[Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. They result from human effort and they are useful whether are not deemed to be objectively true. A patented natural law would not prevent people from exploiting the natural law for home use. A patent expires so the law can eventually be exploited by anyone for commercial gain. Current natural law would be impossible to patent, since it has been in the public domain for decades or even centuries. Reasons for not patenting a natural law: 1) Religious 2) They are supposedly discovered and not invented. Arguments against their patentablity are weak because they depend on one possible metaphysical perspective and/or religious view of natural law. Patentable natural law would erode the cult of natural law that has over taken physical inquiry. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. What do you think about patenting human tissue without compensating the former owner? For example HeLa cells?
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
Am 25.11.2011 18:57, schrieb Harry Veeder: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM,peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. They result from human effort and they are useful whether are not deemed to be objectively true. A patented natural law would not prevent people from exploiting the natural law for home use. A patent expires so the law can eventually be exploited by anyone for commercial gain. Current natural law would be impossible to patent, since it has been in the public domain for decades or even centuries. Reasons for not patenting a natural law: 1) Religious 2) They are supposedly discovered and not invented. Arguments against their patentablity are weak because they depend on one possible metaphysical perspective and/or religious view of natural law. Patentable natural law would erode the cult of natural law that has over taken physical inquiry. Harry I want a patent for the Maxwell equations. And for e=mc^2. And for the proton. Then I have world domination. No, not only that. The whole universe is owned by me. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. What do you think about patenting human tissue without compensating the former owner? For example HeLa cells? I don't know anything about the subject, but I think existing patent law needs to be reformed. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think about patenting human tissue without compensating the former owner? For example HeLa cells? I don't know anything about the subject, but I think existing patent law needs to be reformed. Harry I don't know anything about the issue, or the tissue.
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
By the way, the U.S.P.O. jargon for this is a force of nature. You cannot patent a force of nature, meaning a newly discovered law of physics or physical effect, such as the Seebeck effect, Peltier effect and Thomson effect. In other words, Seebeck, Peltier and Thomson would not be allowed to patent thermoelectric devices in general. They could have patented specific implementations. Einstein could not patent relativity, but he could patent the Einstein-Szilard refrigerator. He knew a lot about patents. He did a superb job at the Swiss P.O. and was missed when he became full time prof. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 25.11.2011 18:57, schrieb Harry Veeder: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:50 AM,peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Natural laws cannot been patented. I think natural laws should be patentable. They result from human effort and they are useful whether are not deemed to be objectively true. A patented natural law would not prevent people from exploiting the natural law for home use. A patent expires so the law can eventually be exploited by anyone for commercial gain. Current natural law would be impossible to patent, since it has been in the public domain for decades or even centuries. Reasons for not patenting a natural law: 1) Religious 2) They are supposedly discovered and not invented. Arguments against their patentablity are weak because they depend on one possible metaphysical perspective and/or religious view of natural law. Patentable natural law would erode the cult of natural law that has over taken physical inquiry. Harry I want a patent for the Maxwell equations. And for e=mc^2. And for the proton. Then I have world domination. No, not only that. The whole universe is owned by me. ;-) The natural laws form a map of the universe. The map is not the territory, so just as owning a map is not the same thing as owning the terrority, owning the natural laws does not mean you own the whole universe. Futhermore, you would not own the universe, because the patent only says the financial proceeds derived from the sale of your natural laws belongs to you. On top of that, the patent says you are only entitled to the proceeds for a limited period of time. As I said early, people would be free to use your natural law as long as they weren't using it for their own financial gain while your patent was in effect. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
I would argue that the law of nature known as the conservation of momentum is a specific implementation of the force of nature known as the property of inertia. Of course, since the law of CoM has been in the public domain since the 19th century, it would not be patentable today. The question is really about future laws. (Notice, I placed force of nature in quotes because I do not want to become embroiled in an argument about the proper use of the term force in regards to inertia. On occassion, Newton himself likened the property of inertia to an innate force. Today it is extremely difficult to pose new physical ideas, when the meaning of words for expressing those ideas is controlled by correct thinking physicists.) Harry On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, the U.S.P.O. jargon for this is a force of nature. You cannot patent a force of nature, meaning a newly discovered law of physics or physical effect, such as the Seebeck effect, Peltier effect and Thomson effect. In other words, Seebeck, Peltier and Thomson would not be allowed to patent thermoelectric devices in general. They could have patented specific implementations. Einstein could not patent relativity, but he could patent the Einstein-Szilard refrigerator. He knew a lot about patents. He did a superb job at the Swiss P.O. and was missed when he became full time prof. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
I meant since the 18th century or even earlier. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, since the law of CoM has been in the public domain since the 19th century, it would not be patentable today. The question is really about future laws. Harry
Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.
I wrote: The natural laws form a map of the universe. The map is not the territory, so just as owning a map is not the same thing as owning the terrority, owning the natural laws does not mean you own the whole universe. humm ... the grand narrative for interpreting natural law was originally God's blueprint for the universe. This would explain why natural laws have been treated as non patentable. However, if the grand narrative for interpreting natural law is a human effort to map the universe, the patentability question should be revisited. Harry
