Richard Rasker wrote:
> Op Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:52:27 +0100, schreef Mark Kent:
>
> > begin oe_protect.scr
> > nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> >>
> >> BearItAll wrote:
>
> [snip patent badness]
>
> >> Speaking of patents, there is the case of the seed stock that dies
> >> after one generation, forcing farmers to purchase more from Montsanto.
> >> This is called "protecting Montsanto's intellectual property." This is
> >> creating heaps of good will around the world. It's a biological
> >> equivalent of what the RIAA and BSA would like to with CDs and software.
>
> > I've been ever amused by the Monsanto approach, they're so overt about
> > what they do that they even call their genetically-modified seeds
> > "roundup-ready"; which might not mean much until you find out that
> > their nastiest, most poisonous, virulent and most dangerous weedkiller
> > is called, wait for it.... "roundup".
>
> First they came with a nasty product meant to improve monoculture crop
> yield - but as the weeds grew resistant to normal dosage, they modified
> the crop to survive up to six times the amount of poison. The result:
> farmers (and, in the end, consumers) pay for five times as much poison,
> AND pay for the privilege of having proprietized, sterile crops surviving
> this chemical onslaught. In the meantime, the earth is slashed and burned
> to accomodate huge monocultures of this crap, then saturated with poison
> and chemical fertilizer to sustain it ... I recently saw a documentary
> about soy fields in Argentina; turns out that in a semi-circle of over 300
> kilometres around Buenos Aires, *nothing* grows except this one,
> gargantuan roundup-ready soy monoculture. And as a result, there are
> hardly any insects, birds, or other animals.
>
> Nevertheless, strains of weeds have already been spotted which appear to
> have developed resistance.
>
> > They are a foul organisation, which has, thankfully, so far, been kept
> > out of the UK, mainly by the liberal lobby, who are trying to protect
> > our ecosystem.
>
> I think this is criminal beyond any law ...
>
> > The patent situation in the EU is still good, and I hope it will remain
> > that way. Unfortunately, many of the world's largest patent holders are
> > EU based (liek drugs companies, for example), so there's a strong lobby
> > to continue to extend the patent system, as large businesses continue to
> > believe (quite wrongly) that it's in their interests.
>
> You have too optimistic a view of corporate motives; their aim is mostly
> to maximize short-term gain, in order to satisfy their shareholders' and
> board members' greed - at the expense of the rest of the world.
> One appalling example is this case where the head honchos of a
> medium-sized corporation laid off some 500 workers and kept the rest on at
> "no pay rise" terms, then rewarded themselves and the shareholders with
> huge bonuses for having saved the company a lot of money.
>
> The patent system is increasingly turning into a way of fencing off as
> much as possible of any field of technology, science and business, to
> deprive newcomers and smaller competitors of chances, and to enter into
> closed-purse licensing exchange deals with peers - lots of which, in the
> end, are acquired in mergers and take-overs. The resulting monopolies can
> ask any price they want, since there is no competition to speak of any
> more.
> This is diametrically opposed to the purpose of patents: to get granted a
> temporary monopoly under the condition that the patented matter is made
> public and offered under reasonable license terms, so that as many parties
> as possible can benefit from it.
>
> Richard Rasker
>
> --
> Linetec Translation and Technology Services
>
> http://www.linetec.nl/
Speaking of patents, perhaps you have noticed that the
Symantec-Microsoft battle has turned into a war of patents. First
Symantec sued Microsoft for violating one of their patents, then
Microsoft turned around and sued Symantec for violated two of theirs,
plus they asked the patent office to invalidate the patent of
Symantec's under which they sued in the first place.
It is often said that large corporations collect patents as a means of
intimidation---you mess with us, we'll use our patent portfolio to
destroy you. It's also been said that IBM is relatively safe from
this, since they have their own patent portfolio and can play the same
game in reverse.
|
|
