|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2006 : 20:01:36
|
An amusing list of Intellectual Property Run Amok published by Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/03/intellectual_property.html
Some of my favorites: quote:
THE CLASSIC civil rights documentary Eyes on the Prize can't be aired or sold because much of its archival footage is copyrighted.
FOR INCLUDING a 60-second piece of silence on their album, the Planets were threatened with a lawsuit by the estate of composer John Cage, which said they'd ripped off his silent work 4'33”. The Planets countered that the estate failed to specify which 60 of the 273 seconds in Cage's piece had been pilfered.
THE WORLD WRESTLING Federation changed its name to World Wrestling Entertainment after the World Wildlife Fund sued over the rights to “WWF.”
AFTER ROSA PARKS sued OutKast for using her name as a song title, the group and their label settled by paying for a Parks tribute CD and TV special.
THE VILLAGE PEOPLE refused to let their songs be used for a documentary called Gay Sex in the '70s because they want to be thought of as “mainstream.”
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2006 : 21:47:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why/how would you patent a gene?
So when somebody comes up with a novel treatment based off the protien that gene codes for you get a cut.
Personally I think it is wrong to allow genes to be patented. Afterall, we all own the rights to our own DNA, don't we?
The patents should be only for novel artificial processes using a specific gene, not for the gene itself. Like a company comming up with a way to produce a specific protien (Epogen, for example) that can be used to treat a specific condition or problem, or to detect some problem or assess risk of genetic disease.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 01:50:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dudequote:
Why/how would you patent a gene?
So when somebody comes up with a novel treatment based off the protien that gene codes for you get a cut.
Such patent "cuts" can be quite decent.
BlackBerry maker, NTP ink $612 million settlement
Beats working (well you have to get the patent first)... |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 12:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Gene patents are a big deal. The scientists who deciphered the human genome put it up on the web for free to advance science. Of course having the reference only serves to help the gene patent frenzy. There a case pending before the supreme court now involving the discovery that a certain protein in the blood indicated a particular disease. They did not invent the test for the protein but insisted labs who ran the test pay them royalties for the discovery. The labs did but one lab quit paying a while back and it is now moving through the court system.
Personally I think it's a dangerous trend. Am I supposed to pay royalties to a person who discovered a disease like SARS if I diagnose that disease? If I don't choose to pay the royalties am I supposed to say to my patients I am only authorized to diagnose the following....If you have something not on the list the patent holders forbid me from diagnosing it? Or forbid me from say, taking your temperature to diagnose it because that is one of the diagnostic criteria? It will be a mess if the court rules in the researcher's favor here. Things could get very ridiculous. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2006 : 13:00:13 [Permalink]
|
I found out something that I thought was ridiculous about copyright laws in my Business of Art class. The prof said that if an artist creates a work of art, even if they sell the physical work, they still own the "image". If the buyer wants to put the image on mugs or T-shirts or even publish an image in a catalogue, they must get permission from the artist or buy the copyright. This sounds pretty tolerable so far.
However, it also applies to public works of art. In other words, if I do a sculpture that is placed in the front of a building, and a cityscape photographer takes a picture of that building that happens to include my sculpture, and then they publish the photo in a book, I could sue them and win. This, I think, is where it falls into the realm of ridiculousness. I mean, think about it, how come architects don't retain copyright over the "image" of their buildings? Why are photographers allowed to take pictures of anything manmade that is not made by themselves? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
