The proper role and scope of government

[henry quirk]

"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).

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[henry quirk]

"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'.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

But he said,

What I'm sayin' is, I don’t care what Law says -- enforceable or not ...

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[henry quirk]

*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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We're talking about who pays in the gene case.

You have completely ignored the fundamental question demonstrated by genes and other patented items.

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?

Instead of complaining, answer the question.

(signed) LN

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.