[ExI] (The Independent 2013-08) Plumpy'Nut: The lifesaver that costs... well, peanuts

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com>  Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:50 PM
> > How about using the patent to block for-profit business but not waiving
> that
> > option when non-profit and humanitarian/aid providers distribute the
> product ?
> > Is that immoral?
>
> But let's leave that aside for the moment. I was going to suggest merely
> putting whatever life saving technology you invent into the public domain,
> avoiding patenting all together. Then it's up to whomever wants to to
> manufacturer whatever technology is there. I'm not a legal eagle, but I
> believe if it's in the public it can't be patented. Isn't this correct?
> (I'm also not sure how this varies from nation to nation.)
>
>
I was thinking along the lines of using your patent right to prevent others
from making derivative works employing your otherwise public/non-patented
idea.  This may be generalized too much to be applied to the Plumpy'Nut
example.

I'm also not a patent lawyer.  I figure it's like my right to kick
neighborhood kids' lemonade stand off my front lawn because I don't want
them running their business in front of my house but allowing those same
kids to play games on the same lawn.  My "right" to private property is
selectively invoked at will.

I asked if it was immoral because I wasn't sure it's "fair" to use
selective enforcement rather than adhering to an unyielding principle
that's 100% one way or the other.

fwiw - It would be refreshing to have kids running a lemonade stand on my
lawn, and not just because of the cool citrus beverage  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130919/a58251ab/attachment.html>