Re: [dvd-discuss] Patented copyright ...

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

One of the many flaws in this scheme is the need to show that an 
infringer actually copied the material in question from a work you 
created. Suppose the alleged infringer proves he sequenced the gene 
directly from a mouse? With patents, that's no defense. With 
copyright, it seems to me it would be. That raises the interesting 
possibility of mouse breeders being served with section 512 notices 
demanding they remove the gene in question from the mice they sell. 
Gene sequencers would of course be proscribed as circumvention 
devices.

Arnold Reinhold



At 8:44 AM -0700 5/22/02, Richard Hartman wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52666,00.html
>
>This Wired News article talks about companies' plans to
>encode DNA sequences as MP3 tunes, then protect the "music"
>with copyright ... gaining 95 years protection vs. the
>current 17 for patent. 
>
>Now I see a flaw here ... sure, they own the copyright
>on the genetic "music" ... and if I play it on the radio
>I'll owe them royalties ... but if I make a drug based
>on the DNA sequence that has nothing to do with the encoded
>music ... or that would be my take on this scheme.
>
>What is more interesting IMO is that the company (Maxygen)
>has applied for a patent on this protection scheme itself
>(i.e. encoding something as an MP3 and filing copyright on the
>result). 
>
>
>--
>-Richard M. Hartman
>hartman@onetouch.com
>
>186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>
>
>