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