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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Hmmm ... lab mice as DMCA-proscribed circumvention 
devices ?  Why not, if they encode within themselves
the same content as a copyrighted MP3 file ...

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Patented copyright ...
> 
> 
> 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!
> >
> >
> >
>