Text 10250, 155 rader
Skriven 2006-03-20 21:33:10 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 10249 av Mark (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: This Essay Breaks the Law
=====================================
From: "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com>

He did give a lecture titled "Aliens cause global warming" <g>

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Crichton does have a good point  about "new McCarthyism-coming from scientists"
though.

I doubt any here oppose debate on the issue - just the not to worry there's no
such thing as global warming - stop all research crowd


"Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:441f5f50@w3....
> Crichton makes a good argument on a variety of subjects, but he's on the
> "wrong" side of the "human caused" global warming issue, so he'll not get
> much support in this forum regardless of subject.
>
> "Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
> news:lmcu12hc24nmhhpkm1foefcef6ho6cu8sf@4ax.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&o
ref=slogin
>>
>> ===
>> By MICHAEL CRICHTON
>>
>> . The Earth revolves around the Sun.
>>
>> . The speed of light is a constant.
>>
>> . Apples fall to earth because of gravity.
>>
>> . Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.
>>
>> . Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.
>>
>> . Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.
>>
>> . Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should
>> test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.
>>
>> ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented
>> that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact
>> public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can
>> be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results
>> and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal
>> circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.
>>
>> All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be
>> argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a
>> patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine,
>> an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a
>> patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and
>> vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and
>> the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over
>> the license for the patent.
>>
>> Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods - other
>> companies make homocysteine tests, too - they assert licensing rights on
>> the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A
>> company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article
>> mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds,
>> and has won in court so far.
>>
>> But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed
>> correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic
>> bodily processes and "products of nature" are not patentable. That's why
>> no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts
>> have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful
>> forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue.
>>
>> In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply
>> thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of
>> thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like
>> something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick - or Kafka. But it highlights
>> the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in
>> recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from which they must
>> somehow extricate themselves.
>>
>> For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is
>> therefore our shared heritage and an undoubted fact of nature.
>> Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The gene
>> for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any
>> research you do, and what it will cost you. The entire genome of the
>> hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now
>> influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even
>> the testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and research
>> are not in the public interest. Do you want to be told by your doctor,
>> "Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the owner of the
>> gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research?"
>>
>> The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to
>> be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development,
>> whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a new
>> test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that's
>> your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But
>> they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that causes the
>> disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease. The
>> distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur
>> it. And even if correlation patents have been granted, the overwhelming
>> majority of medical correlations, including those listed above, are not
>> owned. And shouldn't be.
>>
>> Unfortunately for the public, the Metabolite case is only one example of
>> a much broader patent problem in this country. We grant patents at a
>> level of abstraction that is unwise, and it's gotten us into trouble in
>> the past. Some years back, doctors were allowed to patent surgical
>> procedures and sue other doctors who used their methods without paying a
>> fee. A blizzard of lawsuits followed. This unhealthy circumstance was
>> halted in 1996 by the American Medical Association and Congress, which
>> decided that doctors couldn't sue other doctors for using patented
>> surgical procedures. But the beat goes on.
>>
>> Companies have patented their method of hiring, and real estate agents
>> have patented the way they sell houses. Lawyers now advise athletes to
>> patent their sports moves, and screenwriters to patent their movie
>> plots. (My screenplay for "Jurassic Park" was cited as a good
>> candidate.)
>>
>> Where does all this lead? It means that if a real estate agent lists a
>> house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling
>> houses includes item No. 7, "List the house." It means that Kobe Bryant
>> may serve as an inspiration but not a model, because nobody can imitate
>> him without fines. It means nobody can write a dinosaur story because my
>> patent includes 257 items covering all aspects of behavior, like item
>> No. 13, "Dinosaurs attack humans and other dinosaurs."
>>
>> Such a situation is idiotic, of course. Yet elements of it already
>> exist. And unless we begin to turn this around, there will be worse to
>> come.
>>
>> I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings
>> hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned.
>> So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that
>> strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt
>> ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay
>> the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive.
>>
>> The Supreme Court should rule against Metabolite, and the Patent Office
>> should begin to reverse its strategy of patenting strategies. Basic
>> truths of nature can't be owned.
>>
>> Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a
>> previous publication." So anyone who criticizes what I have said here
>> had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in court.
>>
>> Michael Crichton is the author, most recently, of "State of Fear."
>> ===
>>
>> /m
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)