Topic: Anon is hammering the Justice Department (Read 3079 times)

I'm pretty sure anyone can build anything for their own personal use.  Patent laws only apply when you start selling things that utilize patented technologies.

I don't know...anonymous responds to crackdown on piracy, we get into intellectual property law...seems relevant enough for you to shirk that job.

There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for patents. It simply does not exist in the patent system. Mostly because patents deal more with the physical implementation of ideas instead of the expression of ideas. Patents bring thought to reality through a process, all of which is protected by the patent.

Even for copyrights, this would not come under fair use because you would be effectively replicating it in its entirety, basically performing an identical performance as the original, in its entirety, which you have no right to do without permission because the basis for your new plant is the original that is protected.

That said, Utility Patents exist for significant improvement upon an original patent, and you certainly have the right to improve upon the original, so long as your process is unique, novel, not a basic deviation of whats been done before, and most importantly, you arent infringing on the original patent its based on. In other words, its an actual improvement of the original that would be of some substancial benefit the original did not provide.

Huge corporation research lab or musty old basement is not relevent. Bill Gates started in the garage.

Indeed, this has gone way off topic.  I'll admit that I've been party to it, but it has to stop.  I'll be forced to split the thread if there is any more of it, and that involves a great deal of work on my part.

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

So I take it you are ok with those countless patents for processes and machines that current technology cannot achieve?

I am amazed that you don't see a difference between personal use and the manufacturing and sale of an item. You really buy into the current state of patent and copyright law? I am all for allowing those who came up with an idea to profit off it, but I do not think it should be a crime for someone to repeat their experiment for their own use. That's some christianity in the dark ages shit right there.

I am not talking about a huge corporation mass-producing an object, I am talking about people and fair use. If I spend vastly more time and effort to build my own version and I am not trying to profit off it, even if it turns out exactly the same, how is that stealing?

In plant genetics especially, there are a lot of different ways to elicit a mutation you are looking for. If I take a different road to the same result, somehow I am stealing from the patent holder. Fuck that noise.

Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

Is it wrong that I do think this is theft? Honda definately has the capability to build a Ford, and I certainly think if they do obtain the blueprints and make one that they have stolen.

If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...

No. That is not my logic at all.

You simply growing a plant does not alter the genetic code in any meaningful, intentional, or specific way. Yes, of course it is unique, as is all genetic code of every living plant and animal, however the "alteration" that occurs in your example is by natural mechanisms/processes beyond any control... evolution, if you will.

My logic is that if the genetic code is intentionally altered to create a unique breed/variety that intentionally and materially alters any specific characteristics of that plant, such as yield, product quality, taste/flavor, longevity, enviromental survivability, resistances, etc, would be patentable and property of the developer, if they so choose.

So by your logic, absolutely ANY plant that I allow to reproduce sexually is a unique creation that I did the work on, and as such is my property and anyone who wants to grow my varietal should pay?

I think you don't understand the nature of genetic manipulation and plant breeding.

I believe it would boil down to where you got the original cutting.. if you stole it form someone elses property, if it were given to you or yyou were allowed to take it, and if they had the right to give it to you or let you take it to begin with. If someone changes the genetic code of a naturally occurring plant, then patent that, its theirs. They did the work. They invested in the research and development. Its no different than someone taking the earths naturally occurring resources and manipulating them into the latest bleeding-edge "widget". If you use their patented method or product, you pay a royalty fee or invest in research and development and make your own. Making your own does not include stealing off someone else who invested time, money, and resources in my opinion.

I am not talking about roundup-ready crops, and the fertilizers and soil conditioners to be used in conjunction with RR have nothing to do with it. They hold thousands upon thousands of patents on plants that have never been cultivated outside a lab. Maybe I just want one that produces a higher concentration of oil per kernel than the regular old Burpee seed packets. I am talking about patented genetics...genetics that some may know as merely a store of information. You say that there are other sunflowers...yeah, there are over 10,000 Asteracea species, but I am not talking about them. I am talking about one.

Say I never take the seed...say I drop a cutting into my tissue culture hood and form my own plants from a small scraping. I do it regularly as a hobby. If I culture it, flower it, and harvest the fruit, how in the fuck can they still own it? Stealing involves something being taken, and not being available to the original owner anymore. Culturing, breeding, or copying, if you please, are not theft and cause no monetary loss.

If I build the exact same car as Ford, spending billions of dollars to manufacture my parts to their specs, did I commit grand theft auto? Cause I am pretty sure that is an implication of your stance...

As to monsanto, you certainly would be breaking the law because they have patented their own "roundup-ready" seed products. They created them and they own them. To get them you must contract with monsanto to get them and the roundup fertilizer, or steal them. It's a system. Why anyone would want a monsanto seed without the fertilizer in unknown. Its kind of a rediculous proposition really.  What would not be illegal is for you to buy your own non-monsanto seeds and live a full happy life farming with them. You can certainly obtain sunflower seeds that are not patented and genetically altered by monsanto, so I find the parallel you are trying to draw irrelevent. Now, if there ever comes a day when Monsanto, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, or any other agricultural conglomerate tried to patent a complete naturally-occurring plant species, then we have problems (like all sunflowers, etc). That said, agricultural conglomerates abuse the legal system in ways I do not think is right. They have taken to court farmers near customers of theirs whos plants have been cross polinated/contaminated by Monsanto products, genetically altering the next generation which they claim ownership of, subsiquently claiming basically theft. This has put many out of business because of the financial costs of lawsuits. This needs to stop and the agricultural conglomerates need to compensate them. Polination can not be controlled. Its part of the natural process and the cost of doing business if you are an agri-business selling modified patented seeds.

I feel entitled to remain free from coercion.  To advocate the position that information is property, is to engage the collective forces of governments & society to compel those who do not agree with you to comply with your ideology.  I advocate only for the natural default conditions whenever force isn't used against the peaceful.

That's exactly his position.  We discussed it in a thread about intellectual property.  They really do feel entitled to take the product of your work without your consent.

...snip...


To say "information isnt property", means you think there should be absolutely no copyrights, trademarks, or patents at all on anything.

...snip...