Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
That's rich interpecist to you, buddy.
Patentable plants and animals?
- Thread starter Homicidal_Squirrel
- Start date
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
Liar!
WayneLigon
Adventurer
From the article, I don't understand what I'm supposed to be enraged about unless it's the fact that we're talking means of producing new and variant plants and animals rather than, say, new and variant metals manufacturing processes. That actual thing to be concerned about here is the concept of the 'perpetual patent', and processes that never fall into the public domain.
We already do have laws granting companies the right to patent certain biological things - types of plants and bacteria so far, at the least. At some point you'll be seeing patents on human processes, or purchasing a one-use template to an enhanced human variant for your child. You can bet that the company that comes up with a retroactive regimen to, say, cure Down's Syndrome or reverse the effects of Meningitis will want to recoup it's costs and reap the profits of having a very much in-demand product.
We already do have laws granting companies the right to patent certain biological things - types of plants and bacteria so far, at the least. At some point you'll be seeing patents on human processes, or purchasing a one-use template to an enhanced human variant for your child. You can bet that the company that comes up with a retroactive regimen to, say, cure Down's Syndrome or reverse the effects of Meningitis will want to recoup it's costs and reap the profits of having a very much in-demand product.
No need to delete the thread. It isn't that big a deal.
However, it is an article about things lawmakers are doing, and about current national and world policy. Most of that it out of scope for EN World. For example, we might discuss the factual nature - what is, and what isn't, covered by current patent and copyright. But whether they should or shouldn't be covered is stepping into politics.
I will note, however, how much emotionally loaded language there is in that linked article. It reads to me as being an article far more interested in getting you to feel a particular way about events, rather than informing you about those events so you may make up your own mind about them.
However, it is an article about things lawmakers are doing, and about current national and world policy. Most of that it out of scope for EN World. For example, we might discuss the factual nature - what is, and what isn't, covered by current patent and copyright. But whether they should or shouldn't be covered is stepping into politics.
I will note, however, how much emotionally loaded language there is in that linked article. It reads to me as being an article far more interested in getting you to feel a particular way about events, rather than informing you about those events so you may make up your own mind about them.
Zombie_Babies
First Post
The article also links the document that it's written about and even goes so far as to link to specific sections it discusses. If you want more than emotion the article allows you to make up your own mind. It's not hiding anything.
Yes, but it seems to be trying very hard to color perceptions.
Having a link to the originals does not make the article's commentary valid, especially when they go out of their way to tell you the original documents are massive, complicated things.
Nothing they're doing is wrong, mind you. I just find it to be poor, unreliable journalism.
Zombie_Babies
First Post
It's an opinion piece, right? That's the way I interpreted it anyway. In that light I think the author did a pretty good job - heavy on the opinion, sure, but also presenting the material if you'd like to cover it yourself. I've read a lot of opinion on the toobz and that's pretty uncommon.
EDIT: Though I must agree that were one to interpret this as journalism it'd be way too heavy on the opinion. I think we just see this differently.
Similar Threads
