That this is a stupid patent and may, in fact, be prior art, doesn't mean Google's motivations are nefarious. Indeed, if you are correct that it is prior art, then all the more reason for Google to apply for this patent even if they have no intention of enforcing it. If Google could receive the patent despite prior art (or lack of originality), then another organization could possibly have done the same thing and then turned around and sued Google. If you had billions to lose and were working in a broken patent system, you would apply for some dumb patents too, just to cover your ass.

Mod this down. 0 isn't low enough.

So if I find a book lying in the street can I pick it up and read it, or do I need to call the publisher to get a license? I think you're overstating the scope of copyright just a *tad*.

"Canadians hand count all votes before the nights end. We have preserved one of the cleanest examples of democratic election on the planet." Well said. And online voting would destroy this. Canada does it very well right now. You get a ballot. You put an 'X' next to the candidate you support. Real people count all the Xs. It's not very sexy, but it works, and if there's any suspicion of tomfoolery there's a paper trail to look at. We have a good electoral system not because we're inherently awesome as Canadians, but because our electoral system is based on good and sound ideas. Online voting is a (really cool but) bad idea.

You're right the patent is on the gene. Ok so they own BRCA1 and BRCA2. Fine so if we want to test for THEIR gene then we have to pay for the privilege. So let's make an analogy to a patent on a device. If I own the patent on a really useful device I have the exclusive right to sell it and reap the benefits of that ownership. But if that device injuries some of the users, well then I'm going to be liable. Well I say apply the same logic to the drug companies, sure we'll pay you for doing genetic tests, but if it shows my breast cancer is being fueled by a BRCA1 mutation, you're paying for my treatment!

Two points:
1)I don't think we can give too much credence to what we think stupid/crazy people will do in response to a certain policy. Personally, I'd be fine if amputees have a shot at competing in the Olympics and the cost is a few whack jobs cutting off their legs. I'd rather not see anyone lose their legs. But better that than deny these tremendous athletes the chance to compete in the world's most prestigious sporting event (despite having the technology to allow them to do it!).
2)If losing your legs and having prostheses put in is such an advantage how come this guy is over a second slower than the standard to even qualify for the Olympics?