Re: Research Process Patenting

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Research Process Patenting
Date: 2007-07-24 06:13:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:00:08PM -0400, Mark R Dobyns Jones wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:

> > As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax
> > status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here.

> Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics.

Thanks for the correction (which is not legal advice from you,
right?). I'm not a lawyer -- especially in the U.S., since that's
what's relevant -- and I was merely parroting the line as I've
understood it (which is why I qualified my remark). That said, this
is still the wrong venue for this discussion, because we don't have
the collective legal expertise to discuss the question intelligently,


Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens."
--Bruce Schneier

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2007-07-24 06:21:13 Re: Research Process Patenting
Previous Message Tim Post 2007-07-24 05:30:24 Re: Research Process Patenting