I DID mention she's crazy, right?

but sweet. Very, very sweet. Her face is like sunshine and she smells of pine needles!

It comes from her unsapped and pure precious bodily fluids!

The link was correlative, not causative. It should be noted that the mouth is just the top end of the alimentary canal. Mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine: all should be colonized with good bacteria. It is more likely that the set of health conditions that cause an overabundance of bad bacteria in the mouth (say, for example, diet and overall pH of the body) also affect the heart. Fixing the teeth doesn't fix the heart.

Ahh, I misunderstood the reports then. Either that or the reports were hyping up the link. This was something I saw a while back on the BBC News site.

The levels of dental problems in populations with and without fluoridated water, however, is something I have looked at in some detail. Likewise the evidence for and against it being potentially dangerous in terms of fluoride poisoning. Though I can't recall all the details (it's about 4 years ago), I recall my conclusions. I am absolutely in favour of fluoride being added to the water supply.

So Dana wants to put fluoride in everyone's water. Now isn't that just how your typical commie likes to act?

Attachment 42902

OK... here's a next generation scenario for you:

A baby is born with a lethal genetic disease.
A private US company has identified the gene, synthesized the normal gene,
and owns an FDA-approved method for gene-therapy treatment in humans.

The child's parents sign a licensing agreement and pay the company's fees.
Their child is treated, grows to adult hood, and has children who inherit the man-made (normal) gene.

Question: Do these children and all their subsequent offspring have to
abide by the licensing agreement and pay the company's fees ?

.
.
.
.
.
Our current US Supreme Court seems to think so ...
.

NY Times
Published: May 13, 2013
Soybeans and the Spirit of Invention
<snip>Farmers who buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have to sign
a license agreement that prohibits them from saving seeds from the crop for replanting.
<snip>
Mr. Bowman bought Roundup Ready seeds for his main crop, and accepted Monsanto’s conditions.
But for his later crop, he sidestepped Monsanto by planting the cheaper seeds from a grain elevator.

The American Soybean Association called his practice “unorthodox.”
In a unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled correctly for Monsanto.
If Mr. Bowman were given the right to make copies of the seeds,
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, “a patent would plummet in value
after the first sale of the first item containing the invention.”

"Question: Do these children and all their subsequent offspring have to abide by the licensing agreement and pay the company's fees ?"

I say 'no'.

The parents (Joe and Maddy) are the contractees.

The child (John) is the recipient of services (but is NOT a contractee).

John's kids are the benefiters from services (but NOT contractees).

Seems to me: to obligate children (and unborns) to a contract each had no hand in crafting (and had no competency to agree to) is a kind of slavery.

Besides: people are people* and seeds are seeds... :neutral:









*and Soylent Green

That analogy of the kids isn't really the same as the soybean one.

The company made a contract with the parents, so the parents need to keep paying according to the terms of the contract. You can't make a contract with people who aren't born yet, or with babies, so the kid with the man made genes doesn't have to pay, and the kids descended from that kid also don't have to pay. It's the parents/grandparents who have to pay, and when they die, perhaps the company can settle up with the estate, but it ends there.

I'm not really focusing on the "human" scenario above, it's was just to provide
a different framework for thinking about the decisions the current USSC is making.
Yes, analogies are never good devises in a debate.
And it's too easy to say human situations are different.

But, corporations are now people (:eyebrow:), and precedents play such important roles in law.

This whole business of patenting genes started in disease-resistant corn and wheat seeds,
and so control over the new gene technology was placed under control of the US Dept of Agriculture.
This was the precedent.

The grain-company in this Monsanto-decision is selling (mixtures of)
seeds with no preceding contract with Monsanto.
Their customers have no knowledge of the contamination with the patented seeds,
but these customers are now vulnerable to law suits from Monsanto
if they plant all the mixture and Monsanto finds the RoundUp gene in their crop.


IMO, patenting genes needs to be limited to the actual (physical)
substance or material produced by a patenting company,
and it's subsequent reproduction (inheritance) ignored, or simply
factored into the value of the initial batch of the product.
... sort of like bananas going bad on the grocery shelf.

Hmmm...

That sounds like my arguments regarding the children of undocumented (aka illegal) immigrants
;)

Contracts are irrelevant here. You don't have a contract with A. You make a part on a 3-D printer and sell it to B. You have no relationship to A. And yet you have still violated A's patent.

Same applies to the kids. If the parent's genes are fixed by A's patent, then the kids also owe a royalty payment to A.

Even worse. What happens when cells multiply from your 'fixed' cell. Must you pay A royalties for those newly spawn cells? Yes, according to basic principles of patent law. Those cells contain the intellectual property of A.

Of course, the contract could be written to extend patent rights to your spawned cells and offspring. So now we need a lawyer to negotiate medical treatment.

Or Congress could address this problem by innovating. By establishing new laws to address these new forms of intellectual property. That is what the Constitution created Congress for. Good luck now that so many extremists in Congress want no such protection in the name of no regulations, no government *interfence*, and "we want America to fail".

Without legal changes, human offspring containing the intellectual property of A (repaired genetic mutation) owes royalty payments to A. Any one using that intellectual property (irregardless of any contract) owes A a royalty for using A's intellectual property.

Finally, a major difference between patenting the process by which a gene is fixed verses the actual corrected gene. What exactly is the property that A owns?

"kids also owe a royalty payment"
 

It would be interesting to watch the company try to reclaim its property from the kid or grand kid who refuses to pay.

This, at the human level, is not so theoretical...


CNN News
Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
April 17, 2013

Justices at odds over patents for human genes
But again, IMO, products reproduced one generation to the next should not carry patent protection.
Seed corn and wheat generally were patented as disease-resistant because
their resistance was multi-gene based upon 1st generation matings of different straits,
and the trait could not be carried into subsequent seed-crops.

I don't think so. The parents paid for the gene, so the kids are paid for. By the time the kids are ready to reproduce, the patent will probably have expired (20 year term from the date of file) so the grandchildren will be in the public domain. Besides, even if the patent hadn't expired yet by the time the grandkids came along, the company would have to get samples of the grandkids' DNA to prove that they contain their gene. Even if they comb through their trash, it's going to be difficult to prove where that DNA sample came from. The fifth amendment means the kids don't have to give up samples of their DNA against their will.

Besides, if you are the grandkid, and your body contains some proprietery gene that you never consented to, then how can you be expected to pay for it?

"(there’s )a major difference between patenting the process by which a gene is fixed verses the actual corrected gene."

Wholly appropriate to patent the process, but not the gene corrected by the process.

And if the process is the protected (intellectual) property, then the kid and grand kids can't be held obligated to pay squat as none uses the process for profit (each benefited from the process, a benefit paid for by the parents...not very different from the benefit I draw from my car, an object chockablock full of proprietary machines and processes...I pay no royalties cause I draw no direct profit from using someone else's intellectual property, or using the physical expression of that intellectual property).

#

"if you are the grandkid, and your body contains some proprietary gene that you never consented to, then how can you be expected to pay for it?"

Indeed!

Let's say the (corrected) gene itself is rendered a property: at what point does patent law trump self-possession?

And: there's a whole whack of issues regarding 'consent' and 'intent' as well.

I think, even with the current antiquated state of patent/copyright law (versus contract law) it's nowhere as cut and dried as you paint it, tw.


And -- again -- it would be interesting to see the company try to reclaim its property from the kid or grand kids who refuse to pay the royalty.

The example ignored a 17 year life expectancy for a patent. How facts get obtained was also secondary (since your DNA readily available and left everywhere for others to analyze). The point was about what is owned. What qualifies as a patent. Does not matter what service parents paid for. Did they purchase patent rights? And did they also purchase transfer rights? Those are two completely different purchases.

If company A owns an intellectual property called a gene, then the kids who have that repaired gene can be charged a royalty. Whether that is fair is and will always be completely irrelevant. The law is not fair. The law is legal.

So, can a company own a gene? What exactly is the intellectual property defined by a patent? That is what Congress is for.

If company A has a patent on blue-green steel, then anyone who makes blue-green steel must pay company A even though they have no business relationship (ie contract) with company A. Even if they made blue-green steel by accident. Because the existence of blue-green steel is covered by company A's patent.

Existence of a new (repaired) gene in any person could conceivably result in royalty payments ... if the law permits gene patents. And that is the point. What can be patented must be defined by Congress. Using an LED laser to 'exercise' a cat was once patented. Since then, (if I have it correctly), that exercise method is no longer patentable.

Henry Quick - again - the law is not fair. The law is legal. If that patented gene exists in your body, then company A can demand royalty payments. Patents are that cut and dry ... if genes can be patented. Even if your body created that gene due to genetic mutation or by accident due to a drug interaction. Company A still owns that intellectual property and can demand royalty payments.

And so this question must be answered in carefully and wordy detail. What exactly is the property that A owns?


The computer industry defined superior methods of resolving patent disputes. However Apple (Steve Jobs) has created major new incomes for lawyers and other 'we get rich by subverting innovation' types. Apple quietly collected numerous mobile phone patents, transferred them to a patent holding company (Digitube) which in turn created shell companies (Cliff Island, Hupper Island, etc) to hold those patents. Digitube describes itself as a patent acquisition and licensing company. Others call it a patent troll created by Steve Jobs.

Digitube then demonstrated their purpose in 2011 by suing for intellectual property in Kindle, EVO Design 4G, LG's Revolution and Optimus V, Droid, Lumina 710, Breakout, Blackberry, Galaxy SIII, Xperia 3G, ... virtually every cell phone except Apple's. Digitube also filed a complaint in the Commerce Department's ITC to have all other cell phone (except Apple's) be removed from the market.

Somewhere in murky discussions, Digitube eventually transferred patents to RPX; described as a defensive patent aggregator. A company designed to keep patents out of patent trolls and to protect client companies. In this case, to protect a consortium of LG, Samsung, HTC, Pantech, and Ericsson Sony.

In the computer industry, infringed patents were resolved by companies exchanging patent rights - harming lawyer's incomes. Apple has changed the playing field (laws unchanged) by making patents for mobile phones a rich new market for lawyers and patent trolls.

A consortium of Apple, EMC, Ericsson Sony, Microsoft, and RIM spent $4.5 billion to purchase 6000 Nortel Network patents to keep those patents out of Google's hands. At what point do patents do more harm that good?

Its not just a question of what exactly is defined by a patent. Congress must also address the purpose of a patent. Patent law that once made Silicon Valley innovation so productive has now been used to subvert mobile phone industry growth.

But again, that is why we need a Congress full of moderates. Not so many wacko extremists who make it virtually impossible to resolve patent law questions. Meaning courts will have to write (reinterpret) laws. Always necessary when Congress gets into a wacko extremist mode.

Can a gene be patented? A major question that is also a small part of a larger problem. What exactly can be defined by a patent?

"the law is not fair"

I never said it was, nor did I hint that it was, or that I though it should be.

The Law (and law makers/enforcers) is an ass (and it [and they] should be treated as any surly beast of burden, with a sturdy stick).

#

"If that patented gene exists in your body, then company A can demand royalty payments."

If that gene exists in 'my' body (and I didn't contract to it being there) then good luck, company A, in collecting (my point here: the Law is not to obeyed simply because it 'is' Law).

Again you have assumed the law is fair. Your assumption made obvious by your reasoning. You have assumed their royalties are not fair because you have no contract. Non-existent contracts are completely irrelevant. You are assuming that is not fair rather than grasping the law.

No contract exists between you and Company A - ever. If you accidentally make blue-green steel, then you are subject to royalty payments to Company A for using 'their' blue-green steel. That always was "cut and dry" patent law. Patent law applies even if no contracts ever existed.

If genes are patentable, then that 'fixed' gene in your body is subject to royalty payments. Does not matter why a gene was fixed. Or even if it was inherited. A patented gene only 'existing' means they can demand royalty payments.


Fortunately we have laws to protect us from others who have contempt for the law.

No, what he is saying is, it doesn't matter what the law is if it can't be enforced.

"Again you have assumed the law is fair"

Nope. Law is a stick, wielded by those motivated by self-interest...nuthin' fair or unfair about it...it just 'is'.


"You have assumed their royalties are not fair because you have no contract.

Nope. Never said anything about the 'fairness' or 'justness' of company A's claim. You should read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

##

"what he is saying is, it doesn't matter what the law is if it can't be enforced"

What I'm sayin' is, I don’t care what Law says -- enforceable or not -- if said Law presumes 'I' can be enslaved.

##

"Fortunately we have laws to protect us from others who have contempt for the law."

Contempt for Law (and lawmakers/enforcers) is what -- in the context of this thread -- separates 'individual' from 'cog'.

All this Law nonsense dredged up sumthin' from my deep memory that I'll now expand on over in 'my grinded gears'.

But he said, IOW he does not care what the law says because anarchist beliefs make laws irrelevant. An anarchist principles says personal rights based in personal beliefs supersede laws. That and the resulting contempt for laws is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Topic is patent law and what patent laws says about intellectual property (ie genes) rights. What happens if genes can be patented? Genes in a crop are protected no matter who breeds more sees from that hybrid seed. Or is it the resulting seed that is patented; not the genes?

If I understand it correctly, should you grow crops from that seed and not sell those crops or resulting seeds, then it is legal?

Ohferchristsakes, you keep expounding about what congress should do, and what should or should not be patentable.
We're talking about who pays in the gene case.

"anarchist"
 

*ahem*

That's 'Anarchistic Sociopath' (and for you, that’s MISTER Anarchistic Sociopath).

#

Bruce,

tw is an archetypical 'Lawful Neutral' character...for him, 'LAW' is the sum, the total, the end, the means, the 'reason'.

The quality of 'LAW' is irrelevant to tw: all that matters is that 'LAW' exists and that 'LAW' be obeyed.

For example: my contempt for 'LAW' is, according to tw, irrelevant to the discussion, which, of course, is absurd...if company A lays claim to a gene in me and demands payment, and I refuse to pay, fundamentally, my contempt for 'LAW' is the radix of the soon-to-be war between company A and myself.

*shrug*

I don't expect tw to get this...again: he's Lawful Neutral (and I'm Chaotic Evil)...practically speaking: we -- he and I -- aren't even of the same species.

I think his point is if you don't obey the law, they have the lawyers/money to make your life shitty, especially if you've got the mortgage/family/job responsibilities. Therefore, 'we the people' should be all over the scumbag politicians to fix the bad laws.

You have completely ignored the fundamental question demonstrated by genes and other patented items. Instead of complaining, answer the question.

(signed) LN

Yes I have. If you think you can command moi, or anyone else, to address the case of the beans, you don't know beans.

I was participating in the other discussion about patenting human genes, which I find much more compelling, because I can summon my inner child to get all emotional and shit.

Of course, Google now owns that inner child you thought was yours.

I sold my inner child to a sweatshop.

"Can a gene be patented?"

'Can' it be? Probably.

'Should' it be? The answer depends on who you ask.

Does it matter? Not to me. As I say up-thread: not goin' the slave route...don't care if God in Heaven Above points His Fiery Finger of Fate at me and says, 'PAY'.

I say, I own 'me' no matter what patented materials are inside me.

I say, self-possession trumps patent law (and LAW in general) every time.

#

"they have the lawyers/money to make your life shitty"

Sure...so what?

Living is not an exercise in 'fair' (probably the only thing tw and me might agree on).

When the lion is on your ass: defend yourself.

#

"Google now owns that inner child you thought was yours"

HA!

#

"I sold my inner child to a sweatshop."

HA!

I killed and ate mine (raw)

He was yummy.

Cool. Maybe now we can all find an inner adult.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

And they pawned it. UT now owns you.

i keep my inner child on the outside. the inner adult is the elusive one.

So UT only owns what your were; not what you are.

"Can a gene be patented?"
 

The last paragraph in HQ's link:

Pennsylvania judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. has been sentenced to almost three decades in jail after conspiring with private prisons to trade kids for cash.

In this case I'd lean death penalty, let's see how much actual time is served.

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/22/pen...rU_wk.facebook

If we are going to have prisons, I don't think mixing in the profit motive is a good idea.

In this case I'd lean torture. What he did to those kids is indefensible.:mad2:

I am flabbergasted !!! The earth must have changed it's direction of rotation.

Today, I agreed with US Supreme Court Judge Anthonin Scalia :eek:

The USSC has handed down a 5-4 decision to allow "DNA cheek swabs"
to be taken by police from anyone without a warrant and before
the person has been charged, let alone convicted with a crime.
Scalia voted in the minority.

Ostensibly, the police want to do this to "identify" the person,
but then they use DNA to check a database of previous crimes.

Here are two NY Times editorials opposing and supporting the decision:

DNA and Suspicionless Searches
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Why the Court Was Right to Allow Cheek Swabs
By AKHIL REED AMAR and NEAL K. KATYAL
Sam Alito's parents are so proud.

You seem to be under the impression that we have a 4th amendment.

We gave it up years ago.

Attachment 44273

My response precisely.

When I recovered consciousness, I pondered these two questions:

What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released? Will that sample and the name, rank and serial number of the person from whom it was taken be added to the database, along with <NULL> as the entry for crimes committed?

A fingerprint is fairly reliable evidence that the person to whom the print belongs was actually present where the fingerprint was found. DNA is vastly more transportable than a fingerprint. I'm not challenging the validity of DNA/fingerprint evidence, that's a thread's worth all by itself. I'm saying "planting" a fingerprint is very difficult, but "planting" DNA seems trivial. I wonder what finding dna at a crime scene will imply, regardless if it matches the sample taken from a person under arrest. (Now that I think about it, this question has little to do with the recent SCOTUS decision.) I think there are some situations that are pretty unambiguous, like DNA from semen in a vagina. But the advances in technology make getting a legitimate reading from smaller and smaller samples will continue. I heard today that it's possible in some cases to get a DNA reading from a fingerprint. Wow.

In his other job, he is a priest.

Corporations can own genes, so, why can't the powers that be 'caretake' DNA sequences?

Apparently (legally) there's no reason at all why 'they' shouldn't or can't.

I'm lookin' to re-jigger my flesh so as to stymie the ghouls.

#

"What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released?"

Best to assume the worst, I think.

That sample will be warehoused/archived along with all other information collected on the individual for use 'at a later date' when the 'proper circumstances arise'.

It's not over til the fat lady sings...


NY Times
July 25, 2013
U.S. Asks Court to Limit Texas on Ballot Rules
<snip>

A major difficulty in finding the proper role (?) for government is the government's constant de-legitimization of itself in areas that it would logically have authority.

Sad situation.

Of course any time you have a 95 year-old retirement home resident sitting in a chair,
wielding a cane, a shoehorn, a walker, AND one of those disappearing butcher knives,
that's enough to strike fear into the hearts of any SWAT team.

After all, at the end of the day, they want to go home to their families too.

But then, that's the trade off you get when you militarize a civilian police force.

The police do have authority in this case, it would appear. It is also plainly obvious that this is a case of excessive use of force. Was it motivated by fear, or inexperience, or hatred, or stupidity or a combination of these and other forces, I don't know. It's clearly a mistake, a tragic and fatal mistake.

In Seattle, we have an uneasy situation with our police force. We're currently operating under a consent decree imposed by the Dept of Justice. There have been similar situations and enough of them to justify an investigation and a finding that our PD requires some changes and some continuing oversight. It's a necessary correction to a bad situation. The recent primary election had the candidates for mayor talking (and talking) and one of the questions had to do with how the selection of the new chief of police would take place, "should you become mayor." The answer I liked best was one where the candidate suggested that he'd hire someone that lives in Seattle.

What a great idea. I think such a move would have the beneficial effect of reducing the us/them false dichotomy that is engendered when an officer, or the chief, can go home, "away from those people".

Who had the most empathy for the old man in Chicago? The staff at his residence, the people who lived with him, worked with him, saw him day in and day out. Their familiarity gave them the confidence to engage him, "disarm" him, despite the fact that they were ridiculously under armed and under armored compared to the cops.

When you don't have knowledge of the people, you have to rely on your ability to use force for protection. And when you have that ability, you'll use it. What a sad goddamn story.

Do you feel bolstered yet ? Hang in there, you will soon...

NY Times
RON NIXON
August 5, 2013

T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security

Slope meet slippery.

I don't want that level of protection. No thank you! I don't want my confidence bolstered by having my privacy invaded.

Well, maybe you have something else that needs to be bolstered ?

I asked several doctors and nurse-practitioners what effect a taser would have on an implanted defibrillator. They all looked at me like I had three heads, one responding huffily, "I would never put myself in that situation".

As long as the public (living outside the hood) have that, 'it couldn't possibly happen to me' attitude, it will keep happening. Only when they understand the clear and present danger from cops who are trained like para-military, will the public demand better. Of course by then, they'll probably be too scared to demand anything.

Google search...

Europace. 2007 Jul;9(7):551-6. Epub 2007 May 9.
Do electrical stun guns (TASER-X26) affect the functional integrity of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators?
Lakkireddy D, Khasnis A, Antenacci J, Ryshcon K, Chung MK, Wallick D, Kowalewski W, Patel D, Mlcochova H, Kondur A, Vacek J, Martin D, Natale A, Tchou P.
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:3199-204. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333136.
TASER conducted electrical weapons and implanted pacemakers and defibrillators.
Vanga SR, Bommana S, Kroll MW, Swerdlow C, Lakkireddy D.

You're missing the point. :rolleyes:

Again ? Damn !

Again? No. Still. :p:

Seems like this is the proper scope.

SWAT because, you know, hippies.

Search warrant.

Apparently they found tall grass and tires.

NUISANCE tall grass and tires, in violation of the LAW protecting the neighbors from gaining LAWFUL full use of THEIR property!

Get the story straight, Griff.







I like how the search warrant is **so** comprehensive, detailing such accompaniments of a "marijuana grow operation" as business records, jewelry, light ballasts, fertilizer, videotapes, etc. Because, you know, that's all evidence of a crime. Except that the crime, growing marijuana, didn't happen in the first place. The whole pyramid scheme collapses because the foundation is only fear, not real.

Nice attempted save to find the violations of the nuisance ordinances... Which was entirely the reason for the complaints in the first place, the neighbors found that property and their view of what it was and what it represented a nuisance. But that would never have justified a SWAT raid, so, they spooled up the be afraid factor. Sad, embarrassing.

Although the initial concept of tax-deductible contributions is good, reasonable, and valuable,
it is being abused now to extents that are hard for me to believe.

Here in PDX, we see commercial building developments being awarded
"conservation easements" in the middle of the downtown commercial area.
It's crazy... particularly when they tore down an old building to build the new one.
One developer achieved it by saying he would add a "roof garden"

NY Times
By RAY D. MADOFF
December 6, 2013

How the Government Gives