>In other cases, if the >information gained from the treatment (or from other research) had been >published, other doctors could have improved upon it, and could have >helped to improve, or even save the lives of their own patients.
fyi, patents are publications that explain *exactly* how to something works, and they are supposed to be granted only if it someone "familiar with the art" can reproduce it after reading the patent. also, anyone can make an improvement on a patent and then re-patent that improvement as a seperate patent. your father was right in that while you may learn and understand the new procedure, you cannot *practice* it for 17 years. but you *can* make an improvement on it, and then re-patent that, or "open source" it, or do whatever you'd like. disclaimer: IANAL Josh Coates http://www.jcoates.org -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 5:21 PM To: BYU Unix Users Group Subject: Re: [uug] Copyright > find the solutions they need. If there were no patents, would all the biotech > firms close up shop, so that no new medicines would be developed? Put > yourself in their shoes: millions of people die of cancer. Their health care > costs run into the billions. You have a bunch of medical researchers on staff > who love to treat diseases. Everyone gets an F in Econ who can't find a way > for everybody to win financially. I'm just going to jump in on this. My dad is a doctor, but also happens to be somewhat interested in computers and such. One night, this past summer, he and I were talking, and I was explaining to him what Open Source Software is. I was surprised when he replied to my explanation by giving an analogy that made an amazing amount of sense to me. He told me that there are certain doctors in the medical field who have developed groundbreaking treatments for certain conditions, but who have chosen to patent their ideas, and have decided not to publish how to perform these procedures in the medical journals, because they want to be the only ones who can perform them. So, if a person has this particular condition, if they want to have the best treatment, they have to travel to wherever this doctor is located, and pay prohibitive fees for the treatment. In some cases, their own doctor knows exactly how to perform the procedure, and would be willing to perform that procedure for much less, if it weren't for the patent. In other cases, if the information gained from the treatment (or from other research) had been published, other doctors could have improved upon it, and could have helped to improve, or even save the lives of their own patients. I have found that this analogy is extremely helpful in explaining some of the reasoning behind Open Source Software. I think it shows clearly where the ethical issues are --- it doesn't require an understanding of software, nor does it require even much understanding of medicine to see where the ethical issues are. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this out there. I don't think that my dad realized that he helped me to better understand my own opinions on this issue, or the reasons behind them, but he did... -- Erin Sharmahd [EMAIL PROTECTED] CS Student Unix Users Group PGP Fingerprint: F352 FF41 EA0A 67E4 566B 3B5B E65A D3DC 083E 9336 -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
