- To: A.Tanney@ulst.ac.uk, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: patentability
- From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:59:23 +0200 (MET DST)
- Content-MD5: 0ch9GOVw9gpVK9e/wCNZgQ==
- Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Reply-To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
Austin Tanney said :
>Generally it is not the organism that is patented, it is the gene
>construct and method of transfection which is patented rather than
>the organism itself.
I think it is false. Even some organs can be patented if separated from
the human body. but also animals (chimers).
you surely already saw the problems triggered by patenting of a bacterium
that is involved in an important disease.
So, at least bacteria also can be patented.
May I know why you want to diminish the possibilities of patenting ?
>Are you suggesting that all drugs should be produced in plants yet
>When you say no living organism should be patented do
>you include bacteria and plants?
>If the intellectual property for
>production of rec. proteins and other bioactive substances is not
>patent protected most of these would not come to production.
please look for archives of Gentech. you try to promote a system
that proves itself, starting from its own assumptions but not proving right.
one example : When the Curie's have discovered the effects of
radioactivity for medecine, they REFUSED to patent so as to promote
the use of this technique. andf it worked. OK, they did not get rich.
but we got cured.
You start from the assumption that only large firms can do research.
And, some of proponents regret (after) that only large firms control
the system.(see after for an example in your own e-mail).
>venture capital most of these products would not exist
I proved above that, at least as stated, it is false
>patents there would be no venture capital.
So what ?
>This may be an unfortunate fact but it is the case.
Not so unfortunate (for venture capital).
Jackpot : you said it :
>I agree that to trust 100% in companies goes beyond naive and
>approaches stupidity, however, in most countries there is not enough
>money put into research for products to be researched, let alone
Think of the example of those in the 40's who said that the nazis were
devil, but they had to earn their wages and drove trains.
The image is not so caricatural and adresses the point.
>No company acts altruistically but if in the pursuit of
>profit they produce a life saving drug then what is the problem.
but if there is a different system that would save as many lifes, what
is the problem to prohibit patentability ?
>If their IP was not patent protected then they would
>not exist as larger companies such as monsanto or whoever would
>simply have taken their technology and used it themselves.
and also the public research, and the research in the pooor countries, or even
intermediate countries would have taken it and would have profited by it.
So everybody could use it. Wouldn't it be better ?
Except that I would favor a "liberal" approach : limiting the size of any
firm to 5% of the Amount of richness produced by a whole country (so it
would depend of the country)
This would prohibit Monsanto to act in so small countries that buying
a minister is as cheap as buying a simple civil servant.
Last : you have the same religion of life. Please, life has not an unlimited
value. It's obvious in hospitals. It has serious consequences.
Just one example :
if you give birth to a child who would not have got born 100 years ago, you
present it as a prose.
But if he has a degeneracy, I pretend it is a con.
You see : we do not speak of the same things.