Posted on 03/20/2006 9:56:09 AM PST by Grig
The Earth revolves around the Sun.
The speed of light is a constant.
Apples fall to earth because of gravity.
Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.
Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.
Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.
Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.
ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.
All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I just patented the word "food"!
I'll be richer!
Taking just a sliver of license from Full Metal Jacket:
"If I'm gonna patent me a word....my word is 'poontang'."
Unfortunately there is prior art.
A particular test procedure might be patented if it involves only specific equipment that is patentable.
I'm patenting the word "patent". So THERE....nyah.
No, Copernicus. The Earth "orbits" or "circles" the Sun, at least in a heliocentric coordinate system. The Earth revolves around its spin axis, the line between the North and South poles.
In purely geometric terms, it's no more correct to say the Earth orbits the Sun than to say the Sun circles around the Earth. In terms of Newtonian mechanics, neither statement is correct: both bodies orbit their common center of mass.
Copernican mechanics offered neither improved accuracy nor symplicity compared to Ptolemaic. Copernicus used epicycles, but he resolved motion into uniform circular motion, discarding Ptolemy's equant. There is no purely geometric argument to favor one over the other. Galileo apparently did not understand orbital mechanics - either Copernican nor Ptolemaic - well enough to realize this.
I will n-v-r pay a dim- for th- right to us- th- l-tt-r -.
So, you own the rights to a typo ... good work.
So there is no debate on the proper role of "intellectual property" laws?
The original intent of such laws was to encourage innovation, but now that there are 10^12th patent attorneys churning the patent laws the same way trial lawyers are churning tort laws, innovation is coming to a standstill. One of three University research projects is being abandoned these days to to conflicts with somebody's intellectual property.
So what is the proper role of these laws? To enrich lawyers? Or to encourage innovation?
I am trying to decide between patenting stune or beeber...but I would probably get more $ by going with hate monger or racist. : )
I just pattenended the "F" word and I'm gonna be richer than all of you!
LOL
And I've just copyrighted the letters 'S' and 'U'.
Anytime some lawyer wants to SUe someone, they'll have to pay me first!
Mark
Incorrect. The speed of light varies depending on what medium it's moving through. That's why we get fun things like refraction and Cerenkov radiation. I wouldn't expect a New York Times writer to know that, of course, it's fairly advanced middle school and high school science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.