patents/licenses and Taq/Pfu DNA polymerase
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
>>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.
>I don't know of a non-patented Hotstart method out of the many
>>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
>>More and more, patents and patent laws are becoming
>>more and more ridiculous.
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).
More information about the Methods