X-no-Archive:yes
Ironically, this may be in self-defense, with no intention of ever enforcing
the patent. Rather, this prevents someone else from patenting it, then suing
a large company for a nuisance fee.

Years ago, IBM trademarked the string "YEAR2000". This caused a few days of
consternation on the mailing list of the same name, until someone pointed
out the preemptive nature of such a trademark. IBM prevented someone from
trademarking it and suing IBM or anyone else.

I would be very interested in seeing an example of a patent on a discovered
gene enforced, as I doubt that, in this context, that has happened. I would
rather that such nonsense not be a good idea, but it is not that different
from a "copyleft" in one sense, in making something available for anyone's
use, so long as they don't claim it for their own.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com
If I've understood this correctly, 60 Minutes should have as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Becker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: HTML display but prevent download of images

<snip>
Laboratories now routinely patent genes so that they might, say, own a
cancer gene, thus preventing any research or medication for that gene which,
even though it might save lives, is banned and can have a cease and desist
order.