Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:17:08 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Anon is hammering the Justice Department  (Read 2737 times)
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 06:49:52 PM
 #21

I am not talking about roundup-ready crops, and the fertilizers and soil conditioners to be used in conjunction with RR have nothing to do with it. They hold thousands upon thousands of patents on plants that have never been cultivated outside a lab. Maybe I just want one that produces a higher concentration of oil per kernel than the regular old Burpee seed packets. I am talking about patented genetics...genetics that some may know as merely a store of information. You say that there are other sunflowers...yeah, there are over 10,000 Asteracea species, but I am not talking about them. I am talking about one.

Say I never take the seed...say I drop a cutting into my tissue culture hood and form my own plants from a small scraping. I do it regularly as a hobby. If I culture it, flower it, and harvest the fruit, how in the fuck can they still own it? Stealing involves something being taken, and not being available to the original owner anymore. Culturing, breeding, or copying, if you please, are not theft and cause no monetary loss.

If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...

I believe it would boil down to where you got the original cutting.. if you stole it form someone elses property, if it were given to you or yyou were allowed to take it, and if they had the right to give it to you or let you take it to begin with. If someone changes the genetic code of a naturally occurring plant, then patent that, its theirs. They did the work. They invested in the research and development. Its no different than someone taking the earths naturally occurring resources and manipulating them into the latest bleeding-edge "widget". If you use their patented method or product, you pay a royalty fee or invest in research and development and make your own. Making your own does not include stealing off someone else who invested time, money, and resources in my opinion.


"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
1481019428
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481019428

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481019428
Reply with quote  #2

1481019428
Report to moderator
1481019428
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481019428

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481019428
Reply with quote  #2

1481019428
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481019428
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481019428

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481019428
Reply with quote  #2

1481019428
Report to moderator
1481019428
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481019428

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481019428
Reply with quote  #2

1481019428
Report to moderator
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 07:15:07 PM
 #22

I am not talking about roundup-ready crops, and the fertilizers and soil conditioners to be used in conjunction with RR have nothing to do with it. They hold thousands upon thousands of patents on plants that have never been cultivated outside a lab. Maybe I just want one that produces a higher concentration of oil per kernel than the regular old Burpee seed packets. I am talking about patented genetics...genetics that some may know as merely a store of information. You say that there are other sunflowers...yeah, there are over 10,000 Asteracea species, but I am not talking about them. I am talking about one.

Say I never take the seed...say I drop a cutting into my tissue culture hood and form my own plants from a small scraping. I do it regularly as a hobby. If I culture it, flower it, and harvest the fruit, how in the fuck can they still own it? Stealing involves something being taken, and not being available to the original owner anymore. Culturing, breeding, or copying, if you please, are not theft and cause no monetary loss.

If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...

I believe it would boil down to where you got the original cutting.. if you stole it form someone elses property, if it were given to you or yyou were allowed to take it, and if they had the right to give it to you or let you take it to begin with. If someone changes the genetic code of a naturally occurring plant, then patent that, its theirs. They did the work. They invested in the research and development. Its no different than someone taking the earths naturally occurring resources and manipulating them into the latest bleeding-edge "widget". If you use their patented method or product, you pay a royalty fee or invest in research and development and make your own. Making your own does not include stealing off someone else who invested time, money, and resources in my opinion.



So by your logic, absolutely ANY plant that I allow to reproduce sexually is a unique creation that I did the work on, and as such is my property and anyone who wants to grow my varietal should pay?

I think you don't understand the nature of genetic manipulation and plant breeding.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 09:26:14 PM
 #23

So by your logic, absolutely ANY plant that I allow to reproduce sexually is a unique creation that I did the work on, and as such is my property and anyone who wants to grow my varietal should pay?

I think you don't understand the nature of genetic manipulation and plant breeding.

No. That is not my logic at all.

You simply growing a plant does not alter the genetic code in any meaningful, intentional, or specific way. Yes, of course it is unique, as is all genetic code of every living plant and animal, however the "alteration" that occurs in your example is by natural mechanisms/processes beyond any control... evolution, if you will.

My logic is that if the genetic code is intentionally altered to create a unique breed/variety that intentionally and materially alters any specific characteristics of that plant, such as yield, product quality, taste/flavor, longevity, enviromental survivability, resistances, etc, would be patentable and property of the developer, if they so choose.


"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 09:45:58 PM
 #24

So by your logic, absolutely ANY plant that I allow to reproduce sexually is a unique creation that I did the work on, and as such is my property and anyone who wants to grow my varietal should pay?

I think you don't understand the nature of genetic manipulation and plant breeding.

No. That is not my logic at all.

You simply growing a plant does not alter the genetic code in any meaningful, intentional, or specific way. Yes, of course it is unique, as is all genetic code of every living plant and animal, however the "alteration" that occurs in your example is by natural mechanisms/processes beyond any control... evolution, if you will.

My logic is that if the genetic code is intentionally altered to create a unique breed/variety that intentionally and materially alters any specific characteristics of that plant, such as yield, product quality, taste/flavor, longevity, enviromental survivability, resistances, etc, would be patentable and property of the developer, if they so choose.



You still don't understand. People could do the same thing in a basement lab. Genetic modification is very easy in plants, not even requiring very expensive or serious lab equipment, and while you need to weed through a lot of phenotypes, you will get that patented Montsanto seed eventually.

PS-Selective breeding is intentional manipulation of specific characteristics of the plant. Gregor Mendel. Google that shit.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 09:56:48 PM
 #25


Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...
Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 10:41:28 PM
 #26


Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...
Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

You are right.  But some people think that they are entitled to take Ford's investment in research and development and profit from it themselves.  Its a small minority - most of us know its theft.

RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 11:08:00 PM
 #27


Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...
Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

I am not talking about a huge corporation mass-producing an object, I am talking about people and fair use. If I spend vastly more time and effort to build my own version and I am not trying to profit off it, even if it turns out exactly the same, how is that stealing?

In plant genetics especially, there are a lot of different ways to elicit a mutation you are looking for. If I take a different road to the same result, somehow I am stealing from the patent holder. Fuck that noise.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
 #28


Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...
Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

I am not talking about a huge corporation mass-producing an object, I am talking about people and fair use. If I spend vastly more time and effort to build my own version and I am not trying to profit off it, even if it turns out exactly the same, how is that stealing?

In plant genetics especially, there are a lot of different ways to elicit a mutation you are looking for. If I take a different road to the same result, somehow I am stealing from the patent holder. Fuck that noise.

There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for patents. It simply does not exist in the patent system. Mostly because patents deal more with the physical implementation of ideas instead of the expression of ideas. Patents bring thought to reality through a process, all of which is protected by the patent.

Even for copyrights, this would not come under fair use because you would be effectively replicating it in its entirety, basically performing an identical performance as the original, in its entirety, which you have no right to do without permission because the basis for your new plant is the original that is protected.

That said, Utility Patents exist for significant improvement upon an original patent, and you certainly have the right to improve upon the original, so long as your process is unique, novel, not a basic deviation of whats been done before, and most importantly, you arent infringing on the original patent its based on. In other words, its an actual improvement of the original that would be of some substancial benefit the original did not provide.

Huge corporation research lab or musty old basement is not relevent. Bill Gates started in the garage.

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
January 31, 2012, 11:47:56 PM
 #29

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 12:04:07 AM
 #30

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

Indeed, this has gone way off topic.  I'll admit that I've been party to it, but it has to stop.  I'll be forced to split the thread if there is any more of it, and that involves a great deal of work on my part.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:23:53 AM
 #31

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

I never said I was against personal use. What I said was that fair use does not exist in patent law and what you proposed doing was illegal.

Will Monsanto visit your home ?

Doubtful.

Is it legal ?

No.

Do I care about people breaking statute law that flies directly in the face of common law?

Not if they do not cause someone else harm and honor their commercial agreements, but we dont live in that common law simple world that once existed.

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:27:53 AM
 #32

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

Indeed, this has gone way off topic.  I'll admit that I've been party to it, but it has to stop.  I'll be forced to split the thread if there is any more of it, and that involves a great deal of work on my part.

I don't know...anonymous responds to crackdown on piracy, we get into intellectual property law...seems relevant enough for you to shirk that job.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:33:39 AM
 #33


Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...
Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

I am not talking about a huge corporation mass-producing an object, I am talking about people and fair use. If I spend vastly more time and effort to build my own version and I am not trying to profit off it, even if it turns out exactly the same, how is that stealing?

In plant genetics especially, there are a lot of different ways to elicit a mutation you are looking for. If I take a different road to the same result, somehow I am stealing from the patent holder. Fuck that noise.

There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for patents. It simply does not exist in the patent system. Mostly because patents deal more with the physical implementation of ideas instead of the expression of ideas. Patents bring thought to reality through a process, all of which is protected by the patent.

Even for copyrights, this would not come under fair use because you would be effectively replicating it in its entirety, basically performing an identical performance as the original, in its entirety, which you have no right to do without permission because the basis for your new plant is the original that is protected.

That said, Utility Patents exist for significant improvement upon an original patent, and you certainly have the right to improve upon the original, so long as your process is unique, novel, not a basic deviation of whats been done before, and most importantly, you arent infringing on the original patent its based on. In other words, its an actual improvement of the original that would be of some substancial benefit the original did not provide.

Huge corporation research lab or musty old basement is not relevent. Bill Gates started in the garage.
I'm pretty sure anyone can build anything for their own personal use.  Patent laws only apply when you start selling things that utilize patented technologies.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:41:34 AM
 #34

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

Indeed, this has gone way off topic.  I'll admit that I've been party to it, but it has to stop.  I'll be forced to split the thread if there is any more of it, and that involves a great deal of work on my part.

I don't know...anonymous responds to crackdown on piracy, we get into intellectual property law...seems relevant enough for you to shirk that job.

I can cling to that one.

EDIT:  Yes there is such a thing as "fair use" in patent law, although it's not called that.  Anyone or any company can produce another company's patented products for their "own use" (usually market research) so long as they don't actually sell those products or anything substantially similar until the patent expires.  Drug manufactures that produce generics depend upon this to exist, so that they can get the products to market the very same day that the patent expires.  The island nation of Malta has turned this into an artform.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:49:37 AM
 #35


Let me pose a question for you: If I take a Montsanto sunflower seed, grow it, harvest the seeds and plant ten of them the next year, am I stealing from Montsanto?
If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...
Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

I am not talking about a huge corporation mass-producing an object, I am talking about people and fair use. If I spend vastly more time and effort to build my own version and I am not trying to profit off it, even if it turns out exactly the same, how is that stealing?

In plant genetics especially, there are a lot of different ways to elicit a mutation you are looking for. If I take a different road to the same result, somehow I am stealing from the patent holder. Fuck that noise.

There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for patents. It simply does not exist in the patent system. Mostly because patents deal more with the physical implementation of ideas instead of the expression of ideas. Patents bring thought to reality through a process, all of which is protected by the patent.

Even for copyrights, this would not come under fair use because you would be effectively replicating it in its entirety, basically performing an identical performance as the original, in its entirety, which you have no right to do without permission because the basis for your new plant is the original that is protected.

That said, Utility Patents exist for significant improvement upon an original patent, and you certainly have the right to improve upon the original, so long as your process is unique, novel, not a basic deviation of whats been done before, and most importantly, you arent infringing on the original patent its based on. In other words, its an actual improvement of the original that would be of some substancial benefit the original did not provide.

Huge corporation research lab or musty old basement is not relevent. Bill Gates started in the garage.
I'm pretty sure anyone can build anything for their own personal use.  Patent laws only apply when you start selling things that utilize patented technologies.

US patent law is a bit more strict than most other regions, in that it forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is personal. That said, the likelihood of a patent holder bringing suit against singular personal use is rare, if not unheard of, simply for the costs of the suit even if they did find out about the infringement, whch is unlikely. I believe most european countries allow for personal use though. Best to check with your country/region though if you are worried about it.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf
http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!