As I looked at slashdot.org today. I saw a message yesterday about the possible patent violation when a lack of B12 to homocysteine is mentioned.
Here is the wikipedia article that follow the claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition The quote is simple: "Vitamin B12 destroys Homocysteine, a neurotoxin the body naturally produces." The patent would make it invalid to include such claim without royalty.
The news article is entitled "The essay breaks the law" by Michael Crichton. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ex=1300424400&...
Freakin' POV pushers!
Jonathan
Jonathan (dzonatas@dzonux.net) [060321 02:25]:
As I looked at slashdot.org today. I saw a message yesterday about the possible patent violation when a lack of B12 to homocysteine is mentioned. Here is the wikipedia article that follow the claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition The quote is simple: "Vitamin B12 destroys Homocysteine, a neurotoxin the body naturally produces." The patent would make it invalid to include such claim without royalty. The news article is entitled "The essay breaks the law" by Michael Crichton. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ex=1300424400&...
I see nothing more suitable for us to do than directly ignore any such patent.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Jonathan (dzonatas@dzonux.net) [060321 02:25]:
As I looked at slashdot.org today. I saw a message yesterday about the possible patent violation when a lack of B12 to homocysteine is mentioned. Here is the wikipedia article that follow the claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition The quote is simple: "Vitamin B12 destroys Homocysteine, a neurotoxin the body naturally produces." The patent would make it invalid to include such claim without royalty. The news article is entitled "The essay breaks the law" by Michael Crichton. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ex=1300424400&...
I see nothing more suitable for us to do than directly ignore any such patent.
Wondering if this is the same Crichton who holds US patent 6,785,977, a device for levelling pictures on a wall. :-)
Of course to the extent that the text of all US patents appear on the USPTO website http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html it would seem that it could be freely reprinted.
Ec
I think this is legally speculative enough to not need direct attention. To use patents to restrict written speech is, to use a phrase, patently weird (this sort of thing is practically *always* the domain of copyright law). I doubt the courts will uphold this, and anyway I doubt we need to worry about it specifically in any case, for now.
FF
On 3/20/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
As I looked at slashdot.org today. I saw a message yesterday about the possible patent violation when a lack of B12 to homocysteine is mentioned.
Here is the wikipedia article that follow the claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition The quote is simple: "Vitamin B12 destroys Homocysteine, a neurotoxin the body naturally produces." The patent would make it invalid to include such claim without royalty.
The news article is entitled "The essay breaks the law" by Michael Crichton. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ex=1300424400&...
Freakin' POV pushers!
Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is legally speculative enough to not need direct attention. To use patents to restrict written speech is, to use a phrase, patently weird (this sort of thing is practically *always* the domain of copyright law). I doubt the courts will uphold this, and anyway I doubt we need to worry about it specifically in any case, for now.
In fact, the very definition of patented is that the description is made public in return for a limited monopoly on use.
-Matt
I read over the article more closely -- it's not the sentence, per se, but the "fact" that was granted. It will be interesting to see what the courts rule -- all precedent that I know of attests to not being able to grant patents on "facts". Though who knows what they will do -- many of the current patenting practices are, as Crichton points out, patently ridiculous (hyuk yuk), and personally I think some of the practices allowed (i.e. patenting business methods) are completely abhorrent and counter-productive to the entire point of the patent system (I don't think they encourage innovation, I think they just give an incentive for companies to attempt to patent any conceivable vague operation they can think of with the hopes of extracting future royalties from people who independently use the same approach). So we'll see... in any case, we certainly don't need to do anything until after the ruling, and I'd be honestly shocked if the Court let patenting a "fact" fly (but then again, I'm shocked that the Patent Office would dare to let such a thing slip by itself -- "facts cannot be patented" is practically a dogma in current intellectual property discourse).
In a more lighthearted note, did you know the first patent superintendent in the U.S. did not believe that patents should be distributed publicly, and instead fought to have them kept secret? Very strange episode in early U.S. patent history... unfortunately our current entry on [[William Thornton]] doesn't mention this at all, so maybe I'll add it in when I get some time.
FF
On 3/20/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is legally speculative enough to not need direct attention. To use patents to restrict written speech is, to use a phrase, patently weird (this sort of thing is practically *always* the domain of copyright law). I doubt the courts will uphold this, and anyway I doubt we need to worry about it specifically in any case, for now.
In fact, the very definition of patented is that the description is made public in return for a limited monopoly on use.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Fastfission" wrote
I read over the article more closely -- it's not the sentence, per se, but the "fact" that was granted. It will be interesting to see what the courts rule -- all precedent that I know of attests to not being able to grant patents on "facts".
NB that US patent law is pretty much sui generis. In Europe it is much more strongly held that patents are for 'processes'.
Anyway it behoves us to go on putting scientific facts on Wikipedia, regardless of 'ownership' claims, and worrying only about copyvio.
Charles