[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:48:52 -0600
- References: <3F0F08C6.28105.230541@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
> 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.