[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Patented copyright ...
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Patented copyright ...
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:26:29 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
It also shows up the fallacy of belief that the purpose of copyright and
patents are to PROTECT intellectual property rather than encourage its
creation....somehow I think this falls under the abuse of copyright
Richard Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: email@example.com
05/22/2002 08:44 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Patented copyright ...
This Wired News article talks about companies' plans to
encode DNA sequences as MP3 tunes, then protect the "music"
with copyright ... gaining 95 years protection vs. the
current 17 for patent.
Now I see a flaw here ... sure, they own the copyright
on the genetic "music" ... and if I play it on the radio
I'll owe them royalties ... but if I make a drug based
on the DNA sequence that has nothing to do with the encoded
music ... or that would be my take on this scheme.
What is more interesting IMO is that the company (Maxygen)
has applied for a patent on this protection scheme itself
(i.e. encoding something as an MP3 and filing copyright on the
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!