Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Taran Rampersad <>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:48:14 -0500

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>>>>>>"Michael" == Michael R Bernstein <> writes:
>    Michael> Doesn't that make open peer-review *more* important for
>    Michael> pharmaceuticals?
>Not particularly.  According to Steve McConnell, "open" (ie, "I'll
>look at it if and when I feel like it") peer review can't hold a
>candle to review by a team of expert professionals.  This is going to
>hold even more true for medical experiments.  Making it open (ie,
>requiring publication of the patent application as well as the patent
>awarded) is very unlikely to save any lives.
On the flip side, the Human Genome project has the capacity to save
lives and is fairly open (if not completely so). Doctors presently use
statistics for everything - an example being an aspirin a day reduces
the risk of heart attack. And yet, the Human Genome Project has shown
that this only works on every 1 out of 300.

We're not living in a world where statistics are as worthwhile anymore.
And in the medical community, I see potential for 'Open Medicine' in
that doctors around the world can study the latest things that have
worked - and have not. The application of this knowledge is up to the
individual doctor.

Steve McConnell has a good point as well - but that same point works
*for* Open Medicine instead of against it. Until it's legal to
impersonate a doctor, that point stays.

Taran Rampersad

"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed
but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men."  John F.