Except the whole point is that many science bloggers at SciAm have posted "non-scientific" posts as well, so the "this is not about discovering science" excuse is BS.
I recently received a Cease and Desist letter from Craigslist, and wasn’t able to get a meeting or convince Craigslist’s lawyer that PadMapper was beneficial to Craigslist and apartment hunters in general. They allow mobile apps to display their listings if you buy a license from them, but not websites."
Link to Original Source
Human genetics. Rapidly expanding field, massive and noisy data sets. Jobs in both industry and academia.
That's why the US has GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008).
Whether it'll actually work is a separate issue. One of the points of this project is that trying to keep your genetic information private is a losing battle and that it might be better/neutral to just be open about it.
You missed the context of that quotation. Myriad's patent gives it the "exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes" because the patent covers, among other things, the "normal" sequence of the genes! The patent also covers the fact that mutations in the gene greatly increase the risk of developing cancer.
No one else can offer an alternative test because... well, how can you test someone for a disease-causing mutation without comparing their sequence to the "normal" sequence? (Hint: You can't!) How can you test someone for a disease-causing mutation in a gene when the fact that mutations in the gene cause disease is patented? You can't!
Nope you are both wrong. This *IS* about the gene itself. The patent is extremely broad and covers such things as:
1) the "normal" sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes
2) the fact that various mutations in those genes are associated with breast cancer
Researchers/doctors are unable to offer alternative tests because offering a test requires being able to compare a patient's sequence with the (patented) "normal" sequence. But Myriad refuses to allow this, so even scientists doing basic research can't sequence their subject's BRCA1/2 genes!!!
Since Myriad Genetics even owns a patent on the "fact" that certain mutations are associated with disease, researchers/doctors aren't even allowed to interpret the results for their patients because doing so would utilized the patented fact that the patient's mutation is associated with breast cancer.
Read the article and/or complaint filed. This lawsuit has been a LONG time coming.
YEs it IS that ridiculous. The patent office was dumb/ignorant when they awarded the patents and it's about time this mistake was challenged.
You're wrong. If you read the article or the complaint or the ACLU writeup or any of the scientific commentary, you'd see that the patent is in fact on the actual SEQUENCE of the gene(s)! This makes it impossible for anyone to do something like, for example, develop an alternative test because it's impossible to offer an alternative test when the "normal" sequence is patented.
In this particular case, Myriad Genetics even owns a patent on the "fact" that certain mutations are associated with disease, such that researchers/doctors aren't even allowed to interpret the results for their patients because doing so would utilized the patented fact that the patient's mutation is associated with breast cancer.
That's why this lawsuit has been a long time coming. Good luck to ACLU/PUBPAT/etc.
If your professor uses a Mac, consider Devonthink by DevonTechnologies.
For searching, the software has an artificial intelligence system, keywords, meta data. It can store PDFs, word docs, emails, notes. It can be integrated with a scanner so you can scan and store documents in the database. It's got OCR built in...
I have DevonThink (personal edition, not Pro/Office) and I don't even use 1/10 of the power built into this system. You should check out some of the reviews online and videos of people using DevonThink.
The purpose of the project has always been to provide software that can be used to losslessly remove Digital Rights Management (DRM) protection from music purchased through iTunes, so that the buyer may exercise their right of fair use and play the music on non-Apple devices (Hear Your Music aNywhere).
The software has gone through many incarnations. The original hymn has been succeeded by JHymn, QTFairUse6, MyFairTunes, and others. Regardless of the program, the emphasis has always been squarely on fair use — not piracy. Any discussions of piracy have been strongly and actively discouraged on the site's forums.
For years now, Apple has been content to mostly ignore the Hymn Project. At worst, they would introduce subtle changes to new versions of iTunes that would break the Hymn software. Nobody really knows if this was done intentionally, but it was usually just a matter of time before a new solution was found. This seemed like a reasonable approach for Apple to take. After all, why should they care? The DRM was only in place to placate the record companies. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has even expressed his opinion that all music should be free of DRM.
Well, now things have changed. Recently, a new program called Requiem was announced that appears to be a complete crack of the iTunes DRM scheme. Previous programs had relied on various forms of trickery or memory hooks to access the unencrypted audio data — none had ever completely cracked the encryption algorithms.
Requiem seems to have been the last straw. Earlier this week, the ISP hosting the site received a Cease and Desist order from Apple Legal, demanding that all downloads be removed from the site, and that the site post no links to any programs that could remove DRM from Apple music or video. Reportedly, similar C & D orders were also sent to at least one of the project's developers, and to another ISP where Reqiuem had been hosted. Ironically, Requiem was never actually hosted on the Hymn site — merely mentioned and linked to in one of the forums. Nevertheless, the Hymn Project has now come into the crosshairs of Apple's lawyers and, lacking legal resources, has seen no choice but to comply with the order."
Link to Original Source
"In a bow to backers of ``network neutrality,'' AT&T agreed to refrain from charging companies such as Google premium fees for faster subscriber access." — Bloomberg."