3 ms·

No, this is like your Macbook being able to make copies of itself, so that after you buy one, you've got a new copy every year for the rest of your life. The d

by bhickey 14y ago

No, this is like your Macbook being able to make copies of itself, so that after you buy one, you've got a new copy every year for the rest of your life. The degree to which a business model is ill-conceived imparts no duty to other actors.

dionidium 14y ago
This is one of those things that sounds sort of clever but is obviously just nonsense. Lots of things are possible that we limit or prohibit because it's desirable that we do so. If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  But patent law exists largely to balance the needs of the innovators with the needs of the public to create better generics over time. This is far more the case, regarding the creation of better generic products, there than with copyright, but copyright serves the same balance as well. An additional aspect includes the rights of the consumer and balancing these as well. The problem I have here is that the patents are being used in a way here which serves only the innovator, and precludes better generic products over time. This fundamentally unbalanced by corporations which are greedy for both power and money, and in an area where the rights of the consumer are particularly important, namely food supply. So it isn't enough to say: > If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it. I think one also has to add, "provided that the rights and interests of other parties are respected and supported as well." That's what's wrong with Monsanto in this case (as well as Prometheus in their failed case last year, and the breast cancer gene patents, etc).

by bhickey 14y ago

dionidium 14y ago

This is one of those things that sounds sort of clever but is obviously just nonsense. Lots of things are possible that we limit or prohibit because it's desirable that we do so. If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it.

einhverfr 14y ago
But patent law exists largely to balance the needs of the innovators with the needs of the public to create better generics over time. This is far more the case, regarding the creation of better generic products, there than with copyright, but copyright serves the same balance as well. An additional aspect includes the rights of the consumer and balancing these as well. The problem I have here is that the patents are being used in a way here which serves only the innovator, and precludes better generic products over time. This fundamentally unbalanced by corporations which are greedy for both power and money, and in an area where the rights of the consumer are particularly important, namely food supply. So it isn't enough to say: > If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it. I think one also has to add, "provided that the rights and interests of other parties are respected and supported as well." That's what's wrong with Monsanto in this case (as well as Prometheus in their failed case last year, and the breast cancer gene patents, etc).