We have more coming soon because wallclimber works on something. ⬆
Comments
Roy Bixler
2009-11-30 19:38:24
I thought that things that occur in nature were excluded from patentability. That is, for something to be patentable, you can't merely discover it -- it has to be an invention. Genes are not inventions. Even if I am wrong on this, wouldn't prior art prevent anyone from patenting some already occurring thing in nature such as a pig?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-11-30 20:43:52
I think that Monsanto and others perceive the patent system differently. They just view it as a source of power that grants them money for doing some activity (like messing about with DNA).
Needless to say, this was never the purpose (raison d'être) of the patent system.
williami
2009-11-29 23:03:55
Oh, great. Now they (Gates/Monstaro) are patenting milk, seeds, even pigs now. And you thought software patents were horrible.
After seeing this, I realize the patent system has gone out of hand. It really should be fixed badly. And also, software and food patents must be gone.
There are many Arch derivatives that do not rely on "viral" marketing in MElon's child porn-pushing social control media and are instead relying on real development, not slop
We approach the parts where we explain that the Application to the Court with Garrett's name on it was instead complaining about fair criticism of the combative law firm (irrelevant to any injunctions) as if it was impermissible to explain what it had done - and still does - to my wife and I
Comments
Roy Bixler
2009-11-30 19:38:24
Roy Schestowitz
2009-11-30 20:43:52
Needless to say, this was never the purpose (raison d'être) of the patent system.
williami
2009-11-29 23:03:55
After seeing this, I realize the patent system has gone out of hand. It really should be fixed badly. And also, software and food patents must be gone.