? If we like the patented products, we need to pay for them so the Evil Ones like Monsanto will continue to create them.
So neutrinos do interact with matter, only a tiny percent of the time. If neutrinos are only weakly and gravitationally interacting, how does the chlorine give off a high energy photon? DOes this mean that neutrinos are only MOSTLY wimps? That they do have a component that interacts with the EM force? Or is there a way that a weak or gravitational interaction can give off a photon (mediator of the EM force)?
Got any links to papers/publications about the experiment in Japan (like how it works technically and why photons are emitted?)
Thanks,
a fellow nerd
I have read about the recent supernova observations indicating an acceleration to the expansion, but I was not aware that we had determined or "know" many of the things you assert, like the values for the cosmological constant, and the rest of the matter. Care to provide a cite to this info? I would be much obliged.
Thanks,
a (fellow) nerd
This link to a CMB picture shows that the CMB does indeed have a dipole--the CMB is blue shifted in one direction, redshifted in the other. So there is a direction toward the original big bang, and we have detected our relative motion to that center. So I must disagree with your statement that "There's no such thing as the centre of the Universe."
It is true that everything is moving away from everything else on a large scale (and ignoring the peculiar motion caused by local gravity, like that between Andromeda and teh Mikly Way).
Slashdot Mirror
For an interesting question, speculate on where Tom Bombadil fits into all this. Is he maiar? Valar? Illuvatar him(it)self?
Computers allow you (or are at least an integral part) to build things like rockets. I think that is the basic reason for limiting computing exports. Maybe it is no longer an issue, so Bush is lifting the bans. However, I do seem to remember lots of republicans lambasting Clinton for relaxing some tech export laws to countries like China, which was on this Bush list too....
Not sure why the DMCA in Dmitri's case is "false." It was passed by congress, no? And the DMCA is not limited only to corporate employers of people who violate the act. The individuals are certainly within the reach of the DCMA to charge. Not sure where you are getting these ideas. Who mods this stuff up? Why can't I make new memories?
What was I talking about?
If a US company has any assets in a foreign country, they are subject to jurisdiction in that country. At least the assets are. It is called "in rem" jurisdiction, if I remember rightly. Such assets can be used to satisfy any judgment a court of that land makes. If any company representatives shows up to defend the suit, then they have just agreed to personal jurisdiction there too.
You must look at the claims. That is what determines the scope of a patent. The abstract cannot even be referred to in court for interpreting the claims--it is legally meaningless, and the fact that the letter writer pointed you to the abstract as evidence you are infringing indicates he/she has no legal patent knowledge, or else maybe that their claims are not that good and they are just trying to scare you. Look at the claims.
What exactly are Percy's damages based on? How did the seeds damage him? They did no damages. I am not really trying to argue that Monsanto is the good guy in this, or that patenting seeds doesn't present some problems. But I do think that Percy is not the best poster child for your side of the argument. Read the court opinion, it tells the facts of the case. If Percy had wanted the seeds removed, he could have called Monsanto. They have a hotline for just that purpose, and the opinion mentions that they have done exactly this (i.e., remove unwanted migrated patented seeds from other farmers fields who asked). Monsanto does this at their own cost, exactly as you suggested they do.
Percy did not ask for this. He knowlingly harvested the seeds and patented them. Just because they were on his land does not mean he owns them, especially the patented part. That would be like claiming that because a patented airplane fell on my property, I now have the right to assemble and sell similar patented airplanes--hey, one fell on my property! It's mine now! This is ridiculous. Possession of the chattel itself does not give you a right to violate IP rights embodied in that chattel.
If the episode said what you assert, the episode was misleading. Now I can see them thinking that, because the patented method is the only way to screen for the gene, then no matter what you have to pay the company to get the screening. This is true, but if so, then there is NO OTHER WAY to screen for the gene. In this case, why shouldn't the company get paid? You don't want them to develop gene screening techniques? Without the company, the person would not have been able to screen for the gene at all. They would be feeling for lumps instead.
I personally am willing to pay a royalty to have these methods available. The alternative is no research (or greatly retarded research) in this area.
Percy knew in 1996 that some of his plants were from patented seeds. He harvested seeds from those plants and used them in one field in 1997. He used the seeds from that field to plant all his fields in 1998.
He knew from the beginning that he was using patented seeds. Other farmers who knew they had reoundup resistant plants on their farms called Monsanto. Monsanto came and removed the seeds. At their own cost. Percy did not call Monsanto. He knowlingly planted and sold the patented material. I don't see the problem here.
I need to stop reading about this. Some of the people here on slashdot need to start reading about it.
Please mod this down so no one can read it.
I agree. Write your congressman and tell them to let the patent office keep the money they earn from fees, rather than siphoning that money away to other areas. When you strangle the PTO, you get a weak patent system. It ain't their fault. Last year the gubbament once again decided this appropriation of the PTO's fee earnings was acceptable. Write your congressman. I did. (And got back the standard "I too share your concern on X..." letter--about as satisfying as a vacant stare. Thanks Kay Bailey Hutchinson.)
At other parts of the court's opinion, the judge mentions that other farmers who had found patented plants on their property did not act as Schmeiser did. Schmeiser harvested the seeds, mixed them, and replanted--two consecutive years and in such a way that every field he had the second year had something like 50% to 70% patented plants--depending on which side you believe. The farmer knowlingly selected those seeds. Monsanto claims they found out about him becasue he was bragging around town about the fact that he was using patented seeds without paying for them.
The other people who had found such plants volunteering on their land told Monsanto about it. Monsanto came and removed the plants at their own expense.
So farmers who had seed blown into their fields (which has happened) were *not* sued. Monsanto themselves paid to remove the offending plants. The only farmer that was sued was the one who harvested the seeds for a few years and eventually was planting his whole crop with the patented seeds. Knowingly.
I can see how this case is a great one to get people riled up against patents and big companies. But both sides of this issue will be happy to skew the facts in their favor.
I can also see that, regardless of how badly this farmer acted, this kind of thing does raise some serious questions about patenting seeds. For example, was Monsanto *required* to remove their seeds from farms that they migrate to? They did not sue, they acted in good faith and removed the plants at the farmers' rquests. But did they have to? Not sure there. Such practice may be necessary for them to continue to enforce their patent claims. Then again, it may not be. Not sure.
Finally, this was canadian court. Not that that is bad or anything, just not US law we are talking about here.
The case about the yellow beans is indeed disturbing. But if you read the article, it looks like a comment on the quality of examination in the PTO, rather than a statement on the quality of the patent system in general. If these beans indeed exist in nature, then the first time the patent owner tries to enforce the patent, the defendant will have a chance to argue the patent is invalid. And it sounds like, in this case, the defendant would have a good argument. That too is part of the patent ssytem--patents are not inassailable, and bad patents may be relatively easy to invalidate.
The only cases I have read where someone got into trouble for using patented seeds they did not buy (but which grew on their land), the farmer was aware that he was using patented seeds, even though he got them from unintended invasion of his land. When the farmer knows he is using patented seeds, he doesn't have much of a defense against patent infringement.
I have not seen any cases where a company discovered, unbeknownst to a farmer, that the farmer was using patented seeds and sued the farmer. That will be an interesting case in this area. I hope the farmer gets a good lawyer, because such a case could make some long lasting law. There would be powerful public policy reasons for the farmer to win--letting a corporation sue for patent infringement in such a case would provide incentive for companies to create invasive species of seeds, so that the seeds patented genetic trait would invade as many farms as possible. This could not be sustained. It would be intentional tresspass. Farmers could point to tangible economic damages from such seeds, like the cost of policing the farm against them, removing them. Such costs could be the basis of a suit against a compnay that created and released such seeds.
Until I see a case where companies are farmers who unknowingly use patented seeds, I won't be too upset by all this.
Gene Tests
As disease genes are found, complementary gene tests are developed to screen for the gene in humans who suspect they may be at risk for developing the disease. These tests are usually patented and licensed by the owners of the disease gene patent. Royalties are due the patent holder each time the tests are administered, and only licensed entities can conduct the tests.
I bet this was what the 60 minutes episode was about. They patent the detection test, not the naturally occurring gene.
I do agree that there are problems with gene patenting, but it is not the issue most in the public think it is. They think companies are patenting the genes in their body (probably from watching misleading 60 minutes episodes ;). The companies are actually patenting related technology (tests, identification methods, etc.), which may be just as important money-wise, but which is not quite as offensive.
Like I said, not a biologist, but I would like to see a cite on that 60 minutes article.
Even if the seeds did blow onto his land without his help (which it appears is the case) then once he figures out what they are (for example, they do not die when doused with Roundup), he can't use them. If he does it unknowingly, he has a much better defense. Ideas that the pollen could spread throughout the world, making Monsanto rich off mandatory royalties from hapless victims are not realistic, though they can and do abuse their power just the same.
I do agree that it is too easy for companies to strong arm farmers, but the answer is not to do away with GM or patents. Without patents, we would not have any of these seeds or this research. What shareholder would buy stock in a company that could not protect its investment?
One last point, and I admit this is a bit nickpicky, but relevant, so please forgive: In a patent suit, you are not fined, the penalty is damages to the plaintiff, which have to have some basis in fact--what the seeds would have cost, etc. If the farmer was sued for $19,000, then that must have been the cost of the seeds or his take on the seeds. (Though there might be punitive damages if he KNEW he was infringing--whcih this guy appears to have known--not sure there.)
I believe that the patents for genetics are usually for innovative ways to isolate or identify genes, or ways to modify them. If I come up with a way to make someone's eyes turn from brown to blue, I can patent that process, and sue anyone who uses it to change their eye color. However, I can NOT use it to make anyone with naturally blue eyes pay me. Get the difference?
True, this case allows utility patents on plants, a practice that has been going on for over a decade. This case just specifies that the practice is OK.
As far as the dangers of not being able to replant, nothing is preventing the farmers from replanting unmodified seeds. Farmers can still do business exactly as they did before, just not with GM patented seeds for which they sign an agreement that they won't replant. Not to be cynical, but if they don't want to agree to this, they shouldn't buy the seeds. And if the seeds are so great that they must buy them, then such an agreement doesn't sound so bad--since the farmers are getting such great seeds. That, and the fact that if we want such seeds, we absolutely must allow companies who develop them to reap profit. They can't do this if farmers replant.
As far as this being CONTRARY to the PVPA, the court specifically ruled that this is NOT CONTRARY to the PVPA. The PVPA has lower thresholds for protection, and offers less protection. Patent law has stricter standards, and offers better protection. Nothing in the patent laws nor the PVPA nor the PPA says you can't patent plants. (Or so sayeth the Platonic Nine--or Eight, since O'Conner didn't participate.)
You also say the court overturned congressional intent. They address that too. Congress has known about patenting of plants for over a decade, they have made vast changes to parts of the patent code during that time. But they have never suggested that you should not be able to plant patents, and they have had ample chance. According to the court in their opinion.
As far as patenting gene sequences, I have envisioned a world in the future where you take out a license on a genetic trait--blue eyes, for example. You take an inhaler or injection that modifies your genes, modifies them by a patented process. You sign a license when you do this that says every year you will pay $100 to keep your blue eyes. If you don't, you infringe.
Now, the person with natural blue eyes, he would obviously not infringe. He did not use the innovative patented process for changing eye color genes. And since his eye color OCCURS NATURALLY, no one can patent it. No one. Except GOd, because he invented it.
Exactly. We are all bitching about "having" to buy seeds every year, but that is only if you want the genetically modified seeds! You are free to continue planting your old seeds as long as you like.
I agree that the idea of requiring farmers to buy new patented seed every year sounds bad, but if the patented seeds are not that great, then why not just keep using the normal seeds? And if using the normal seeds is no longer ok (becuase the patented ones are so much better) then why gripe about the license? If we like the patented products, we need to pay for them so the Evil Ones like Monsanto will continue to create them.
Thanks for the clear and to-the-point description of the experiment!
Who the hell modded that one as "5: informative"? Informative about nanojath being pissed off maybe. Not informative about science. Just my opinion.
So neutrinos do interact with matter, only a tiny percent of the time. If neutrinos are only weakly and gravitationally interacting, how does the chlorine give off a high energy photon? DOes this mean that neutrinos are only MOSTLY wimps? That they do have a component that interacts with the EM force? Or is there a way that a weak or gravitational interaction can give off a photon (mediator of the EM force)? Got any links to papers/publications about the experiment in Japan (like how it works technically and why photons are emitted?) Thanks, a fellow nerd
You are right, the dipole is evidence of the reference frame of the big bang radiation, but not a direction.
I have read about the recent supernova observations indicating an acceleration to the expansion, but I was not aware that we had determined or "know" many of the things you assert, like the values for the cosmological constant, and the rest of the matter. Care to provide a cite to this info? I would be much obliged. Thanks, a (fellow) nerd
It is true that everything is moving away from everything else on a large scale (and ignoring the peculiar motion caused by local gravity, like that between Andromeda and teh Mikly Way).