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.
Since virtually everyone in Europe is a user of software (almost nobody is a forest dweller like in countries near the equator), this impacts everybody
Colleagues saw the suicide; the EPO's response wasn't to tackle the causes but to bolt down the windows (like factories in China installing controversial 'suicide nets')
"In the long term, the FSF needs to own its future office space, but then the deadly risk is that the property ownership becomes the end goal rather than software freedom."
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.