Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 09:54 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb872d4da40e8c6989aa4(a)news.individual.net... > In article <mjx3h.6041$B31.808(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fb7c488b59649a1989a9b(a)news.individual.net... >> > In article <cXd3h.4612$7F3.309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > Nice snippage of your "impressive" credentials. > >> >> No. In the US, they are valid for 17 years from the date the PTO >> >> grants >> >> them. >> > >> > I thought you said you knew something about patents. They now >> > expire 20 years from the date of filing. This change was made in >> > the early '90s, IIRC, to circumvent "submarine patents". >> > >> > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent >> > >> > "Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date >> > on which the application for the patent was filed in the United >> > States..." >> >> They did *not* make the change in the early 90s. It was discussed then, >> and >> rejected--that according to several patent attorneys I had worked with, >> and >> the PTO website around 2001 (last time I looked at it). > > You are an idiot. I *GAVE* you the reference. You gave me the reference that says that that is the way it is now, not that the change was made in the 90s. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 10:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <b0478$454e0406$49ecf9b$23419(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>When I was young, one of the books I read started out >>with a park scene. At the edge, in a brownstone, was >>a pediatrician's office. Outside were a half dozen >>shiny new baby carriages, and one older one. The older >>one belonged to a wealthy family. The lower classes >>bought a cheap, glitzy carriage for each child born >>to them, and the cheap ones don't last. The upper >>class woman purchased an exceptionally good carriage, >>which outlasted all her children. > That's a good start. I think you're defining "poor" incorrectly. > Here is a difference in that class you called poor. > Land-poor people don't to that. They buy things like > the rich lady did based on longevity and quality of service. > I've found that only the people, whom I call city slickers, > buy single use throwaway goods. I don't consider those > poor in your book's line as poor. They are in the middle class. I don't see three mentalities, I see two. snip >>Also see the cable TV shows _The Anna Nicole >>Smith Show_ and _Growing up Gotti_. > That all sounds like middle class societies. Hardly. It is low class mentalities with more cash than they know what to do with. > You should work on a farm for a while :-). Funny you should mention. I have a vacant 40 that in my retirement I am making productive.
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:01 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eina74$8qk_001(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <d1417$454c9f01$4fe7327$8157(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <454B8CBB.216F8FE1(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>snip >> >>>>>What do they really cost? >>>> >>>>I've no idea. Usually more but not always since the NHS >>>>makes extensive use of >>>>generics which they ( and the pharmacists ) can buy in >>>>bulk and get a good price on. >> >>> This means that you don't have access to any improved drugs. >>> The patent period, IRRC, in the US is 20 years. With your >>> drug plan, you have to use 20-year old medical drug technology. >> >>Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that >>new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well >>in their little world. > > That is what they are told. And in a lot of cases, it is true. So what? >>>>That's the whole point. If your drugs cost say ?200 you still only pay > ?6.50. >>>>This means good health care is affordable for all regardless of income. >> >>> So who is paying for the rest of the cost? $200-$6.50=$193.50 >>> (I don't have a pound sign so I'll use dollars). >> >>The public, of course. > > No. Yes. In the British system (note the pound symbols above), it is paid using tax money. It is only in the broken US system that it is paid using corporate earnings, and then only for some fraction of the population. >>But to a socialist, whatever isn't obviously visible to them >>doesn't exist. > > And it's not supposed to. Handing off that kind of PITA work > to somebody else is very nice. The problem is that a socialist > ecnomic system isn't competitive and gradually becomes stodgy > and non-productive. This is why capitalism works; it keeps > people out of the rut and encourages new ideas, innovations, > and production. > >>Must have something to do with Europe's >>"brain drain" of recent decades. > > Not any more in the computer biz area. They are breeding > their brightest with encouragement and not depending on outside > sources to do this work. And yet these are the economies you accuse of being socialist. Yes, there are socialist aspects to Europe's economy. Hell, the 'Murc'n jingoists here won't admit it, but there are socialist aspects to the US economy. That doesn't indict the entire economy. What you say above is true about socialism stifling productivity, but it's not necessarily true of a basically capitalist economy that has socialist aspects...like most of Europe, the UK...*and* the US. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:03 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:einaap$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454CA66D.FCA3C05B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that >>> new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well >>> in their little world. >> >>*Some* of them are. > > You are talking about a tactic that drug companies so that > they can keep their patent for longer than 20 years. This does > not happen to all drugs. Finally you get around to admitting the point he was trying to make in the first place--some new drug research is wasted (as far as the public is concerned) on keeping patent coverage on types of drugs where patents have run out. *Nobody* ever said it was the case of all, or even a majority of, drug research. That was a strawman that you introduced. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:10
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:einccg$8qk_009(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <cXd3h.4612$7F3.309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>news:MPG.1fb72b7115bb9813989a96(a)news.individual.net... >>> In article <RZ93h.4899$B31.3455(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>> >>>> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>> news:MPG.1fb6811853307b0989a87(a)news.individual.net... >>>> > In article <zRz2h.4036$B31.709(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>> >> >>>> >> "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. >>>> >> >>>> > Actually, he's right (patents do need to be renewed) but this fact >>>> > is irrelevant to the discussion. >>>> >>>> Once a patent reaches an age of 17 years (in the US; 20 in the rest of >>>> the >>>> world), it expires. Period. >>> >>> Nope. Perhaps you want to learn something. >> >>I've been working in the chemical industry for 15 years, and have written >>several patents, a couple of which have subsequently abandoned because the >>company chose not to pursue the technology. I know how they work, thank >>you. > > You don't really know how they work. In my biz, one of our > lawyers disagreed with himself about the copyright law. > Getting a consistent interpretation of IP law over a three-month time > period was impossible. I doubt lawyers have improved this since > then. Yes, I've encountered that too. The underlying explanation is that the enforcement of a patent is ultimately in the hands of a jury, not the PTO. When something is enforced by a government agency, like the EPA, their behavior is at least somewhat predictable. When it's in the hands of a jury, who understand neither the technical aspects of the patented technology, nor the law surrounding patents, nearly all bets are off. The lawyers have to try to predict how it will come out. That's hard enough to do in the midst of a trial, where you actually have some facts of possible infringement, but before there is even a situation that would go to trial, that is obviously a nearly hopeless enterprise. Eric Lucas |