The proper role and scope of government

[Lamplighter]

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 ...
.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

<snip>

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.”

[henry quirk]

"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...









*and Soylent Green

[glatt]

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.

[Lamplighter]

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 (), 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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

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

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?

[Trilby]

I have a friend who says Monsanto is Mephistopheles and his father got sick working for them. I have to agree. About the Mephistopheles part; I don't know why his dad is sick.

BUT! I did work in a steel mill and THEY were HUGE polluters and it cost them LESS to pay the EPA fines than to fix the problem. three-eyed fish anyone?

[Griff]

tw is conflating a previous attempt by Monsanto to introduce a suicide or terminator gene with the facts of this case. wiki

[Trilby]

Oh. I don't read tw. He's not on ignore or anything but I can't make heads or tails of his posts so I just presume they're a rant against something or body and go balls out and comment without reading.

naughty of me, I know, but a girl can only take so much.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Trilby

I have a friend who says Monsanto is Mephistopheles

I've always been in favor of the Antichrist motif, myself. I mean, one of the primary "signs" of the Antichrist is that he will claim he can "feed the world," which will propel him to popularity with the masses but we are supposed to recognize as a lie because it cannot be done, implication being that it encroaches on God's power over nature. (Keeping in mind that all this, like the Pope and the rapture and lots of other things, is based on no more than one tiny prophetic phrase and the mythological over-interpretation has been subsequently built around it.)*

But someone at Monsanto has surely got to have a sense of humor. I mean... Mon-santo? "My saint" and/or "My holy one?" I dunno, maybe it's an accident. But I still think they're the Antichrist.



*My favorite end-times scholarly book: When Time Shall Be No More. There's a whole chapter on the people who thought Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist. It's all really fascinating stuff.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I've always been in favor of the Antichrist motif, myself. I mean, one of the primary "signs" of the Antichrist is that he will claim he can "feed the world," which will propel him to popularity with the masses but we are supposed to recognize as a lie because it cannot be done, implication being that it encroaches on God's power over nature. .

I did not know that. Huh. Live and learn.

[Trilby]

Feed the world?

How about water the world?

My spidey senses tell me water is the next oil.

At any rate----my crazy friend posted another video about how our pineal glands are being calcified by loads of stuff but mainly fluoride which is in our water. The vid says fluoride is a toxic substance and it only takes a pea sized bit to poison your pineal gland which is your third eye/intuition/god connection.

god, I love her stuff. She's an amazing theory-nut but MAYBE SHE'S RIGHT! that's what gets me---I think, ya know, L is crazy but (secretly) she may be on to something here. And then I get weirded out for a while then go about my day hoping a meteor won't land upon my head. Or do wish it, depending on my mood.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Trilby

The vid says fluoride is a toxic substance and it only takes a pea sized bit to poison your pineal gland which is your third eye/intuition/god connection.

Fluoride is found naturally in some water. People drank and remained healthy. Extremists hype myths - ie the dangers of fluoride - because their audience does not always demand reasons why and numbers. Dangers of fluoride were lies hyped by extremists who campaigned against 'evil Crest toothpaste' and an a devil worship symbol from Procter and Gamble. Intentional lies are obvious. Fears get framed by subjective claims - no numbers.

Salt, calcium, and vitamins are toxic. And are required for health. If using soundbyte reasoning, both statements contradict. Missing is what informed readers immediately need and demand. Underlying reasons why and the numbers. Extremists manipulate the naive because the naive do not demand underlying facts with numbers.

Griff provided necessary details: Genetic use restriction technology. New information often takes at least three rereads to comprehend. You know it is useful. Each wiki reread should provide more knowledge.

Lamplighter's article was troubling. Because it does not say why (it was intentionally condensed). Because that abridged article is understood in only one reading. Therefore it reported little that was new or useful. It only introduced new legal confrontations without necessary details. Round Up resistant seeds produced without GURT was a surprise and relevant fact. Such details are important.

Did you understand that fluoride video in one sitting? Then it was woefully insufficient. And probably intentionally misleading to promote hate. If a fluoride video was useful, then you were still learning facts in a third and fourth replay. And have numbers for dangerous fluoride.

Fluoride exists naturally in many water systems. And people are quite healthy. However those towns support fewer dentists. So fluoride must be evil?

BTW, an over active and healthy pineal gland can result in rape by aliens. Be concerned. Calcify that gland to protect yourself.

[DanaC]

Don't go activating the pineal gland!




get into all sorts of problems activating the pineal gland.

[DanaC]

tell you what else is toxic...tooth decay.

Since water services were deregulated in the UK there's beena lot of divergence between different regions on putting flouride in the water. There was a study some years ago showing the rates of dental caries in children under 12, and how those rates changed with the introduction of flouride to the water supply. With the deregulated water companies, we now also have more recent studies showing rates of dental caries in the child population changing in response to a discontinuation of flouride in the water.

Tdub's right.

[ZenGum]

I often see the "Fluoride is poison!" hype from a few of my odder FB friends. Often with the "the Nazis used it, too!" add-on.

There have been a number of peer reviewed studies -mostly in China - showing that high levels of fluoride is associated with lower IQ. As well as the large numbers of possible confounding factors in industrial China, the key point is that these fluoride levels are many times higher than those you get from drinking fluoridated tap water.

Salt, water, oxygen ... pretty much everything is bad for you if you have too much. And too little. It's all Goldilocks, folks. Now eat your fluoridated soup.