- To: Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr
- Subject: Re: patents
- From: "Austin Tanney" <A.Tanney@ulst.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:26:08 GMT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Organization: University of Ulster
- Priority: normal
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't understand your response here. I am advocating a diminuishing
of large comanies through competition from small companies.
You seem to be disagreeing with all that I have said without actually
explaining why you disagree or arguing your own point. I disagree
with any form of monopolisation. Particularly in the Biotech
industry. This was the point of my last E-mail. I believe patenting
helps prevent the development of monopolies. What exactly do you
disagree with here and why. Your reply seems to agree with my points.
On the point of money. Any industry makes money, or it doesn't exist.
If the by product of making money happened to be curing cancer or
curing AIDS... who cares? If you are against the making of money
through science, how will any drug ever be produced? Out of the good
ness of peoples hearts?
> On the effects on *small* companies, OK there will be proses for them. But in a
> deal where those small companies will earn 1$ (just a figure), the large ones
> will earn 4 $.
> So what will you tell me. Wel earning monety is not a shame. earning
> more money than one's neighbour is not a shame neither. But if the ratio is
> so large that some companies can think of controling the whole alimentary
> chain, then I think there is something rotten in the kingdom of patentability ;)
> And the worse is that even if everybody earned 4$ (even me !!!),
> patenting life should even not be considered.
School of Applied Biological
and Chemical Sciences
University of Ulster
Phone: 01265 324030
Fax: 01265 324906
Mobile: (07788) 755150