|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 06:01 AM EST |
I agree with this, however it is irrelevant. If Monsanto want to sell seeds that
don't pass on their genes it is very easy, they just add that modification too.
They chose not to do so and to rely on lawyers being able to create new law to
keep their profits high.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 08:46 AM EST |
We are seeing the profit motive and corporate greed at work here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 11:45 AM EST |
PJ: the question of whether or not it is or should be patentable hinges upon the
law and what Congress decides to do with the law. I submit that one aspect of
any changes to patent law in this area should be to consider the public good.
Arguably for the public good software should NOT be patentable (as everyone who
reads Groklaw is so painfully aware). I'm not sure I understand the
implications of 'protecting' GM investement well enough to have a position
yet... I was just posing the question.
Patents were established to foster innovation, by allowing people to recoup
their investment indeveloping new technology. That objective, I submit, exists
in SOME form in the GM space, icky as that may make us feel. So how do we
foster true innovation?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|