On 2006-Jul 23, at 19:37hrs PM, Sergey Dryga wrote: Peter actcom.co.il> writes: > > > I have seldomly felt as sick as I did after reading this article. I > believe that any country that adopts patent laws such as the ones > practiced there should also adopt informal lynching as a form of > casual > justice. I feel that the two go well together. Sorry. If this > message is > not welcome I will unsubscribe from the piclist. I may do that anyway. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ John_Moore_v._the_Regents_of_the_University_of_Cali fornia First, I understand why you feel so emotional about this. I see at least 3 issues here: 1. Did they have the right to use man's material and does the man have a right to any royalties? 2. Did they commit medical malpractise? 3. Why do you connect PICList subscribtion and this issue? 1. The issue is settled, by court. We may like it or not, but it is a decision by court. The man can appeal, up to supreme court, but until he does, the issue is closed. (please note that I am not stating my opinion here). Somewhere in this thread you make an analogy with copying the seeds created by monsanto. Unlike monsanto, or other companies involved in generation of genetically modified organisms, the man did not spend a dime **1 to make his cells valuable. The patent system was established for the purpose of allowing a company to recoup investment it did in R&D. **2 In the case of this man, he did not "create" his cells.**3 One can argue that god created those cells, but nobody has seen god complaining. **1 I think the man did spend $$$ on his cells and they are his property .... period, dot **2 The patent system was established to encourage dissemination of information in exchange for a period of protection. **3 If the man did not create those cells, who did ? ( Note: I am an agnostic ) AGSC 2. If the removal of spleen and other procedures were not required for medical reasons, then they certainly did. The best way to decide this is, again, go to court. I understand that judicial system is not perfect, there are a lot of lawsuits that make one sick, but it is the best system we've got. **4 So far nobody has come up with a better system. **5 **4 It is not the best judicial system of all time, it is simply the one we've got. **5 Yes, they have. Starting in 1215, the english system evolved in the area of juries. Juries were gradually empowered to judge facts and law. Somewhere around 1895, english law started a downtrend in the USA ( an area and time I am expert in ) Up to that point juries were often allowed to collect their own evidence and were not subject to the extremely invasive and controlling voir dire processes one encounters in the USA currently. 3. Like several other people in this thread, I cannot understand why do you link your subscribtion to PICList and your post. People do post [OT] on this list. The only reason for your statement that I can see is that it is intended as a threat for the list not to express opinions unfavorable to you. I choose not to accept this reason at this time. Best, Sergey Dryga ------------------------- http://beaglerobotics.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist Gus S Calabrese Denver, CO 720 222 1309 303 908 7716 cell Please include and do not limit yourself to "spam2006". I allow everything with "spam2006" in the subject or text to pass my spam filters. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist