>>6740650I personally feel that there is little distinction between that which you produce with your hands and that which you produce with your mind. They are different routes to reach a given thing that you have brought into the world, which no one else had previously thought to do. If you can patent something you've made and sell it, why not be able to patent ideas and sell them?
>>6740657>espically when the author or creator dies like disneys Mickey mouseI do actually have to agree with you there anon. The people who own the copyright for mickey mouse today were simply given that copyright; they were not the ones to conceptualise mickey mouse and introduce his likeness to the world. In the event that the person or people who originally conceived the idea do die, I certainly do feel that the idea itself should enter the public domain.
>Or if it comes to medicineI also feel a distinction should be made between necessity and luxury. You only need mickey mouse to entertain yourself. It's not vital for your survival. Food, shelter, clothes (although not designer clothing; just basic clothing) and definitely medicine; these all are things that should really not be allowed to be patented. You can survive your whole life without mickey mouse. But if you get infected with tuberculosis, and you don't get anti-biotics, you're quite simply fucked. Tuberculosis killed George Orwell at the age of only 46, for example.
