Log in

View Full Version : Are You Gullible ?



Pages : 1 [2]

maximvsv
12-29-2007, 12:52 AM
^^^

It's like saying there is a patent on making food or drinks or food or medicine. The issue is more along the lines of it is not okay to take Coke's exact recipe and bottle/sell it, or using another companies carefully worked out drug for profit. There is no real issue for the common person (or pig) who just has sex that results in offspring.

Here's the thing. with Coke, you're dealing with trade secret stuff, which isn't patent at all. If you figure it out on your own, you are perfectly legal in making it for yourself. With organic stuff, there are plenty of patented hybrids, and the act of making them through the existing, natural method of procreation still counts as manufacture for patent law purposes. So, the combination of genetic material in the normal process of human procreation would still fall into the same definitions.

Sure, nobody's been sued over it. That will probably happen when people figure out cloning. What it really means is that the concept of patent protection, the definition of invention and the standards by which one is determined to have manufactured something need to be adjusted, because technology has made them apply to stuff that people don't want to have enforcement involved in.

xdamage
12-29-2007, 10:22 AM
With organic stuff, there are plenty of patented hybrids, and the act of making them through the existing, natural method of procreation still counts as manufacture for patent law purposes. So, the combination of genetic material in the normal process of human procreation would still fall into the same definitions.

"The existing, natural method of procreation" means what? I'm guessing to 99.999999% of the people it means having sex, and let the genetic chips fall where they will. Just as we all see that the existing natural method predates the United States, and U.S. Patent law (predates by several hundred million years), so does everyone else.

If though you mean using a not previously existing, unnatural method to select gene sequences during conception, before birth, that's a different matter.

Look, having diseases invade our bodes is entirely natural, and predates our technology. So if you become ill with a virus, or bacterial infection, you are welcome to fight it off using your bodies existing, natural mechanisms. Enjoy. Many of the rest of us though have decided to take advantage of various technologies to fight these using historically new, non-natural methods, and for that we accept that paying for these inventions is part of our system. And maybe in the future people will be willing to pay to select their off-springs genes too, but....

Nobody says "fighting off disease" is a patent violation. If you manage to fight off a disease without the help of a patented technological treatment, you won't be issued a patent violation for that. Same with having babies.

I understand it's fun to believe in major conspiracies and sci-fi plots where babies blood is taken, tested for patent infringements, etc., but you'll have to wait and see for yourself. Just like we all get that there is no patent violation using the existing natural method to have babies, so does everyone else.

p.s., like I said, the author's test was super easy to get 100% on because you simply pick the conspiratorial answer, and win.

maximvsv
12-30-2007, 02:02 AM
If someone patents a specific antibody, and then you go and have your own body produce the same antibody in the normal course of identifying and countering a disease through your body's immune system, that would still count as manufacturing the antibody without a license in violation of the patent holder's official monopoly on it.

I'm not saying that it's practical. It's just that, since patents are allowed to cover biological products, the laws regarding them end up producing awkward inconsistencies between what is and what was intended.

Joplin
12-30-2007, 09:18 AM
Yha, It was blatantly obvious what the right answer was. That being said I got a perfect "free thinker" score. This is more of an 'awareness' quiz than a gullible quiz by far.

cinammonkisses
12-30-2007, 09:46 AM
Free Thinker
Welcome to the top 5%. You're a true free thinker and a person who is well informed about the reality in which you live. Although you may have been easily manipulated earlier in life, you eventually gained lucidity and developed a healthy sense of skepticism that you now automatically apply to your observations and experiences. You are endlessly curious about human behavior and the nature of the universe, and you have one or more lifestyle habits that most people would consider odd or unusual. You are not only of very high intelligence, you are also extremely creative in one or more areas (music, art, software development, inventing, etc.)

If you were in The Matrix, you would have taken the red pill, completed the combat training, and started fighting (and beating) agents from day one.

stellaforstars
12-30-2007, 10:11 AM
Yup...Free Thinker.

It's not about gullibility at all. It's about how well-informed you are...

cinammonkisses
12-30-2007, 10:14 AM
It's not about gullibility at all. It's about how well-informed you are...

Exactly! Cause I know for a fact I'm gullible. I try to see the good in everyone. :-\

stellaforstars
12-30-2007, 10:45 AM
^^Me too. We should take cynical classes or somethin'.

Chrissy68
12-30-2007, 04:37 PM
gosh, i dont need a test, im a gullible dork!

xdamage
12-30-2007, 09:03 PM
If someone patents a specific antibody, and then you go and have your own body produce the same antibody in the normal course of identifying and countering a disease through your body's immune system, that would still count as manufacturing the antibody without a license in violation of the patent holder's official monopoly on it.

/shrug

Patents are issued by humans. Humans are imperfect. U.S. Patents don't dictate world wide human laws or beliefs. It happens that some U.S. patents are issued that shouldn't have been. When/if there is a drastic discrepancy between common knowledge/practices, and a patent that is too far reaching, we can trust that it will be well contested should the patent holder ever attempt to collect. In practice then people having babies won't be issued patent violations for the same reason that people aren't issued violations when producing anti-bodies as a matter of naturally fighting off diseases.

This is the difference between being gullible like the author of the test, and having a greater understanding of reality and real human behavior ;)