If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
patent laws
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
hmm dont you think copyright and patent laws are extending too far into modern life like since when are 'ideas' or genes something that can be monopolisied
0
Comments
I agree to an extent, but it's important to scientists that no-one else pinches their idea, which has happened loads in the past. They put so much of their life into a genetic cose, it's apparently like losing a child if someone else lays claim to it.
and currently there are a wad of companies trying to patent the end results of their programming, ie the scrollbar etc completly stifling all creativity thank god the law hasnt been passed that makes these patents legally binding
i think patents should only apply to real physical inventions
Perhaps a new system for being officially the person to come up with idea x?
if its too broad it stifles all chance of competition and if it too narrow, people will rip them off
surely the job of the person whose idea it is, is to make sure he makes use of it well and let free market economics take hold
patents just say "I made this!" you can use them, but may have to pay a small fee for doing so.
I bet he's kicking himself for not patenting it.
its like saying "im going to patent the english language" - you cant do that!
its all fucking greed these days
People spend their lives researching something, working on say a programming language like HTML, they deserve to be able to live off it. It's not, as you say, "all fucking greed", some of these guys have realy earned it.
most of the time it is done out of greed though
especially the gene research
What says these guys will get what it's worth?
For example. Dyson, he could have sold the idea of a cyclone vac, and what he'd ahve got a few grand if that? 10 at the most? He's a millionaire now, and he earned it, and good luck to him.
Patenting gene's is a bit silly yeah, but it's not like we have to pay to have them is it?
It's generic drugs that are really the problem.
and the man who made dyson, yeh he's patented parts that do things, theyre still physical objects he has created himself, and he also started making them himself too, on a good design too
Why is the work on Dyson any less valid than the years of research put in by genetic scientists?
Generic drugs are a problem because people who own the patents make third world countries pay a shit load. Or force them into buying the brand name version. Drug companies also patent treatments that have been used for thousands of years by native tribes in africa.
well generic drugs aint a problem, its patented drugs that are a problem then, also why no new form of antibiotics have been discovered in past 50 years
but why should any group of people own a gene, if thats actually possible since they didnt create them, they were created by evolution, its like patenting gravity, comeplty stupid
When you've done scientific research you may not feel the same way. Patenting puts your name on it, and like patenting gravity or not, these people have work really hard. As I say before unless you get your name on something first in the scientific world, some complete bastard will come along and take it from you.
Is intellectual property in itself a good thing though?
and fiend, well theres a difference between giving recognition to the person who discovered or invented it, ie naming it after them or something, but to give someone the sole rights to something so noone can use it without their consent, thats just stupid and monopolistic
like real physical inventions, they can be patented which i dont mind as someone has used knowledge to build a device that does something, but to do the same to 'intellectual property' is just unethical in my opinion
you shouldnt be able to legally patent an idea, possibly if you build some sort of device with that idea, you can patent that so noone rips off your design, but not the actual idea of it
That's the point, there are plenty of times that recognition has been given to a person who is undeserving or 'late' simply because some other poor sod can't get his papers published.
Well that seems like the easy answer but scientists, and in many cases rightly so, are notoriously secretive and distrusting.
Where to approach though? If you approach a larger organisation they may just pinch it from you.
Just to make myself clear, I don't as such think that patenting certain genetic codes is necessarily a good idea. I can see the need for a proper equivalent of copyright though.
sorry to eidt i just trying to phrase myself correctly
yeh on genetics, i think no patents should apply
software patents shouldnt exist as they hold up progress
invention patents, which is why they were invented, should exist
scientific discoveries, should get patents, any technology made from it can, but not the idea itself, the discoveries should get recognition the traditional way of naming it after discoverer
Just out of interest, do you know of any sources where genetic patents have caused issue?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,397385,00.html
my objection to it is, that well, GM plants etc were 'created' so to speak so can be patented
but you shouldnt be able patent genes or a gene sequence, as the source shows the financial reasons are stupid as the cost of working out a gene sequence are nothing compared to actually developing a working drug or treatment, so in my opinion drugs can be patented, but as the law stands a government canoverride it, and allow a generic one to be produced if it in good cause
After reading the source, i agree.
Of what use would it be, if he didn't get anything for it?
Assuming that he was working on a physical product, then there wouldn't be much use. I suppose he gets paid as well?