| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Research Process Patenting |
| Date: | 2007-07-23 18:20:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20070723182010.GE9196@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> I'm a bit concerned and I thought this as good a place as any to open
> the conversation.
Why do you think this is a good place to open this conversation? It
isn't: this isn't a legal forum, and we claim no special expertise in
patent law.
> I'm getting a little concerned about patents that cover a process of
> doing something.
Sorry, that ship has sailed. If you want to change that, you need to
lobby your government to try to get out of its treaty obligations.
As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.
So please have this conversation elsewhere. There _are_ fora where
this issue has already been discussed in rather a lot of detail, so I
suspect a little time with Google would be something that would
benefit you.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-07-23 22:05:07 | Re: Research Process Patenting |
| Previous Message | Tim Post | 2007-07-23 17:46:29 | Research Process Patenting |