Right Protected
|
||
And taking out my dagger, I began to carve deep in the soft stone:
Marius the ancient one: Lestat is searching for you… Please make yourself known to me... I went out into the night with my chisel. I wrote my questions to Marius on stones that were older than us both. Marius had become so real to me that we were talking together -The Vampire Lestat by Anne Rice In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a company cannot patent a sequence of human DNA, and many people in the scientific and healthcare fields breathed a huge sigh of relief. The case in question involved a company that had discovered that a particular sequence of human DNA had a role in a disease process (in this case, breast cancer) and the company was attempting to patent that sequence of DNA so that anyone else who wanted to do research on it would have to pay the company a high fee. But what’s the problem with patenting a discovery that your company has invested a lot of money and time on? When it involves a critical health care issue like diagnosing breast cancer and the test is expensive because you have a monopoly on it, people tend to get agitated. Is it fair? Maybe not. In this case, the Court followed the precedent that anything naturally occurring cannot be patented. However, the company could patent a synthetic form of the gene or a proprietary test for diagnosis, etc. Patents are meant to protect someone’s original ideas and discoveries from competitors, and this is normally a good thing; otherwise, who would spend time and money working on something if another company could come along and take your idea immediately? But patents also have the effect of preventing others from working on problems that we really wish could be solved as soon as possible. It’s a tough question that will probably never have an ideal solution. We are becoming increasingly surrounded by the constraints of patents and copyrights, proprietary formats for our entertainment and even for our coffee machines. These legal protections free up companies to develop more advanced tools, but will they eventually begin to have the opposite effect: preventing creativity and discovery, and stopping everything from developing any further? Isaac Newton is quoted as saying that he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of giants. In other words, he learned what others had discovered and used that knowledge to make further discoveries. But at what point will everyone be legally prevented from further development of anything?
comments powered by Disqus |
||
SeeDarkly All Rights Reserved additional coding provided by Dormouse Games |