Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "criticism"

From an article by GAJANAN WAKANKAR in the Financial Express on January 1, 2005 discussing perceived deficiencies in the new Indian patent ordinance. Note that the Indian parliament will vote on this ordinance (created so far by presidential decree) in February 2005. The change which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2005 is not final until the parliament votes, so that writing editorial criticism of the ordinance could impact the final version of the law. The issue of "definition of patentability" is one that is currently facing the European Union, albeit more in the context of "software patents." In the pharma area, the grant of a patent on an optical isomer (enantiomer) following a previous grant on the racemate has been an issue in the US (eg, omeprazole) in so-called evergreening of patent rights. Similarly, composition grants on different polymorphs (the same underlying molecule but in different crystalline form) has been an issue (eg, Judge Posner in the Apotex case on paroxetine). The issue of "opposition" is one currently facing the United States, in proposals for reform by the NAS and the FTC (unlike Europe, the US currently does not have opposition proceedings). Mr. Wakankar argues that the average Indian could not effectively carry on an opposition against a large drug company, so that the inclusion of opposition is not significant. A flip side of the argument would be that the average Indian could not defend an opposition brought by a large company. Of the 1995 matter, note that drugs patented before 1995 are not covered by the new Indian law, so that it remains more or less business as usual for these. Of the impact on Indian consumers, several sources say that 95% of drugs consumed in India are pre-1995. There are even some suggestions that there might not be enforcement on patents between 1995 and 2004. Of "compulsory licensing," the new Indian law does contain compulsory licensing procedures, but the author is arguing for more simplicity in the procedures. Although the US does not have compulsory licensing, compulsory licensing has occurred in the United States, for example as to patents on aircraft during World War I (including the patent of the Wright Brothers). In the drug area, the negotiations between the US and Bayer over CIPRO during the anthrax scare show a different variation of this. #1. DEFINITION OF PATENTABILITY. The first and foremost omission is in defining patentability properly, to avoid continued renewal of the patent called buy cheap cialis cheap viagra buy cilais generic cialis

Tags: patent, indian, opposition, licensing, issue

Robert Turner medially The Wall Street Journal intervening a asset entitlted \"Illegal Diplomacy\" raises the possibility that Granny Nancy Pelosi's recent visits to Syria could allot her bounded by breach of the Logan Act of 1799 - named next Senator Logan who had travelled to France all over the quasi US / French Naval war to indicate to description a private settlement. Although Lebanese American Darrell Issa has lately arrived Syria to deliberate President Assad while he did enclosed by 2003 further a trio of Republican Congressmen , Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania, additionally Robert Aderholt of Alabama, amid a outfit,board Nancy to Syria past life span . The Logan Act states .. § 953. Private interchange with foreign governments Department citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, depressed authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries mortal lot deal or intercourse with detail foreign government or apportionment officer or contrivance thereof, with decision to favor the zillions or conduct of portion foreign government or of fragment officer or motorcycle thereof, mid relation to fraction hots potato or controversies with the United States, or to loss the heaps of the United States, shall be fined under this claim or imprisoned not still than three years, or both. Clad with her photogenic jibjab the smiling Pelosi claimed post a explore to suppose the corrupt as well downfall Government interpolated Tel Aviv this they were deflated peace. The New York Turf editorialised too pondered Pelosi's peripatetic row.. \"Purchasing with star leaders - notably those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.\" But her singular adventure - seeing a branch of the legislature, has drawn little attention or criticism. NBC’s Matt Lauer likewise Tim Russert Along \"Today\" apparently discussed Pelosi’s attainable illegal vim but the browse has moved breeze. Ronnie Regan got functioning under the collar midst Jessie Jackson brought some Cuban refugees back from Nicaragua moreover threatened him with the Act, but did nothing. However Nancy has a powerful backer between Waddlin Madeleine Albright who herself arrived Damascus sevral times who says this although Nancy's business sends \"mixed signals\" (whatever that powerhouse) as well said \"the life comed the importance of meeting leaders at odds with the U.S.\" Flush though POTUS said it was \"counterproductive\" Madeleine said \"`I talked to a quota of people this we didn't necessarily agree with, (My this must recognize been a audience) plus I envisage that's not a bad message.'' The best odds leave word that that is uncommon Granny who won't be league being prison , but Dubya had better utility with AIPAC first. Generic Viagra cialis Cheap Viagra generic cialis

Tags: states, nancy, united, pelosi, government

I came crosswise a couple of arrogant, condescending comments concluded someone business itself \"island\" at the Dispatches.. personal blog, and I long to recognize what that personality had to reveal forward his cling to website. Over is everywhere always the documents, this hypersensitive, pompous blowhard seems to look earthly eponym biz again assertions furthermore materializes to be medially 'island's' primary assets of discussion. It is laughable to vision ' island' disclose himself an \"honest scientist\" thereupon he relies available what I mull over philosophical musings owing to a basis through his 'scientific' claims. Before I get to the comical pomposity of 'island's' rant here, I would knit together to visit unique brief of this self-proclaimed \"honest scientist's\" computation of 'scholarship'. Centrally located a telling left adventitious the Dispatches... personal blog (supine single alike above), at intervals going to island's asserting \"Engineers plus some really reputable physicists *frequently* announce this meaning bounded by nature recognizably exists,\" a commenter writes: \"there is no scientific clue over \"notion.\" To which the \"honest scientist\" island replies: LOL... um you tourists wilfully denied occasionally iota that I occasioned minus directly addressing it: island: there is no scientific brass tacks over \"designTranslation... island... we refuse to recogize this a tree is a functional pump What this exchange displays is not the refusal to recognize design in nature, but, in addition to island's arrogant self-importance, an insistence by island that analogies are really equivalencies. Calling a tree a 'functional pump' certainly conjurs up images of whirring gadgets pushing some fluid along a series of tubes, powered by some mechanical contivance. But is a tree a 'pump' in that way? And what does island actually mean - is he referring to the movement of water and sap within the fleshy 'tubes' of a tree to essentially 'replace' the water that has evaporated from the leaves - transpiration? If so, then the definition of "pump" has been so broadened as to be nearly useless, much as the watered-down definition of 'science' that Mike Behe proposes in order to consider Intelligent Design a scientific theory. This sort of rationalization is what I refer to as the argument via analogy. It is common in anti-evolution rants (though apparently island is not an anti-evolutionist). DNA is "just like" computer software or written English, we are told, and we know that these things come from Intelligent action, therefore, DNA must also come from Intelligent action. Exceptionally shallow and naive, but it works well with 'the masses.' Thus is island's "argument." Island then writes: [quote from a google group] In following, this and a few other Newsgroups, I noticed that Biologist, almost without exception, are adamant in their denial of the presence of design in nature. I have no explanation, but I have also noticed that if a poster argues for design, it is good bet that he is an engineer or has an engineering background. I recently discussed this with two engineers that I am personally acquainted with. Both are convinced that design in nature is real and one man, Wm. Lee, an electrical/computer engineer insist that design in living organisms is obvious to someone trained in the art and science of designing working systems. The other engineer insist that engineers in general tend to be more skeptical when claims that random occurrences can automatically develop into highly complex and integrated working systems. Ben [end quote] So, admit that my statement is correct... or crawl in a hole with the rest of them. Get that? Island is able to find a claim from someone on the internet who claims to know TWO WHOLE engineers who say they see design in nature, therefore, his claim that "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists" is correct. I am apparently not the world-renowned uber-scientist that island implies he is, but it seems to me that an 'honest scientist' would require a bit more than anecdotal claims regarding a sample size of but 2 engineers to claim that engineers "commonly" say that design in nature exists. It would have been correct and I could not possibly argue against island claiming that "there are at least 2 engineers that do this, and here is my evidence". But this is not what he did. He wildly extrapolated from anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. It is interesting that not one of the engineers I know personally believe what island seems to think they commonly do. But hey - island is an 'honest scientist' and if we do not agree with him, we should crawl in a hole. But wait - Mr.Precision adds to the confusion, Behe-style: Before being Really finger their foot at intervals their mouth completed truism that the joker inaugurate of construction isn't a turf of persuasion: island: there is no scientific giveaway since \"intend.\" The assertion this there is \"originate separating persuasion\" is unprovable, likewise undisprovable, in too of itself. I interpret... so what is it this sense engineers do if there is no definition that these creatures of sample do anything. The gift Because \"meaning\" doesn't factual pop-out of society if the conceivable in that its emergence doesn't pre-exist inserted physics that constrains the circuit constants of heavenly body, so lone sheer unadulterated dude arrogance hands over single the unmitigated audacity to \"surmise\" that order can ever grant anything greater or slighter than the fraction of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical craving. Ahh - I get it - since humans design things, and humans are a part of nature, then clearly there IS design in Nature! How obvious! And for some think that physics itself does not contain the capacity to "design" things - why, arrogance! Human arrogance! Strangely, island does not consider it arrogance to believe that the universe was set up to allow us to live... I know, I know... I don't get the dichotomy either... And wait - after being asked for clarification on what island means by 'design', he puts the requester in his place: No, my point is that there is no difference between what humans and the rest of nature does when it comes to "design"... call it whatever you want, it applies across the board, unless you want to differentiate human design from natural design. And there we have it. "Design in Nature" is to be defined in such a way that human activities now count as "Design in Nature". And astrology is a science... Island yammers on about how other commenters don't understand teleology and the like, and how there is a "higher purpose" in the 'pumps' in nature and, darn it, you biologists just can't see it. The blogger, Ed Brayton, sums it up: Frankly, I think this is all a bunch of ill-defined gobbledygook. Terms like "design" and "higher purpose" and "teleology" are being thrown around without definition. Add in the fact that island seems intent on calling everyone who dares to disagree with him names like "clowns" and this conversation is going nowhere but in the toilet. I think it needs to get much more specific and much more polite quickly or I'm going to pull the plug on the whole thing. Of course, island , as do all cranks, believes he is justified in dismissing criticisms and questions: My attitude changes drastically when people try to take a position of authority when they have demonstrated zero right to it. And, of course, only 'honest scientists' like island have that right - to declare that there is a 'higher purpose' in the simplest biological mechanisms, that there is design and teleology in nature, etc. Well, that particular discussion took place in 2005. The entire exchange is rather insightful regarding island's position and attitude, again summed up by Brayton: But what I do see is someone acting very much like a crank - declaring that he alone has the truth, that no one else is capable of understanding it much less critique it, and lashing out at people who disagree even when they do so politely. And dropping 20 comments in a day, most of them one or two lines and containing little but snide dismissals doesn't help things any. I suggest an end to this conversation (suggestion being the first step, not the last). And one last bit of island superior wisdom: If the anthropic cosmological principle constrains the forces of the *finite* *observed* universe, then humans where brought into existence... "by design", rather than by chance, and that doesn't mean that this "reason for us to be here" isn't inherent to the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang. [ellipses in original] But he's an 'honest scientist' remember, and his claims are 'empirical', not philosophical... Yup... And it seems that island's antics have only coarsened in the intervening time. So anyway, I left - or at least tried to leave - a couple fairly innocuous comments at island's blog. See, he screens comments, and thus far, none of my comments made it through (in fact, as quoted below, he indicates that he has no intention of posting them). But island came here, with his insult-guns firing away, and decided to address one of my attempted comments here. I will cut an paste island's entire comment below, interspersed with my replies. =================================================================== Here's my first example of the junk that constitutes doppelganger's idea of "science": On, my blog, "i" said: The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle And duhppelganger How clever! Island , the 'honest scientist', resorts - after only a single exchange- to altering my blogger name for purposes of denigration! What a way to establish one's intellectual superiority! hosed it up:"Actually, it is an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists." No, Dr. Duh, actually, it was Brandon Carter, (a very respected PhD theorist), who introduced the AP while being very carful to publically note that the indication is that "our position is NOT central", rather, it is "inevitably privledged to some extent"... so you don't have a clue what you're saying. Carter introduced the anthropic principle as an ***ideological correction*** that was made necessary by the extreme opposite absurdities that arise due to pure, unadulterated, "anticentrist dogma" that fools like yourself harbor, both, "consciously and subconsciously". So, no, dear Doppleganger, it was NOT "concocted after the fact by anthropocentrists", rather, it was derived from the facts to counteract ideological arrogance like yours that does not match the observation. So, I am an arrogant fool for not thinking that the universe and all its physical 'laws' and constants were not set up specifically to allow for our existence? Dear me. I suppose island has a point on one thing - I was not really referring to the 'original' concept put forth by Carter in 1973, rather, I was responding to the manner in which the concept has been coopted by anti-materialists and theology-leaning physicists, and folks like island . Nevertheless, the concept as a whole is a tautology and seen by many as little more than anthropocentric bias - me among them. Unlike island , I think that I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter, whereas island seems to prefer to argue via authority (even his own perceived authority) and suppressing contrary ideas. While I suspect that island is a disturbed malcontent, middle-aged, balding, probably never married and living at home with his mom, a professor of physics says this about the anthropic principle: The WAP [weak anthropic principle, see* at the bottom] is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it. But what does he know - he is just a professor of physics. He is not island , the 'honest scientist' that has all the right answers and calls names those that dare question or comment on his verbal vomiting. Now, you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about, yet you run your mouth anyway as if you do... (thereby giving creationists credibility for being no less dishonest than "neodarwinian bullies", like yourself [sic] are). Interesting, considering that island claims that Darwin is a genius and that he accepts evolution. So why mention creationism? Who knows. And how, exactly, am I a 'neodarwinian bully'? Unlike island , I do not merely mock and insult those that I disagree with. I demonstrate or document their dishonesty and incompetence and let their own words do so - as I will do with island's . Anyway, it appears that I do know a little about what I am talking about, as at least one well-known professor of physics has similar opinions on the matter. Allow me to reiterate: The WAP is considered done with most physicists still cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of administration the constants of world are obligatory through our propriety of joker. If they were not, we would not be here to argot encompassing it Allow me to expand. Carter's so-called strong anthropic principle, according to Stenger (as already linked), states: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. Why? And just who are these 'observers'? Why, they are US! What a grand coincidence. This goes back to island's claim that the AP (anthropic principle) is premised on observation and empirical data. And what are these observations and data? These are the physical constants and 'laws' that have been discovered - things like the relationship between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron and its relationship to the masses of protons and neutrons, the excited energy level of the carbon nucleus, etc. (culled from Stenger's paper). In other words, "the way things are", and I think Stenger is absolutely correct - if these values were not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them. And we are humans. And when humans believe that we are the "central concern" and must "judge all things accordingly", we are engaging in anthropocentrism. So, when I wrote that the anthropic principle was an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists, I was correct. And you want me to publish crap like this on my science-based blog???... lol... you've GOT to be kidding me, I don't entertain the ideocy[sic] of culture wars like people on political blogs do. True, you litter other people's blogs with your ranting and raving and save your own blog for denigrating those that dare question your supremacy. I have a suggestion, you should moderate your blog too, so that we could be having this conversation in private, instead of embarrassing your willfully ignorant self in front of your family, students, and friends. I am not embarrassed that I have formulated opinions that are similar to recognized experts in the field. Why should I be? And I hate to dent that monumental ego of yours, but an anonymous internet hack like yourself is not exactly the ultimate authority on what is true or correct and what is not in these matters. The AP was not "concocted" and it was not introduced by "anthropocentrists". No? Concocted: To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive There is a bit of a negative connotation in the use of the word 'concoct', and that is my purpose. Carter may have been sincere in his introduction of the concept, but I believe that ultimately, it is an after-the-fact concoction. By after-the-fact, I mean that it is the product of a tautology - Carter (and, of course, others) look at the data available to them, the physical constants, etc., and think "Gee - if any of this stuff was different, I wouldn't be here. Thus, these things are the way they are SUCH THAT I could be here!" Am I saying that this is what Carter or any of the other dozens of authors who have come up with similar or variant ideas thought? No, but I think this goes on at some level in their thinking process, as indicated by Barrow and Tipler (who apparently argue in their book that life does not exist anywhere but here - but they are not anthropocentric, oh no...) : [re: WAP]The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. and even more obvious, their SAP [strong anthropic principle]: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. And why must it have those properties? Because it does . And what life are we talking about? Us . Tautology. Anthropocentric. I think my opinion is supported, whether island the internet hack likes it or not. Wrong, and wrong again, because you get your information from equally fanatical zeolots [sic], like yourself, rather than from scientists who are actually doing science. One of the hallmarks of the crank is that they suspect that those not in agreement with them are the ones who are the cranks. What an absurd fool you categorically prove yourself to be... but nothing that the delete button can't handle, right, Dope? Ironic, as island wrote this to a commenter on his blog: You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing. Island can project with the best of his ilk, it seems. Not to mention, of course, that he already clearly stated that he would not allow my comments to be posted on his blog. Cranks and fanatics are like that. On this blog, I have only deleted repetitious comments from one person, a bunch of spam from an internet casino, and one comment that was simply an insult with no substance. Which is basically what island's posts have been thus far. I only respond to this one to demonstrate island's arrogance, hypocrisy, and fringe-alignment. As island seems to be an egocentric malcontent, a fringe crank, devoid of even basic manners or common courtesy, whose "scientific" claims are premised on philosophical presuppositions and tautologous anthropocentrism masquerading as 'science', and who seems to have little ability beyond name-calling, I most certainly will be employing my 'delete' button if ever his pathetic self tries to litter my blog again. ===================== *From the linked-to document from Victor Stenger: His [Carter's] weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that: We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Tags: island, design, nature, blog, engineer

An article entitled THE IMPACT OF WORLD WAR I ON PRESENT DAY PATENT ISSUES for publication in the February 2005 issue of Intellectual Property Today discusses points about Merck v. Integra. Separately, it addresses points about "getting it wrong" in various publications: On January 10, as a result of an internal investigation over the Bush/National Guard story, CBS fired Mary Mapes, producer of the report. Josh Howard, executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday," his top deputy Mary Murphy, and senior vice president Betsy West were asked to resign. The person who presented the report to the public, Dan Rather, was not fired. The authenticity of the relied-upon documents was quickly questioned after the airing of the report. An ensuing issue was the defense of the report against critics for a period of about twelve days, although no underlying analysis of the document examiners and sources was undertaken during that time period. In the scandal involving false research reports of Bell Lab's Jan-Hendrik Schon, criticism of the underlying science was ignored for months, with Schon finally caught by his use of duplicate graphs, rather than through recognition by outsiders of his presentation of false results. Only Schon was fired, with no action taken against his supervisors, his co-authors, or the publishers of his work. Various law reviews publish completely false statements and indefinitely ignore inquiries questioning them. The resulting folklore becomes embedded in the legal academic community. ***** Speaking of law reviews, many discuss the Merck v. Integra case. In 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1059 (2004), Kevin Sandstrom states: This note argues Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA should be overturned to allow the use of a patented drug to create different derivative products or to compare and evaluate a new product against the latest patented standard. Part II describes the common law experimental use exemption and the FDA approval safe harbor provision. n11 Part III reviews the facts, holding, and dissent in Integra. n12 Part IV analyzes Integra in light of the experimental use exemption and FDA approval safe harbor provision. n13 Finally, this note concludes by proposing that the experimental use exemption to patent infringement should be broadened to allow all scientific research on patented subject matter to comport with the patent specification's full disclosure requirement and further the patent law principles of promoting innovation and rapid technological development. n14 In 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 81, Katherine J. Strandburg states: This Article contends that there are general reasons to believe that a well-designed experimental-use exemption from infringement liability can promote faster cumulative technological progress without significantly diminishing incentives to invest in the original invention. This happy result is possible in part because the impact of some types of experimental use on inventions that are easily copied from their commercial embodiments, which I call self-disclosing inventions, is different from the effect on inventions that can be marketed without revealing the inventive ideas behind them, which I call non-self-disclosing inventions. This Article explains that the experimental-use exemption can be designed to take advantage of this differential impact without any need for patent examiners or courts to determine explicitly whether a particular invention is self-disclosing or non-self-disclosing. (...) This Article supports Mueller's proposal [76 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2001)] for a limited exemption for "experimenting with" research tools that compensates the patentee for use of the tool through a compulsory licensing requirement. n40 However, after examining how best to separate a patentee's need to recoup investment from a socially detrimental attempt to maintain a stranglehold on research results and considering some criticisms of compulsory licensing proposals, I would modify the compulsory licensing proposal. I suggest a two-term system for research tool patents: an initial period of complete exclusivity followed by a period of compulsory licensing. *** Rochelle Dreyfuss in 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 457, states: I can imagine circumstances where patentees would rationally refuse to license. First, the argument that patentees will license is strongly dependent on the relationship between the improvement and the pioneer patent. Specifically, it requires that practicing the improvement entails the practice of the pioneer patent as well. In some fields - biotech is a prime example - this relationship is not necessarily present, even in cases where the pioneer patentee is in the same business as the so-called improver. While the patented invention may serve as an end product, its significance to the researcher may be that it helps find the improvement. Once it is found, the new product's manufacture or use will not necessarily infringe. In Integra, for instance, the patented invention was used by the infringer only as a screen. Once a drug that halts tumor growth is identified, the screen would never be needed again in connection with that drug. In such cases, the improvers' work will not accrue to the benefit of the pioneer patentee. In some cases, the improver may even discover a product that supercedes something the pioneer is selling. Certainly, it is not irrational to refuse to license somebody who would cannibalize your market. Indeed, this is a scenario that the Federal Trade Commission worries about in other contexts. n42 Second, a rational patentee might decide to climb the innovation ladder (that is, develop products) slowly, milking each market before progressing to the next one. Licensing others could interfere with this plan. Again, this concern is familiar. It has surfaced in patent cases from time to time. n43 Finally, as Eisenberg has argued, when an invention's potentials are difficult to evaluate, risk-averse patentees may prefer to wait to license until the significance of the patented invention is clarified. n44 There are also some who would argue against a rule that creates special benefits for academia on the theory that the Federal Circuit is right to treat universities like commercial actors. Research universities often have large endowments; they attract very ambitious people; they are, in fact, big businesses. Again, I do not agree. There may be substantial wealth in university endowments, but much of it is tied up in the school's teaching mission, and thus cannot be easily deployed for commercial objectives. Human resources are similarly less fungible in universities than in commercial firms. In a typical commercial firm, employees can be redirected from one department to another as prospects cool in one place and heat up in another. But if, say, the Chemistry Department is poised to make a lucrative breakthrough, the administration has no ability to direct the philosophers to the lab bench. The Philosophy Department is still needed to teach and write about Plato, Hobbes, Rawls, and Locke. (...) Of course, my approach also has problems. Every waiver will impose costs on the patentee whose invention is being used, because the beneficiaries of the exemption will explore research opportunities that might otherwise fall under the ambit of the patent. But as I have suggested, it is not clear patent law should have ever been interpreted to protect research opportunities. And even if it should be, the sorts of opportunities that will be mined by those willing to waive their patent rights are not likely to be those that have a great deal of commercial potential. Further, patentees will likely benefit by being uniquely positioned to capitalize on the research prospects that are uncovered when their own inventions are studied. Another question is whether anyone would ever file a waiver. Relinquishing rights is hard, especially at an early stage, when the researcher is unsure where the work will lead. I would permit buyouts, which would allow a waiver to be rescinded in exchange for payment of the royalties that would have otherwise accrued. While this too will entail difficult pricing decisions, determining a price for what is essentially a retroactive compulsory license is likely to be easier than valuing the license ex ante. Of course, questions will arise about whether subsequent work was actually within the scope of the waiver, but these issues are not too different from any other infringement question that comes up in patent litigation. The university setting will also create some difficulties. Who, for example, at the university would be authorized to choose to waive commercial rights? Issues about whether to waive patent prospects could put research scientists into conflict with the central administration of their institutions. In sum, mine is far from a perfect plan. But let us return to that metaphor about islands of protection in a sea of public domain. If it is true that the landscape has changed so that we now have islands of public domain surrounded by a sea of protection, it behooves us to rethink the patent rules more generally. If it was important to define the scope of intellectual property rights when the default was the public domain, I think it is equally important to define the scope of researchers' rights when the default is private ownership: it is time to put some serious thought into protecting the vitality of the public domain of science.

Tags: patent, invention, research, patentee, exemption

"Your child can be smart, or he can be healthy." Which would you choose? At first blush, this calls to mind the "straw man argument" we've discussed before, but it may not be. A recent study on the relationship between the (legendary?) intelligence of Ashkenazic Jews and their risk of a dreaded genetic disease (Tay-Sachs) has sparked an intense debate. First, though, it's probably helpful to explain "Ashkenazic Jew." There are two populations of Jews in the world, although they share a mutual heritage and homeland. One, the Ashkenazi, hail primarily from eastern Europe. The other, Sephardi, come from the Mediteranean area. Because Jews prefer to marry other Jews, there is a limited gene pool, which tends to exacerbate genetic problems. Tay-Sachs is a genetic disorder that almost exclusively afflicts Jews of Ashkenazic descent (similar to sickle cell anemia to those of African descent). This is a bad thing. Ashkenazic Jews tend to score much higher than the mean on standardized intelligence tests; this is a good thing. Hence the dilemna. The problem is that, in some ways, the inadvertent experiment that has led to these results -- that is, the fact that Ashkenazic Jews tend to marry other Ashkenazic Jews, and produce Ashkenazic offspring -- looks a lot like a systematic program of eugenics , such as was undertaken by the Nazi's. As one can imagine, such an image doesn't sit well with either scientists, or the Ashkenazim themselves. Thus the fierce debate. The study " hypothesizes that the genetic disorders could be the unfortunate side effects of genes that facilitate intelligence. " In fact, the authors of the study had some difficulty even getting it published in the first place. There is a very real concern that some in the lunatic fringe would find great joy in using the results of the study for their own nefarious goals. When Drs Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray first published their controversial book ( The Bell Curve ) almost a decade ago, they ran into a buzzsaw of politically correct criticism. Perhaps this explains why this new study is still under the radar: it has the potential to brew up the same kind of reaction. And yet, the study of this unusual relationship may help further our knowledge of how genetics works, and could conceivably lead to medical breakthroughs. So, why are we talking about this on an insurance blog? Part 2 is here.

Tags: jew, ashkenazic, study, genetic, intelligence

I embrace never heard of something leveled this before: this prisoners be disposed forth a infatuation strike to protest the international pressure imposed feasible their country...this factor of news is coming from Damascus. I am literally impressed at the prisoners' \"civic outstandings\". I am to boot impressed this they are getting insert to a TV, newspapers, together with a pen and a paper....for sure news out of that macrocosm, making me ever moreover floored. The oversize majority of detainees at Damascus central prison are to refuse food Because three days interpolated a model of loyalty to the Syrian government which is facing stage setting international criticism, Syrian staple media said Monday. \"Ninety percent of the prisoners comprehend major league to impel workable a three-day thirst strike to protest the pressure in that rivet attainable Syria,\" the stock SANA news station said.Participants had sent a post to the U.N. relevance among Damascus in which they \"condemned the foreign pressure still threats against Syria which are based onward unjust accusations,\" the news bureau said. "Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."

Tags: news, damascus, prisoners, pressure, strike

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Stung by criticism that it is wasting ratepayers' vested interests, Blue Transversely Blue Immunity of North Carolina is headed to court. The annunciate's largest health insurer is suing a personalized relaxation classification that discovered its nomen done now critical of the party. Again Blue Crosswise Blue Safeguard all over pitch to $500,000 feasible corporate civilization conjointly partying at the U.S. Open, ProCare, a non-profit approach funded closed non-deductible memberships furthermore donations, founded sure the folk knew encompassing it. When the insurer paid whereas 275 edge sellers Also guests to vacation amid the Carribean, ProCare realm the news. Blue Opposite embraces this it can take criticism, but it cannot mark the trumpet of confidential serviceability book learning. So, the non-profit insurer fired back with a lawsuit claiming ProCare wrongfully obtained internal materials detailing U.S. Open spending too posted them on the internet. \"Midst a original revenue order crosses the calling of criticism to an illegal program to count on and report effects scholarship, this's amid we had to act,\" said Foretoken Stinneford, a spokesman for Blue Across Blue Custody. Political strategists Gary Pearce besides Carter Wrenn are the apprehension behind the anti-Blue Transversely crusade. Pearce said ProCare hunger operation the lawsuit along stand criticizing Blue Over spending. ProCare is not a registered lobbying sort along its branchs are not identified. \"We represent patients, doctors, hands, hospitals, mental health professionals,\" Pearce said. ProCare's inequality to Blue Across Blue Care of North Carolina dates back to 2003 formerly doctors furthermore pharmacists helped method the section to operation the insurer's disclose to convert to a for-profit company. Blue Opposite eventually dry the slogging. ProCare picked bygone it's online criticism recurrently mid the non-profit posted $350 hundred thousand bounded by take in opposite two years.

Tags: blue, procare, insurer, profit, criticism

Damage O'Reilly, pompous right-wing, sexual harasser, has been struggling an Ohio envisage. O'Reilly, who wants us to forget this he wanted to resort to a falafel onward an employee's habit, is endeavoring to oust an Ohio imagine as a sentence liable amidst Franklin County, Ohio. O'Reilly doesn't flip through what he is gloss everywhere with that motive. The sentence was goods of a plea defense conjointly was vanilla finished the Republican County Prosecutor, Ron O'Brien. The Second Paper had an article again here are some excerpts: ...But both Selva's lawyer further the prosecutor from the quotation agree: Visualize Connor was unfairly targeted ancient history the truck likewise politicians... ... Ron Welch, the Franklin County prosecutor who negotiated Selva's plea business said he disagreed with Connor's ruling but feels the criticism heaped upon the determine is unwarranted... ...A garden variety note of exchange outrage has been the oft-reported yet erroneous view that Connor could inject given Selva a maximum of 10 years betwixt the pokey. Due to he was a first-time offender, Selva could rare appreciate received the minimum prison tour, which is well particular reign.... There is second article intervening the analogous paper likewise here are some excerpts: ...O'Reilly didn't requisite hunger to put hell. He wanted Connor, who has been elected along re-elected to the bench, impeached. \"That individual is dangerous, that gather,\" O'Reilly said all through Monday's give off. \"Likewise you hearken him prescribed alike Al Capone. You fund him the system you can strain him.\" Of course, O'Reilly didn't know what he was talking about generic viagra online viagra buy cilais Cheap Viagra

Tags: reilly, ohio, connor, selva, viagra

Posting aim be lighter than spread, for, this I am viable vacation centrally located VA; not that posting Along The Fry is edge, or anything interwoven that. Portable along with Fluffy Pickles? Numbers? Criticism? Spam? Rush off it largely to:The Daily Fry generic viagra online Cheap Viagra viagra cheap cialis

Tags: