Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:44:30 -0500 (EST)


On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Seth Johnson wrote:

> The distinction you bring up is actually just another way of
> acknowledging the same basic truth.  Discovered principles,
> whether empirical or pure, are not humanly invented.

  Lets be honest here.  You can patent things that are not humanly 
invented in our current system, and the problem is far greater than 
software.

  Patents on Gene sequences are also a derivative of software patents, 
another type of program sequence.  When someone gets a patent on a gene, 
or the utility of a gene, they are getting a patent on a pure discovery 
regardless of the processes (possibly patentable) that are used to insert 
genes or otherwise manipulate these discoveries.

  I know that when a patent was granted on the SARS virus gene sequence I
had was suggesting that some entrepreneurial lawyer come forward with a
class action suit.  If the person/organization who got the patent on SARS
was to be believed to have INVENTED it, then they should have been 
considered responsible for its creation and the damage that it caused.


  Its funny how they want to be claimed to be inventing discoveries, but 
nobody wants to claim responsibility for these so-called "inventions".
It's not like a TUA (Technology Use Agreement, the gene sequence version 
of an EULA) was signed by any of the SARS victims, so no limited warranty 
contract would have been in place.

> But I'm a little lost here, wondering why you call for documentation
> given what I'm actually saying, not to speak of the fact this is a forum
> of like-minded advocates.


  The main point I have taken from Ben is that we can't assume anything as
we are dealing in a political situation where there is not even a common
understanding of the basic terminology.  What is or is not an "invention"
has been warped beyond recognition to the point that things not rationally
(in our mind) considered "under the sun made by man" are being granted
patents.  I doubt we could ever get consensus on a reasonable definition
of "made by man", and none of the other ways of phrasing this 
(controllable forces of nature) can be used given there are people 
deliberately misinterpreting that as well.

  Talking about pure logic to those who have a vested economic interest in
being illogical won't get us anywhere.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Have you, your family, your friends (, your enemies) signed the
 Petition to the Canadian Parliament for Users' Rights in Copyright?
 http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/