Text 10263, 187 rader
Skriven 2006-03-21 17:41:20 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 10251 av Mark (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: This Essay Breaks the Law
=====================================
From: Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com>

> Actually no one here is in that crowd, all of us, I'm quite sure,
> have no problem with continued research,

> so he'll not get much support in this forum regardless of subject.


You seem to think you speak for those in this forum.

Have you seen anyone for that?

 /m



On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:53:44 -0500, "Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:441f673c@w3....
>> 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
>
>Actually no one here is in that crowd, all of us, I'm quite sure, have no
>problem with continued research, what happens is if someone forgets to put
>in a qualifier (guilty) from time to time their position gets ripped up,
>spit out, and distorted because of that oversight.
>
>That said, I think in the long term my position of us humans not causing it,
>nor being able to effect a diminishing of it, will prove out, so do think at
>least an equal amount of resources should be applied to adaptation plans as
>are applied to the futile idea of prevention.
>
>>
>>
>> "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
&oref=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)