A bit late I’ll remind people that the first of the “BrisScience” lectures is on tonight. The lectures will involve a number of excellent scientists giving lectures on their topics of interest for the general public. The website is here. All of the lectures are free, there is one talk a month, and they will all be held in the Judith Wright Center of Contemporary Arts in the Valley.
The first lecture is by John Mattick on “junk” DNA, which IIRC has been the subject of a very dubious intellectual property claim by an Australian entrepreneur. But the talk won’t be about IP, which should make it more interesting for about 99 per cent of the potential audience. John argues that the extra DNA is the opposite of junk: it may be ultimately responsible for the development of all life more complex than bacteria.
John Quiggin 
Dear dr. Quiggin,
By saying:
“the subject of a very dubious intellectual property claim by an Australian entrepreneur”
it is unclear what you mean by “dubious intellectual property claim by an Australian entrepreneur”.
Do you mean to say that the actual patent claims made by the inventor were/are “dubious”, or the inventor’s patent claims were all right, but an entrepreneur, if that is separate from the inventor, dubiously claimed/claims more than what the inventor did?
In the junkDNA news column http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html there is a recent article about present USA patent/IP problems and some comments about problems arising when an inventor becomes separated from the invention(s).
Regards,
Dr. Pellionisz
My main point was that the whole idea of granting broadly based patents over any application of a scientific idea is inimical to the growth of knowledge. Things get worse if such patents fall into the hands of a litigious entrepreneur.
Dear dr. Quiggin,
Both of your points are completely agreed to. As referred above, in the USA (and elsewhere) scientific ideas can not be patented at all, and right now the Supreme Court is trying to tighten the rules of “utility” based on discoveries.
Your second point is even more important – it is a recipe for disaster for inventors (as well as entrepreneurs…) to get separated from their inventions.
Regards,
Dr. Pellionisz