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
