Patented "Substantially Equivalent" Frankenfood
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Patented "Substantially Equivalent" Frankenfood
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter M. Ligotti)
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: email@example.com
More Than a Bit of a Contradiction:
Patented yet "Substantially Equivalent" Frankenfood
David says here that time,
money and effort can be patented. He implies that it doesn't
matter if the product is unique -- just so that time, money,
and effort have gone into the product. Sorry to say, but that
is incorrect, in fact that's utter and complete Franken-thinking.
Patents are for inventive creativity, to reward and protect the
original creator of useful products, not to reward hard work,
time spent, sweat of the brow, sums of money, or even to protect
irresponsible corporations that stealfully
experiment on the global population with Frankenfoods.
>The point about patenting is that the invention isn't really what's being
>It's the time, money, effort etc that the inventor has put into the work.
>There has to be a certain amount of difference, or the new product can be
>classed as a copy of another product.
>However, SE is less to do with this than with the end effect on the
>MA Biotechnological Law and Ethics
>Sheffield University, UK.