Say I won the lottery, got educated in medicine. I then spent all $50,000,000 in super hightech gear and facilities to test thousands of variations of things on rats in an automated manner.

Say I found the cure for cancer.

To me this is priceless... the money this can bring in can fund future research, my purchase of a sports team, fund my Presidential bid, and more.

Then as I am writing up the Patent you change the law to your proposal.

I have no means to mass produce... others will make profit, but I won't.

I burn all information on the cure, shut down my facility, and wait for the law to change back.

Now here is MY ULTIMATUMN.

Answer the dilemna I posted, or ask legit questions to me about this, or I do not post here again.

Right, I am guessing you are referring to this because it was the first book printed using a printing press.

Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of said press, actually lost his printing press after the investor was unhappy with the expenses of his capital. Furthermore, he went bankrupt...so for everyone else, yes the printing press revolutionised the world, but the inventor actually lost everything following his invention...

The first applications of the printing press were also to make money:

"At the same time, the press was also printing other, more lucrative texts (possibly Latin grammars). There is also some speculation that there may have been two presses, one for the pedestrian texts, and one for the Bible. One of the profit-making enterprises of the new press was the printing of thousands of indulgences for the church, documented from 1454

You're a sick person if you cure cancer and then don't give it to mankind for free Flint.

And your greedy for not allowing me to repay the cash I put in, the time and effort factor, for my genius, and to prevent me from realizing very small profits compared to most drugs (most drugs can take 500 million to produce, my 50 million cure is a steal)

Yes I would destroy it if the laws punish inventors. In a heart beat.

You only make the rich richer eliminating patents.

I happen to have been involved in some research about this sort of situation concerning bacteriophage technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage). Bacteriophages are organisms that kill bacteria. If you are able to deliver this to bacteria in the body, this would be perfect to replace, or to use next to antibiotics, which would in turn also solve the increasing problem of immunity to antibiotics, and give the medical world a whole new weapon in the fight against viruses etc. This technology has been used in Eastern Europe since forever (over a century), but has failed to catch on in the western world. Pharmaceutical companies refuse to invest in research simply because it doesn't have a clear place in both the European as the American medical laws. Companies are not able to protect their investments, so they don't.
Lately some initiative has been taken to give this a clear spot, and already some companies are jumping on the posibility.
Imagine how many lives could have been saved if this technology would have been available. (For instance, it's very likely the EHEC outbreak in Germany last year would have been solved without casualties.)

Bacteriophages actually don't constitute as organisms .

/me is done posting.

The fact that universities would not be able to succesfully cover all of the pharmaceutical sector, does not mean that the pharmaceutical companies do not make exceptionally large profits.
How do you combat this and make them invest more into research that wouldn't turn as large profits (such as diseases largily concentrated in 3rd world countries or rare diseases with small amounts of affected people)? The person to come up with a plan for this would be a worldwide hero.

And so, even if the current system isn't optimal, it still manages to maintain itself for lack of a better alternative.

bacteriophages basically being specialized viruses, lack the same requirements to be qualified for being "alive" as regular viruses: the lack of autonomous reproduction and metabolism

but that's not really the topic of this thread, is it? haha
plus it's just ant-[idisestablishmentarianism];) (me loves Dutch figures of speech)

Same with remedies made with common herbs and plants. Same with other home remedies.

I would like to start a petition, asking legislators who will sign such bills as PIPA or SOPA, legislators of any and every legislature of any and every parliament of any and every country that intends to sign such bills into effect do so with a hand on a copy of the Gutenberg Bible.

Whose with me?

Heck the Democrats pushing this might accidentally try to use it as toilet paper...

And Wornstrum think on it... he cannot see the flaw in that idea either.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> What is the flaw? Oh, I see, yes, I suppose representatives who would be stupid enough to sign the bill wouldn't be educated enough to be capable of understanding the symbolism involved...

I did understand the symbolism involved, the need to protect inventors (as outlined by my previous post...so I am guessing you missed it, so I will repost it here):

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, I am guessing you are referring to this because it was the first book printed using a printing press.

Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of said press, actually lost his printing press after the investor was unhappy with the expenses of his capital. Furthermore, he went bankrupt...so for everyone else, yes the printing press revolutionised the world, but the inventor actually lost everything following his invention...

The first applications of the printing press were also to make money:

"At the same time, the press was also printing other, more lucrative texts (possibly Latin grammars). There is also some speculation that there may have been two presses, one for the pedestrian texts, and one for the Bible. One of the profit-making enterprises of the new press was the printing of thousands of indulgences for the church, documented from 1454