patents/licenses and Taq/Pfu DNA polymerase

DK dk at no.email.thankstospam.net
Tue May 3 07:03:24 EST 2005


In article <66ms9VBw5zdCFA$d at abuse.plus.com>, Duncan Clark <news at genesysltd.co.uk> wrote:
>Historians believe that in newspost <d50m26$ihg$1 at news.doit.wisc.edu> on 
>Sat, 30 Apr 2005, DK <dk at no.email.thankstospam.net> penned the following 
>literary masterpiece:
>>In article <bz70viDc16bCFAbd at abuse.plus.com>, Duncan Clark
> <news at genesysltd.co.uk> wrote:
>>>All Hotstart methods are covered by patents,
>>>regardless of what they are.
>>
>>Wow.
>
>I don't know of a non-patented Hotstart method out of the many 
>available.
>
>>Makes me wonder why no one yet patented all gel
>>electrophoreis methods, regardless of what they are.
>
>If electrophoresis was invented now then I have no doubt it would be 
>patented.
>
>>
>>More and more, patents and patent laws are becoming
>>more and more ridiculous.
>
>$$$
>
>That's why.

To me it means that the law is seriously broken. Broken laws
can cause more trouble than no laws at all. There apparently 
exists a patent given out *recently* that covers basically entire 
protein crystallography field in one swoop. This is stupid 
and incredibly dishonest - all at the same time. 

>We all land up paying the patent lawyers.
>
>So if you want to be well off, become a biotech patent lawyer.
>
>However maybe it is patents that also drive the inventions. 

I always found this argument a bit disingenuous. A lot like
record companies crying that without selling more CDs there 
will be no more music. Hmm, last time I checked writing 
poetry was not the best way to make megabucks - yet
people keep writing poems. 

I don't believe creativity is driven by dollars (at least not 
beyond certain bottom line that allows one not to worry 
about basic lifehood necessities).

DK



More information about the Methods mailing list