patents/licenses and Taq/Pfu DNA polymerase

[DK]

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