Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 23:41 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454A9831.E1E49808(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> You're making stuff up once again. > > I saw nothing made up. > > >> Don't you ever get >> tired of having to invent facts to support your anti- >> American views? > > Are you saying it's anti-American to report that Iraqis want US troops to > leave > their country ? > > If so - why ? Because she and the lemmings running this country into the ground demand 100% blind loyalty, and anybody who points out that the emperor ain't wearing nothing is immediately labelled a traitor. Without blind, unthinking allegiance, they are powerless. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 23:44 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b6daa$454a9bd3$49ecfd8$27645(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>You're making stuff up once again. >> >> >> I saw nothing made up. > > You made up a "fact" that the poll was scientific. > >>>Don't you ever get >>>tired of having to invent facts to support your anti- >>>American views? > >> Are you saying it's anti-American to report that Iraqis want US troops to >> leave >> their country ? > >> If so - why ? > > It is anti-American to keep claiming that when you have > no facts to support the idea, only a "report" from > suspect sources. It is the overall thrust of your posts > that gives any reasonable reader the idea that you're > anti-American. Gallup is "suspect"...right.... You will label anything you don't like with any pejorative label you can come up with, just so you don't have to deal with it. Nice. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 23:47 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:iualk291t97f8404q1sh653htevg49g4s6(a)4ax.com... > On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: > >>He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the old >>one... > > Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. Where did you get *that* silly idea??? You might just want to go back to insults--at least you understand those. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 23:51 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6ba5b$454aaac1$4fe762a$27898(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > MooseFET wrote: >> unsettled wrote: >> >>>Eeyore wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>>>>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old >>>>>>one ( where a >>>>>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep >>>>>>the prices >>>>>>high. >>>>> >>>>>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. >>>> >>>> >>>>I understand perfectly. >>> >>>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you >>>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." >>> >>>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement >>>for an old one. >> >> >> Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for >> a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't >> need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is >> different and works. > > You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't > simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the > point of this discussion. No, it doesn't have to act differently--it can act *exactly* the same. It simply has to be a chemically different molecule or formulation. Learn something about patents before you post about them. > In actual fact you don't even need to prove that >> it works anymore. The US patent office no longer requires a working >> model or any such solid physical proof. Well, at least in chemistry, where working models are a bit problematic, they're essentially always disclosed in the form of Examples. The purpose of patents is to both disclose information and protect inventions. If the Examiner deems that a patent doesn't disclose enough information, he won't allow it to be granted. At least that's how it works in the US. I suspect other countries are similar, but I'm sure there are differences. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 23:53
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4a119$454aac25$4fe762a$27898(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > MooseFET wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: >> >>>MooseFET wrote: >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>[....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old >>>>>>>>one ( where a >>>>>>>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and >>>>>>>>keep the prices >>>>>>>>high. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I understand perfectly. >>>>> >>>>>If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you >>>>>called new drugs "just replacements for old one." >>>>> >>>>>You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement >>>>>for an old one. >>>> >>>> >>>>Where did you get that silly idea? At least two of my patents are for >>>>a "widget" that replaces an older "widget". To get a patent, you don't >>>>need to prove that it is better. You only need to prove that it is >>>>different and works. >>> >>>You're right. It has to be different. So the new one doesn't >>>simply clone the action of an earlier medicine. That's the >>>point of this discussion. >> >> >> That is not correct either. The action can be identical and the >> chemical different and still get a patent. > > Can be does not mean it is. Chemicals are funny that way. Nice strawman...nobody ever said that *all* new drugs are just knock-offs of old ones. But a substantial number are. Eric Lucas |