• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

CAPITALIST INSANITY

CAV said:
Now that is almost an actual opinion! Far different from dropping someone else’s article and titling the post "Yeah what he said!"

What you weren't aware before deciding to respond to me with such "zeal and vigor" (kudos on at least having some passion) was that I'd been reading quite a few of your other posts. I decided to call you out because most of your political posts show a general lack of knowledge on the subjects you choose to "discuss". The real sticking point occurs once someone dares to disagree with you. You tend to come off as a bully instead of acting like an adult and having an informed debate. It has to be personal in order to be effective . In short, you have a short string and I knew that I would get this kind of a reaction when I pulled it. Thanks for proving my point with your previous post. Yep, I baited you and you took it......hook......line......and sinker. :poke:

So lesson learned. That's how you come off to people that don't know you from Adam. Don't get into a battle of wits with someone you don’t know; they might just make you look downright silly. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ahh, touche CAVeman, but 'twas I who baited you. Naturally CAVething, knowing you would eventually come out of your CAVe to finally call out Forked tongue, I decided I would patent the gene myself, causing Forked tongue to post this thread, and you to go after him with your army of emoticons. So see, I was the one who caught you looking downright silly. Mwahahaha "insert emoticon" Mwahahaha "insert another emoticon"!!!
 
CAV said:
The equipment that he uses to find it, dig it, store it and turn it into pottery can all patented. The techniques he used to find the clay, mold the clay, fire the clay and paint the clay can all be patented. The design of the pottery itself can be patented. All he has to do is file the paperwork and prove that no one else holds a similar patent. :)
Click to expand...

All of which is well and good, but you CAN'T patent the clay itself anymore than you can the gene itself. The methods? Fine, patent that. The tech used to find it? Drugs to treat it? GREAT! But they patented the gene itself, that is what's wrong.


CAV said:
That is simply not true. This company was the first one to the finish line in regards to finding this particular gene. Once they found it, they documented it, filed for the patent and were granted one. It is now something that they own the rights to under the laws of the United States.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can patent something you found and not made. Hey look, I found some dirt! I'm gonna patent dirt! If I used a 5 dollar shovel to find the dirt or billions to find the gene, you can't patent something that was made my mother nature and exists all over the plant already.

CAV said:
Guys, it’s not personal, it’s the law. That's why it’s called the legal system and not the justice system. They're simply protecting their interests and that of their shareholders. Whether they are willing to invest the dollars necessary to find the cure or are willing to let someone else "rent" the rights to use their data, who cares?!? The end result is that a medical advancement gets made that otherwise would never had been achieved. If people are cured then the process that it took to get from "A" to "B" will be nothing more than a footnote in a scientific journal.
Click to expand...

And it is being fought, and hopefully won. I don't care if they don't want to SHARE what the gene is, let other people find it, fine. But they should have the option to "find" it and use themselves.

CAV said:
If you don't like they way they handled this matter then 1) stop complaining, 2) get off the computer, 3) go back to school and get edjumacated, and 4)go find your own gene! You can file a patent, name it something cool like “Trundlefart Gene” and then choose whether you want to give it away or sell it for a profit!

That’s what makes capitalism so great!
Click to expand...

I think this case will be won, and the gene will not be something people can patent. Patents are for creators, people who come up with designs, techniques, inventions. Not people who "find" something created by nature.
 
At least I know I can die with dignity of breast and/or ovarian cancer knowing that even if I wanted to do something about it, I couldn't. :rolleyes:

This represents the greatest type of greed in my mind. We're talking cancer here... a disease for which there is no cure. These ridiculous patents are preventing millions of research institutes from possibly discovering treatment, and for what? So that patenting company can call "dibs" if it ever does find a successful cure? By excluding help?

Good lord, you'd think that maybe Americans would happily enlist anyone and everyone they can to perform extensive genetic research on breast and ovarian cancer. Genetic research is incredibly complicated. Throw a disease like cancer in the mix, and you're talking about a slew of different levels of expertise needed. Apparently, money and the right to claim "dibs" is worth more than millions of lives.
 
Again, Amen. I don't know about anyone else here, but I am a BCS and am so grateful that my physicians looked at me as a person rather than a dollar sign. I could go on, but I'm thinking that I'll just be ridiculed by someone who feels that defending our country gives them a right to ridicule our rights. I defend my country every freakin' day.
 
Last edited:
v_various said:
Patents are for creators, people who come up with designs, techniques, inventions. Not people who "find" something created by nature.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about GFP being used to create the patented "Glo-fish?" It occurs in nature, but there is a very real patent on it.
 
elrojo said:
How do you feel about GFP being used to create the patented "Glo-fish?" It occurs in nature, but there is a very real patent on it.
Click to expand...

Glofish don't occur in nature. Danios without jellyfish genes occur in nature and jellyfish occur in nature. And the people who discovered danios and jellyfish don't get patents on them. It's like potatoes that can withstand lots of fungicides; legitimate patent IMO. :cheers:
 
I think if we all look back in pharmaceutical history we will find that drug companies have obtained patents for things found naturally in our environments for years. Look at half of our antibiotics, painkillers, and vaccines- they all are made with chemicals, compounds, and other natural inputs and not exactly created in whole, but discovered. I forget now I'm tired but it was either strep or staph that was first discovered in a clump of dirt a chicken had chocked on....seriously, lol! Human embryos that have been donated to science for stem cell research also are patented and every drug we have ever taken was at one point patented if at not still. Research and Development costs these companies billions before they ever see a penny and thats when a use is actually found otherwise these efforts are a complete loss. Its not that other companies can't study the same gene or even obtain it many already have it- these breast cancer cells have been known for some time. I guess it can sound like a sick idea if you don't understand how science works, but without government grants most of these companies couldn't have funded half of their projects that have produced the medicines and treatments that save lives. The only thing this patent will prevent is government funding to other organizations wanting to do the same research not the research.
 
How do you feel about GFP being used to create the patented "Glo-fish?" It occurs in nature, but there is a very real patent on it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't occur in nature the way it's pattented.

danielle said:
I think if we all look back in pharmaceutical history we will find that drug companies have obtained patents for things found naturally in our environments for years. Look at half of our antibiotics, painkillers, and vaccines- they all are made with chemicals, compounds, and other natural inputs and not exactly created in whole, but discovered. I forget now I'm tired but it was either strep or staph that was first discovered in a clump of dirt a chicken had chocked on....seriously, lol! Human embryos that have been donated to science for stem cell research also are patented and every drug we have ever taken was at one point patented if at not still. Research and Development costs these companies billions before they ever see a penny and thats when a use is actually found otherwise these efforts are a complete loss. Its not that other companies can't study the same gene or even obtain it many already have it- these breast cancer cells have been known for some time. I guess it can sound like a sick idea if you don't understand how science works, but without government grants most of these companies couldn't have funded half of their projects that have produced the medicines and treatments that save lives. The only thing this patent will prevent is government funding to other organizations wanting to do the same research not the research.
Click to expand...
Huh? Could you provide some documentation for this?
 
danielle said:
I think if we all look back in pharmaceutical history we will find that drug companies have obtained patents for things found naturally in our environments for years.
Click to expand...

It's the processed drugs that get patented, not the chemicals themselves. Once you create something from X Y Z ingredients, you can patent it and the process that's used to create it, and the brand name. You can't patent the ingredients themselves though. If that were the case, someone could apply to patent oxygen.

It's why I can go buy Tylenol, or the generic ibuprofen at the store. Same thing made by different companies, Tylenol just has a brand name but no claim on the chemicals themselves.
 
tink tink tink Hello?! Anyone there?

A. Patents typically expire after 20 years.

2. Why the anger with the company?? Why not the GOVERNMENT agency that awarded the patent in the first place?

III. If finding the pieces parts to the human genome were as easy as finding clay on a beach I guess we'd all have patents.

d. This actually surprises any of you and produces outrage?! Seriously? In today's world, where there are real discussions taking place about taxing "carbon use" this surprises and enrages you?

D80
 
well, I'll trust a teacher over anyone else's opinion in this thread, including my own XD
The clay on a beach thing was an example though. Just to prove that finding something that exists *everywhere* doesn't entitle you to a patent. I'm sure this will get reversed, but it will be interesting to watch it all pan out in the courts either way.

I have no rage left for the government, my levels have been depleted as of late (we just had provincial elections yesterday) Uggggggggh
 
v_various said:
It's the processed drugs that get patented, not the chemicals themselves. Once you create something from X Y Z ingredients, you can patent it and the process that's used to create it, and the brand name. You can't patent the ingredients themselves though. If that were the case, someone could apply to patent oxygen.

It's why I can go buy Tylenol, or the generic ibuprofen at the store. Same thing made by different companies, Tylenol just has a brand name but no claim on the chemicals themselves.
Click to expand...
There ya go!

Drizzt80 tink tink tink Hello?! Anyone there?

A. Patents typically expire after 20 years.

You're right Brent, That is a very long time considering how fast medical advances occur. What a complete waste of 20 years.

2. Why the anger with the company?? Why not the GOVERNMENT agency that awarded the patent in the first place?
Grab a pitchfork let's goooooooooooooooooooooo lol


III. If finding the pieces parts to the human genome were as easy as finding clay on a beach I guess we'd all have patents.
Yeah, tell that to Sponge Bob Squarepants.

d. This actually surprises any of you and produces outrage?! Seriously? In today's world, where there are real discussions taking place about taxing "carbon use" this surprises and enrages you?
I imagine it would outrage anyone that knows what it's like to have or lose someone to cancer to find out treatments and cures may be hampered by corporations that waste time and lives patenting something that never should be, as opposed to looking for a cure.
D80
Click to expand...
 
Kyle, I have to spread the rep around, but Bravo for your answer last answer above!
 
ForkedTung said:
I imagine it would outrage anyone that knows what it's like to have or lose someone to cancer to find out treatments and cures may be hampered by corporations that waste time and lives patenting something that never should be, as opposed to looking for a cure.
Click to expand...
But see that's just it. So this company has a patent on the gene. Someone else has a patent on a pipet that works best for working with that gene. You either buy that pipet at an outrageous price or you use an inferior pipet. Another company has a patent on a machine that works best for singling that gene out. You either buy that machine at an inflated price due to its patent or you use an inferior model. Yet another company has a patent on a patent on the gel used. You either use that gel or you use a different one that may not work as well or as fast or whatever. So on and so forth. "Everyone" has a patent and is getting paid for something in that process. You, the researcher, either pay that price or you hamper your research. Of course, we could have the government pay for everything . . . they're pretty good at paying for quality research.

Let's throw a conspiracy theory in to the mix, not one I believe mind you, but do """they""" even want to find a cure for cancer? :eek:

D80
 
ForkedTung said:
Wow CAV, I just don't know where to start with your assumptions. I don't think quoting an entire article means that I agree with everything contained within and I think any reasonable person would be able to discern that. ....
Click to expand...
whoa whoa whoa back that wagon up. Didn't you just do this very thing when I quoted you on the WOOOOT thread? You made the leap that my question was about Obama even though I never mentioned him based simply on the fact that I quoted your entire post. :grin01:
 
Many thanks, tsst. There ARE a few of us on here, actually. I was extremely lucky in that it was found very early and easily taken care of. I didn't go through half of what some women go through. This is one of the reasons this article and this company infuritate me. Making a blood test so expensive will lead to many women with inadequate health insurance decide against getting tested at all. It reads like a Robin Cook thriller with the insurance companies killing off those who test positive to avoid paying future claims.
 
Lori I didnt know you where a BCS either.. I am glad you made it through.. The owner of the snake shop had it too, it went to her brain, and now they found tumors in her breast area again.. Shes getting treatments again, hopefully all goes well.
See I am onr of those women who doesnt have insurance and cant pay high fees. BUt then again, I hate DR's anyway..
 
Wow, Jazzy I didn't realize you were so sensitive about the new birthday....

LBoz said:
I'm thinking that I'll just be ridiculed by someone who feels that defending our country gives them a right to ridicule our rights.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you didn't feel like you were get enough attention last night. Heck, I didn't even know you were in the conversation! My humblest apologies.

I'd love to know which of your "rights" I ridiculed. Do tell! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top