[Patents] public interest and appropriation instinct

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> > >But since you want to quibble, there is (fortunately) no free biotech,
> > >like there is free software.
> > 
> > Wrong again, Bernard.  Much of the human genome sequencing efforts
> > around the world are funded by governments, and all of the results
> > are put in the public domain.  That is as free biotech, as open source
> > is free software.  And given that much DNA is known to be informational,
> > these biotech efforts can easily be called wet open source.  Once again,
> > nothing special about software.
> 
> indeed, my mistake ... 

No, Greg's mistake.
The fact that some genetics information is openly available doesn't 
make any biotech products opensource.
Freely usable public information is available in many fields.
But freely modifiable and republishable products are not.

> but you could have tried to understand my
> meaning.  I meant to say that free software can be developed by
> individuals with little funding, and little control, and contribute to
> wealth.  This is neither possible, nor wishable in the case of
> biotech.  And those people are blocked by the patent system, since
> they have no funds.

This is indeed another difference:  even the information that is published
is the result of a top-down effort by universities much more than by a
cooperative bottom-up effort.

-phm