The the chemical formula for Dopamine blocker, Valium, Librium, prozac or lipator is not protected by patent or even copyright since it is a fact. The pharmaceutical patent is not on the formula. It is on the (unlicensed) manufacturing and sale of the chemical. The creation of a new drug is a creative, time consuming and expensive proposition. I will not argue that the drug companies are abusing it. That they are becoming more concerned with marketing than they are creating new classes of useful drugs or concerned with comingup with another "me too" drug of dubious benefit.
The point is that not everything that is created is worthy of a copyright (or patent). Our "intellectual property" community in pushing for universal protection are in fact debasing their industry.As for the patenting non-obvious things....that's ANOTHER problem with the patent office that should be fixed but is not relevant to the matter here.
"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
07/14/2003 08:48 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
> So Badassvirusnumber324643 has 232323232 in its object code look for
> &%UGBJBBOIYB*IHIU if you find that too starting at 2343H you've got it! That's
> a fact. No creativity. No expression and nothing else.. Look science has been
> done for science sake for centuries. So why do we need to provide protection
> for finding facts NOW?
"So the chemical formula for a "dopamine blocker" is ..."
Look at pharmaceutical patents. We've allowed the patenting of non
obvious facts for some time now. The distinction seems to be whether or
not the facts are naturally occurring (but that would just be prior
art... by nature). Clearly we don't find computer viruses in nature
(unless you want to include all human invention into nature). Now if you
want to argue that medicines shouldn't be patented, we can continue the
discussion. Otherwise my friend, you are on the wrong side of the
facts/law/precedent in this argument.