[Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread 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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Mary Yugo
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Peter Heckert
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Harry Veeder
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread vorl bek
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Harry Veeder
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Harry Veeder
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

Re: [Vo]:To Patent or Not Patent Natural law. That is the question.

2011-11-25 Thread Harry Veeder
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.

2011-11-25 Thread Harry Veeder
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