Letters to the Editor
Aranfell
Published Letters: 23 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Patents should be on processes, not on materials
[Read the article: Peru's bio-piracy gestapo terrorizes the West]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is the excuse for allowing ANY biological material to be patented? It's just like patenting numbers. Every patent lawyer I've ever worked with has said that a non-design patent must describe a novel, non-obvious real-world process that produces a useful result. These restrictions, as fuzzy as they are, prevent some serious abuses.
So let them patent a process for extracting or making some biological material. Let them patent a proess for converting raw biological material into a more useful form. But they shouldn't be allowed to patent the material itself, because that's not a process. They *certainly* shouldn't be allowed to patent traditional knowledge, since if it's already known, it's not novel!
Of course I know why these patents are allowed: it's all about money. But the whole original purpose of patents was to reward people for disclosing knowledge that would allow others to improve on their inventions. Even ordinary patents are being used these days primarily as a means to prevent innovation by others or as a defense against such attacks. Those are the only reasons why companies I've worked for pay to have my ideas patented. They usually don't want me to read patents from other companies in my field, because that could result in legal trouble if I find out that we're infringing any of them!
As I see it, the patent system is fundamentally broken. So more power to the "bio-piracy gestapo". If they could get the whole biological material patent system overturned, we'd be far better off.
-
Why are genetic codes patentable?
[Read the article: Bio-pirate hunters and the war of the brackets]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Andrew,
Could you please explain how genetic codes became patentable in the first place? Patenting a plant that was developed makes sense, but patenting a genetic code that was discovered in the wild sounds like patenting a number, which never used to be allowed. I expect that the brief answer is "because rich companies wanted it that way", but surely there are some details that would prove interesting as part of the "debate" over bio-piracy.
Thanks,
Larry
-
It's clear who has raised a kid and who hasn't!
[Read the article: Free theater for nursing babies?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If a child of any age makes a disturbance during a performance, the parent should take the child to the lobby. Most parents know this, and ushers can deal with the ones who don't. Buying a ticket for the child doesn't change this.
But if a child is too young to need a seat, then the child is too young to need a ticket. We sometimes took our kids to plays when they were too young to leave with a baby sitter, which is to say, we sometimes went to plays.
For those worried about the "smack smack" of nursing, note that "nursing baby" is here a description of age, not a desscription of activity, nor is nursing always noisy. But if we are going to start banning offensive noises, I say we should ban candy wrappers before we ban nursing.
-
Lieberman's faith isn't the problem
[Read the article: In bed with Big Pharma]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> The vulgar left should just can their crap and admit their real beef with Lieberman was that he was openly religious. We all know it.
It's amazing how many things righties "all know" that are total crap. Lieberman's willingness to talk about his faith was one of the things that I liked the most about him. Huge numbers of us are very devout, but we mostly don't like to make a show of our religion. Still, we should talk more about why taking our faith seriously means rejecting the extremism of those on the right who defend hatred and violence, ignore the needs of the weak, and generally edit the Bible to match their preconceptions.
As regards Lieberman's supposedly liberal voting record, that's mostly a hollow shell. It doesn't matter how he votes when he knows the Republicans going to win. It matters when he attacks Democrats, speaks in favor of Republican positions, and votes with the Republicans on the procedural games that precede the final vote. It matters when he votes for business interests against the interests of his constituents.
It is clear that the Republican candidate will not win the Senate race in Connecticut, so the claim that Democrats will not win the Senate because of rejecting Lieberman is nonsense. If Lieberman wins, he will probably continue to call himself a Democrat and caucus with them, but he isn't one anymore. He formed his own independent party: "Connecticut for Lieberman". Has there ever before been a US politician so arrogant as to name his political party after himself? That arrogance is the real problem.
-
Finally people are paying attention
[Read the article: Climate-controlled White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Within a month of Bush first taking office, it was reported that he had removed from his science advisory boards anyone who disagreed with his views. Anyone paying attention knew right there that Bush valued ideology and didn't care about truth. It's interesting that this many of his employees "dropped off the menu", despite his best attempts to employ only scientists who agreed with him. Hopefully we'll get a Democratic (and democratic!) Congress now who will take serious action on global warning.
!
-
Torture, slavery and rape: all morally the same
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Saying that a recognized form of torture is personally repugnant but might not be illegal is like saying that a recognized form of rape is personally repugnant but might not be illegal. Or like saying that enslaving someone is repugnant but might not be illegal.
There are times to compromise, and there are times to say "NO!" When the subject is an "interrogation" method that has been recognized as extreme torture for hundreds of years (and which the US has prosecuted people for using), it is NOT time to compromise. If Bush can't submit a candidate who supports the law and opposes torture, then it's the duty of anyone in the Senate with both morals and guts to keep saying "NO!"
Aranfell