Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Why the contribution is important
H.M. GOVERNMENT +HEALTH WARNING+
http://jahtruth.net/comand.htm
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
Thank you for your message and sharing a possible change of heart/mind.
The contribution is about the obvious manipulation behind a patent system.
Certainly the example, of genetic-tampering, is an example of such control.
Kindly,
Debra
If you want to scrap patent law, what would you replace it with? New technology would never come about without a mechanism to protect the R&D investment (including tin foil for your hat).
If you're concerned about genetic modification, then that's a different subject. Going on about patent law is barking up the wrong tree.
The main reason most patents are from major corporations is because major corporations do most of the research, because they have most of the money. Things like genetic engineering in particular are very expensive, so the reason "there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better" is that individuals seldom have the resources to do the same kind of work that the companies did. And if they could, they would likely be hired by the compaines (at which point the patent would belong to the compaines).
Not that I'm in favour of patenting our genome, but I think you're attacking the wrong target.
The contribution is clear, with no harm done with the further
explanation exposing a reality.
The patent system is obviously more than the protection of
infringements, as effects show.
"Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals." ?
Are their ideas or new (better) technology suppressed, manipulated for purposes not meant?
Kindly,
Debra
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
I've found your previous suggestions to be nothing more than mythologically obsessed nonsense, but if you're saying no-one should be able to patent our genome, or that of any other species then I'm forced to agree with you completely.
Is that what you mean?
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate