On Jun 27, 3:47 pm, Doug Mentohl <doug_ment...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "The American Medical Association has decided not to soften its 1995
> position that it is unethical to patent surgical procedures"
Probably a pretty good idea. One of the problems is that you have to
license
the technology, and your license could be revoked. Imagine going to a
hospital,
getting to the emergency room, and finding out that they can't put in
the stent
that would save your life - because the hospital's patent license to
perform that
procedure has been revoked.
A patent or copyright has little value as an income source, unless you
are willing
to go to extreme measures to enforce the intellectual property
rights. If you aren't
willing to let a few million people die, by revoking or restricting
the availability of
licenses, and revoking those licenses, even if that means that people
have to die
on the table.
Microsoft can collect 80% profit margins on Windows, because they are
perfectly willing
to send out a letter revoking the copyright license of an OEM on
millions of PCs. Microsoft
actually did this with Compaq when they tried to remove the IE Icon
from the Windows 95
desktop and put the Netscape Icon in it's place. They knew that there
would be the risk of
lawsuits, prosecution, and possibly even sanctions, but they were
willing to take the risk
of alienating the courts, the government, and the OEMs, by sending the
letter.
The payoff was HUGE (nearly 500 billion in profits over 10 years), and
Microsoft spend nearly
$10 billion defending itself in lawsuits, DOJ actions, EU actions, and
other regulatory attempts.
Is it possible that a company like Serle or Pfizer could order
hospitals to stop performing life-saving procedures, even in emergency
"life or death" situations, just to protect a patent?
Keep in mind that Serle is the company who decided that it was more
profitable to put Nutrasweet on the market and test every child born
in a civilized country for the allergy, than to risk having to go back
through FDA trials and risk becoming a "prescription only" product.
It's another case of a multibillion dollar return on a potentially
lethal decision.
> 'Richert E. Quinn, Jr., M.D. .. suggested that those who patent
> procedures "do not derive income from the patent nor is there evidence
> that a patent limits access to a procedure."'
Look at the mess that occurred when they decided to permit patents of
software. Suddenly Kitchen Table "Inventors" were trying to patent
everything from the "Bubble Sort" to the "Cookie" as their "original
work", and getting away with it, because the patent office didn't have
ANY record of nearly 60 years of prior art.
I'm less concerned about Serle than I am about some "basement bathtub
chemist" trying to patent herbal remedies that have been used in Asia
for 8,000 years, or a coat-hanger abortion doctor patenting a new way
to do "do it yourself" abortions - then trying to stop hospitals from
performing D&C even when it threatens the life of the mother.
> http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/tb/6044
> 'Tim Smith': what's this to do with COLA? It's to do with the nature
> of the fucked-up US patent system. The one they are trying to foist on
> the rest of the non-core section of the planet.
Patent law and related issues is a big issue on COLA. The examples
given in COLA are a dramatic example of how wierd, creepy, selfish,
unethical, and fraudulent people can be when you make a sudden change
to patent law - and don't catalog all existing prior art.
|
|
