teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:04:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

researchers at MIT, funded by the GOVERNMENT, have discovered a broad
spectrum antibiotic that can be used against viruses. like a viral
penicillin

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

it'll save plenty of lives if it works. but it was funded with
taxpayer dollars

so i'm sure prolifers will want it cut

Who owns the patent on this new product? Is is MIT or the US Government?
If the Government paid for the research then the Government should own
it, therefore, there is no incentive for a private corporation to
manufacture the product.

You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:35:39 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:04:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

researchers at MIT, funded by the GOVERNMENT, have discovered a broad
spectrum antibiotic that can be used against viruses. like a viral
penicillin

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

it'll save plenty of lives if it works. but it was funded with
taxpayer dollars

so i'm sure prolifers will want it cut

Who owns the patent on this new product? Is is MIT or the US Government?
If the Government paid for the research then the Government should own
it, therefore, there is no incentive for a private corporation to
manufacture the product.

You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

For those who can actually read for content....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28...8----000-.html

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On 8/15/11 4:35 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:04:47 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

researchers at MIT, funded by the GOVERNMENT, have discovered a broad
spectrum antibiotic that can be used against viruses. like a viral
penicillin

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

it'll save plenty of lives if it works. but it was funded with
taxpayer dollars

so i'm sure prolifers will want it cut

Who owns the patent on this new product? Is is MIT or the US Government?
If the Government paid for the research then the Government should own
it, therefore, there is no incentive for a private corporation to
manufacture the product.

You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now


BAR's edu-ma-cation ended in high school.

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On 15-Aug-2011, wrote:

Who owns the patent on this new product? Is is MIT or the US Government?
If the Government paid for the research then the Government should own
it, therefore, there is no incentive for a private corporation to
manufacture the product.

You have put your finger squarely on the issue with corporations. They
are treated under law as human beings, but lacking profit motive, they
could care less if all human beings die or not.

You perhaps have had no run-ins with the feds when an old fart (over 65) is
sick. Once anyone on welfare medicine (Medicare) can no longer be harvested
for part of their income, the welfare "doctor" works hard to convince the
next-of-kin to let them die. "...they had a good life, maybe it's time to
let them go..." Happens every time, even in "rehab" before the fuddy duddy
is to go home.

The feds don't give a flying f**k if you're dead or alive if you can't be
harvested; why would a company?

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:04:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

researchers at MIT, funded by the GOVERNMENT, have discovered a broad
spectrum antibiotic that can be used against viruses. like a viral
penicillin

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

it'll save plenty of lives if it works. but it was funded with
taxpayer dollars

so i'm sure prolifers will want it cut

Who owns the patent on this new product? Is is MIT or the US Government?
If the Government paid for the research then the Government should own
it, therefore, there is no incentive for a private corporation to
manufacture the product.

You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

You didn't answer the question about who owns the patent. Does the
government own the patent or does MIT? The government funded the
research therefore it should own the outcome of the research.

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:29:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:04:47 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

researchers at MIT, funded by the GOVERNMENT, have discovered a broad
spectrum antibiotic that can be used against viruses. like a viral
penicillin

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

it'll save plenty of lives if it works. but it was funded with
taxpayer dollars

so i'm sure prolifers will want it cut

Who owns the patent on this new product? Is is MIT or the US Government?
If the Government paid for the research then the Government should own
it, therefore, there is no incentive for a private corporation to
manufacture the product.

You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

You didn't answer the question about who owns the patent. Does the
government own the patent or does MIT? The government funded the
research therefore it should own the outcome of the research.

As I said, stick to something you know about. It doesn't matter which
entity owns a patent. It's the licensing that counts.

I posted the link that explains it. If you're too stupid to
understand, hire a patent attorney to explain it to you.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28...8----000-.html

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:29:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:


You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

You didn't answer the question about who owns the patent. Does the
government own the patent or does MIT? The government funded the
research therefore it should own the outcome of the research.

irrelevant to the original point, isnt it?

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:29:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:


You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

You didn't answer the question about who owns the patent. Does the
government own the patent or does MIT? The government funded the
research therefore it should own the outcome of the research.

irrelevant to the original point, isnt it?

Sure it is. If the US government owns the patents then they should reap
the proceeds of their investment.

teabaggers will probably cut this program
 

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:57:15 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:29:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:18:30 -0700, wrote:


You should probably stick to something you know. I know there's got to
be something you know, right? Maybe how to eat your peas? That's about
your level.

I guess you never heard of licensing? Why do I bother....

MIT is great at licensing. my company licenses something from them
right now

You didn't answer the question about who owns the patent. Does the
government own the patent or does MIT? The government funded the
research therefore it should own the outcome of the research.

irrelevant to the original point, isnt it?

Sure it is. If the US government owns the patents then they should reap
the proceeds of their investment.


which has nothing to do with the fact the teabaggers will cut the
program even though it can save millions of lives