[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Christian Science Monitor Article on Digital Copyring
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Christian Science Monitor Article on Digital Copyring
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:20:53 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
An interesting link....It also demonstrates the ludicrousness of many
"intellectual property" laws. The clowns that enact them doen't realize
that they cannot legislate, physics, biology or nature. Seeds are
distributed by nature not monsanto. Having the seed police run around and
inspect fields is ascinine. In this particular instance, I think Monsanto
should be forced to pay forhis field because they have damaged it.
Furthermore, farmers traditionally had to produce their own seeds. Now
Monsanto wants to have the law changed so that you have to buy their seeds
every year. The judge doesn't know much about farming either....Read this
IT's absolutely ascinine that the judge rules that "you can own the seeds
and plants but not do anything with them...." totally stupid
In the ruling, Judge MacKay said, "A farmer whose field contains seed
or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in
swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by
pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the
wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set
about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use
of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the
patented gene or cell."
The judge upheld Monsanto's claim that Schmeiser infringed the
company's patent by growing, in 1998, seed that the farmer knew
was from his 1997 crop and was from plants that were Roundup
resistant. "By so doing the defendants reproduced the patented gene
and cells. The canola crop so grown in 1998 was harvested and sold
by the defendants," the judge found.
The principal defence raised by Schmeiser is that he did not use the
patent because he did not spray the 1998 canola crop with Roundup
after it had commenced growing. Schmeiser says told the court he
did not make use of the invention as the inventor intended and so,
did not use the patented gene or cell.
But the judge ruled, "In my opinion, whether or not that crop was
sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important.
Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale
of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs'
invention, using it, without permission. In so doing the defendants
infringed upon the patent interests of the plaintiffs."
Richard Hartman <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
08/26/2002 07:45 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Christian Science Monitor Article on Digital Copyring
Well, don't get _too_ down on those greedy moguls. Greed, when it comes
down to it, is what motivates us all. I enjoy programming, but I _need_
paid for it because I have a wife & son & a mortgage. So if those
moguls don't think they will be able to make any $$$ they may not make
any films and then where would you be?
That said, they're going about it all wrong (as they always have). Every
technical advancement has been greeted with "oh, it will destroy the
entertainment industry" but after they figured it out they ended up making
more money than before. We've just got to kick 'em in the a$$ until
they figure out that this is just the SSDD.
As far as your patented rice, you're not too far off. The real patented
crop is genetically modified rapeseed (also known as canola), the laywers
belong to Monsanto, and the farmer is Percy Schmeiser.
The real problem is that he never _wanted_ the modified rapeseed. He
makes his living w/ _organic_ rapeseed, so the Monsanto crop, when
it cross-pollinated in his fields actually _destroyed_ the value of his
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
From: PSYchiccr@aol.com [mailto:PSYchiccr@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Christian Science Monitor Article on Digital
This over reaction in the USA by greedy film moguls will only work in the
US and the rest of the world will rip them and that will be a good thing.
I think the greed needs to stop now. Lets hope the choke themselves on the
greed..... Soon we will have lawyers going round poor farmers in the third
world with writs saying the rice your eating is our patent and
copyright..... Foxes will have to be called dogs and the space shuttle
will no longer be able to be called Columbia the country will have to
change its name too. America has gone mad..........