- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: SE
- From: "Austin Tanney" <A.Tanney@ulst.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:38:41 GMT
- Cc: email@example.com
- Organization: University of Ulster
- Priority: normal
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-From: email@example.com
Thank you David!
This succinctly sums up my opinions on patenting. I'm sure you will
agree that this is difficult to argue with!
> Reply-to: "David Wengraf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: "David Wengraf" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: SE
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:24:14 +0100
> 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
> David Wengraf
> MA Biotechnological Law and Ethics
> Sheffield University, UK.
> >Trevor Lien,
> >Sorry I must be thicker than a brick but if I understand your description
> >of SE it is difficult to understand the basis for many biotech patents (I'm
> >talking about Canada, which is where I live also). I perfectly well
> >understand the economic need for patents but, as someone who has always
> >thought the chemical corporations made a huge mistake by not embracing
> >labeling of their life science products, it is tough to bring together the
> >principles of SE and patenting. It seems on the one hand they say
> >everything is the same and on the other that it is completely different.
> >Can we have it both ways?
> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
> subscribe or help is:
> The searchable WWW list archive is available at