In article <Pine.SGI.4.33.0105201327580.27387869-100000 at mole.bio.cam.ac.uk>,
Michael Witty says...
>>On Sun, 20 May 2001, Gordon Couger wrote:
>>> Where do you get the money for research and testing? We have a system designed
>> to cost a fortune to get a drug approved. I agree that drugs developed with
>> public money should be freely distributed. But that's not the way things work
>> any more. There is still some plant breeding done that way but that is about the
>> only thing the universities don't patent.
>>>> In article <3B0713A6.37650D42 at mail.ncifcrf.gov>, Dr. Artem Evdokimov says...
>> >At that time, the British (rightfully) considered that patenting
>> >discoveries directly related to medicine is unethical. I wish this point
>> >of view was more widespread ...
>>There are actually some really good advantages to patenting. Full
>disclosure, rather than depending on secrecy to protect a process AND
>patents expire after 20 years which means anyone can use the patented
>process. Can anyone suggest a better alternative? Mike.
>Freely avalible includes disclosure and trading of breeding material in plant
science. So has the same advantages as patents. In fact they may be patenting
them and just not charging for the use of the patent.