4 ms·

The hypothetical company holding the patent will argue that they are suffering financial damage, so they are losing something. I think the dogs are a bit of a

by Thiez 6y ago

The hypothetical company holding the patent will argue that they are suffering financial damage, so they are losing something. I think the dogs are a bit of a red herring here, drug patents are generally accepted by most of society, and it's patenting a natural process that happens when you throw the correct chemicals together under the correct circumstances. The "it's just chemicals reacting, nobody loses anything, nobody is hurt" argument will not get you anywhere.

setr 6y ago
One major difference is your involvement in creating the process: for drugs, you have clear intent to produce it. For the dog example, where you haven't encouraged the reproduction, by intending nothing at all, you've violated the patent
- Thiez 6y ago
  One might argue that by putting a male and a female dog together, both of them fertile, there is a clear intent for them to (eventually) reproduce. When the puppies are born you can throw your hands up in the air and pretend to be surprised, but I suspect that the judge will know how babies are made, and be very hard to convince that you did not.
  - Teever 6y ago
    Dude, dogs hump inanimate objects. Sooner or later a pair of patented dogs will breed without any human being involved. What then?
    - Thiez 6y ago
      They also bite inanimate objects, but as an owner you are still liable when they bite another dog or person. At the end of the day it's up to the judge to decide what a reasonable punishment should be, which may be based on the reasonable precautions that you did or did not take. If you can't accept that then just don't own an un-neutered patented dog. I'm not sure why you find this so complicated or unreasonable. And contrary to copyright, patents actually expire in a reasonable amount of time.
krageon 6y ago
"financial damage" to a company isn't bad societally, that's something lawyers yell about to each other. By and large nobody suffers.

by Thiez 6y ago

setr 6y ago

One major difference is your involvement in creating the process: for drugs, you have clear intent to produce it. For the dog example, where you haven't encouraged the reproduction, by intending nothing at all, you've violated the patent

Thiez 6y ago
One might argue that by putting a male and a female dog together, both of them fertile, there is a clear intent for them to (eventually) reproduce. When the puppies are born you can throw your hands up in the air and pretend to be surprised, but I suspect that the judge will know how babies are made, and be very hard to convince that you did not.
- Teever 6y ago
  Dude, dogs hump inanimate objects. Sooner or later a pair of patented dogs will breed without any human being involved. What then?
  - Thiez 6y ago
    They also bite inanimate objects, but as an owner you are still liable when they bite another dog or person. At the end of the day it's up to the judge to decide what a reasonable punishment should be, which may be based on the reasonable precautions that you did or did not take. If you can't accept that then just don't own an un-neutered patented dog. I'm not sure why you find this so complicated or unreasonable. And contrary to copyright, patents actually expire in a reasonable amount of time.

krageon 6y ago

"financial damage" to a company isn't bad societally, that's something lawyers yell about to each other. By and large nobody suffers.