|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
You don't need a licence for tripping over a lump of the stuff discovered in the
wild after the patent is published.
You do need a licence for using the new source of the composition of matter for
the patented useful purpose.
Filipendula ulmaria, commonly known as meadowsweet or mead wort, contains the
chemicals used to make aspirin (TM). It is no longer manufactured by this
method, but if Bayer's patent was still in force, any manufacture, mining and
sale for its analgesic properties would require a patent licence.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
Patents are supposed to be a spur to innovation, I don't
think anyone is arguing that Myriad can't have their patent
on a process for identifying and testing for this gene.
The issue is they have an overly broad patent that stops
anyone from even developing a competing test or process.
You can argue the legalese over language all you like but
your allowing patents on fundamental principles rather than
on a specific invention.
This will come back to bite the US hard they should be
promoting a very high quality threshold for inventions
instead of pandering to greedy short term interests and a
huge push to export this madness on a global scale.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
The patent should be on the "how to make", not on the "what it
is".
If they're going to make such a stink over pharmaceuticals, then by all means
give them a unique authorisation for X years to make the stuff, but it shouldn't
be a patent on the chemical itself.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
