Re: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer you on''

[Charles Behney <charlesaugust@theriver.com>]

Heck, they are public domain, so there's no profit to be had in a traditional sense. Like a
public domain book, say Huckleberry Finn- anyone can publish it, no one has exclusivity over
the property. The same for plant molecules like aspirin or caffeine. No chance for a
monopoly from these generally recognized as safe molecules. However, if you manipulate the
structure chemically from the original template molecule, then you can hold a patent and
rights. Like valium, or derivatives. There is no incentive to test and market public domain
herbs in the traditional pharmaceutical R&D model. But a patented molecule can lead to a
monopoly, for awhile.

Regarding software, can a public domain protocol like TCP/IP become commercialized, through
code that is patented from reverse engineered prior art? Can Microsoft sue Linux advocates
over public domain, reverse engineered software?

CAB?

James Love wrote:

> Charles Behney wrote:
> >
> > The patent for valium was a molecular mirror of the main constituent of valerian root.
> > Valium is patentable, valeric acid is not. THC variations would be patentable,
> > naturally occurring cannabinols are not.  That's what I meant about herbs and patents.
>
>     Why would society want to award a legal monopoly on naturally
> occurring cannabinols?   Perhaps I am missing something.  Are legal
> monopolies so good we should start awarding them to people who don't
> invent anything?
>
>    Jamie
>
> --
> James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, v202.386.8030 f202.234.5176
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org