From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #133 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, April 18 2001 Volume 10 : Number 133 Today's Subjects: ----------------- more Sim [HAL ] Germs B-Gone [Viv Lyon ] colorforms, feggirl shopping (guys ignore) ["Spring Cherry" ] a sideways opening [Larry Tucker ] Slits(not the band) ["Spring Cherry" ] chai tea ["Sirloin Stockade" ] tour 'round the bend [HAL ] Re: chai tea ["brian nupp" ] Re: we're a happy family [Tom Clark ] Re: reunite [Tom Clark ] Syd article website ["Rob" ] Re: Jools et Jeff [Eb ] Gene Hackman [Mike Swedene ] Themis ["Spring Cherry" ] Re: Jools et Jeff [Stephen Mahoney ] RE: soft boys videos ["victorian squid" ] Re: morning bulletin [Stephen Mahoney ] Re: Slits(not the band) [Stephen Mahoney ] Good Captain Memories [Mike Swedene ] Re: morning bulletin ["Natalie Jacobs" ] Re: Jools et Jeff ["victorian squid" ] Reality Characters ["Spring Cherry" ] Taper Weenie Question [The Great Quail ] Get Yer Steamy People Parts! (Or, "Me! ") [Capuchin Subject: more Sim For those interested, there's a parody of Dave "don't call me Aleister" Sim's rant "Tangents" here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=7 /hal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:21:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Germs B-Gone On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, victorian squid wrote: > I will be compeltely better on Thursday because I want to go see Christopher > Hitchens speak at Powell's. That's right, hit the road, germs. Cool! And hey- you might even want to get better tonight, 'cuz the Billy Nayer Show is in town. I think of them/him as being a sort of working man's Momus, with more heart. They're playing Berbati's at 8:30. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:26:41 -0000 From: "Spring Cherry" Subject: colorforms, feggirl shopping (guys ignore) Susan, before admitting to frequenting discount and thrift places posed the question:So -where- do fegirls shop? Nattily(as in attired) responded: >Rack... >Also I think Target tends to be the best place here for drugstore >stuff. Melissa added: >Me too. I just did a sale run at Tysons II. I also do thrifts, flea > >markets, second hand shops and estate >sales out here. Sounds like Fegirls everywhere have eerrily similar shopping habits. Coincidence? Or a sinister plan implemented by an evil guy to use his music to subconsiously subvert the capatalistic impulses of woman everywh..., well alright, not everywhere, more sorta here and there, alright more there than here, make that some small isolated blips which, OK, hardly make a dif to the big picture but still ... Hmmm, maybe we're just all cheap(and/or broke.) Melissa--what thrifting mailing list? Kay, who may just invent the jetpack so we can have that pj party. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:34:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Glen Uber Subject: Paul Christian Glenn Sorry to send this to the whole list... Paul, please contact me at your convenience. I need your mailing address. Cheers! - -g- )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ) ) Glen Uber // uberg at sonic dot net // Santa Rosa, California ) )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:43:04 -0400 From: Larry Tucker Subject: a sideways opening When I saw that first show in Baltimore (well technically not the first, there was SXSW) I was struck by how powerful "You'll Have to Go Sideways" sounded and thinking at the time *THIS* is the song they should be opening their shows with. It appears that many of the shows that followed, in fact most I believe opened with it. As it was, that night at Fletchers they opened with "Kingdom of Love", but it appears that many of the subsequent shows opened with it. It looks like the band picked up on this vibe. That night I was already in an extreme state of anticipation to see the band as it was, but this song generated even more tension and the absence of vocals heightened that effect. By the time they got to the end with the way that song keeps building I felt like a spring that had been wound TOO tight.........and then it **ENDS**...........S P R O I N G !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - -Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:42:44 -0000 From: "Spring Cherry" Subject: Slits(not the band) To Mahoney, who wants to go while: >watching un chein andalou Forget choral symphonies. Wouldnt you prefer be listening to Eye at that point? Kay, keeping it short and gross. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:14:29 -0700 From: "Sirloin Stockade" Subject: chai tea okay, some images from the recent tour have been uploaded to , and some pictures (snapped by mr. rich plumb) have been uploaded to . _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:45:24 -0600 From: HAL Subject: tour 'round the bend The Soft Boys in Cambridge tonight! Anxiously awaiting UK reports, /hal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:45:56 -0400 From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: chai tea What is this from? http://216.33.240.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=4f0cc19b38c0b98e6e82738ed16d2f3e&lat=987618665&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2ffeedthefish%2eorg%2frobyn%2fimages%2f _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:50:02 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: we're a happy family Buy it now on Half.com: - -tc on 4/18/01 6:52 AM, brian nupp at bnupp@hotmail.com wrote: > Jill, I'm sure someone already answered this, but: Globe of Frogs did come > out on CD. Now it is only available on Ebay or used record stores. > > I'm waiting for a re-issue w/ bonus tracks! Although there are no plans of > this yet. > > Nuppy >> From: Jill Brand >> Reply-To: Jill Brand >> To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >> Subject: we're a happy family >> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:59:17 -0400 (EDT) >> >> Wow, Joey Ramone is gone. Can't believe it. The Ramones were simply the >> loudest band that I ever saw, and I loved them for it. I even played >> We're a Happy Family for my son recently to show him that Eminem did not >> invent family deviance in music. >> >> Question: Is Globe of Frogs available on CD? I never got the CD because >> I had the vinyl and, gulp, didn't love it enough to have both (I had >> bought everything that came out prior to it on CD even though I had all >> the SB/RH albums). Well, now that I have to be complete on everything, I >> can't seem to find it. What gives? >> >> Jill, who yearns for the Rockaway Beach of her youth > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:47:50 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: reunite on 4/18/01 6:42 AM, Michael R Godwin at hssmrg@bath.ac.uk wrote: >> Television/Television > > Have they actually got Hell back in the band? He had already left by the > time I saw them in the 70s, once supported by the Only Ones [world's > finest band, easily]) Television and The Only Ones? Wow, that sounds like a show that I would go through the trouble of building a time machine to see! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:56:39 +0100 From: "Rob" Subject: Syd article website I've scanned the Syd article and it should be up by now at www.nimbus.demon.co.uk I'll leave it there for a week or so then it'll be gone. Enjoy. - -- Rob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:05:36 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Jools et Jeff >Hate to get all pedantic and self congratulatory (who said "yeah, right" at >the back there?!), but I mentioned this album a few weeks back, and just to >get it straight for people who want to explore it's called Colonel Jeffrey >Pumpernickel - more info at There are contributions >from Guided By Voices, Malkmus, The Minus 5 and Howe Gelb from Giant Sand >amongst others. A wonderful splurge of sound IMHO. I must admit my curiosity is piqued. I didn't know about this album until Malkmus himself mentioned it to me, but since then, I've seen several alluring comments about it (in assorted places). >I was in the audience for Jools Holland's Later last night. No no...see, this is where you're supposed to tell us whom his guests were. Play fair! Note: I saw TWO interesting concerts last night, but I won't get around to "reviewing" them until later. Eb np through next week: a new monster stack of Beach Boys reissues (WHEE[tm]) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:13:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Gene Hackman It is a shame Robyn is in Cambridge tonight, that means he is going to miss the special on BRAVO TV tonight at 10 on Gene Hackman. Herbie Now Playing - Beatles "Thirty Days" Disc 6 Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:33:51 -0000 From: "Spring Cherry" Subject: Themis Ed posed this case: > Moore's doctor realizes, in the course of >treatment, that Moore's body is producing an extraordinary amount of >interlukin (sp?) in response to the cancer. Doctor realizes that >Moore's >cells could be used to develop genetically engineered cell lines >worth >countless billions to companies trying to produce cancer drugs. >Doctor >takes a few extra samples, not stictly speaking, needed for treatment >purposes. Moore finds out that he is being used and sues. >California >Supreme Court says -- sorry, dude (i'm paraphrasing here -- I think >the >opinion said "outta luck, man"), but your body is not a commodity, so >you >cannot sue for "theft" of your precious bodily fluids (worth starting >a >war >over, though, right?), nor do you have any proprietary interest in >the >cell >lines developed from your cells that may be worth 100 billion to >Pfizer or >Merck or whomever. >Moral: people should be able to exploit their own bodies. Lack of > >property >rights actually encourages mistreatment. You may have a point. I have no doubt you have a point. But I cant help thinking that laws are secondary to justice and injustice. What really matters is what goes on inside people which then makes them act, or not act, in certain ways. Jane Ellen Harrison, an Edwardian Greek scholar, wrote a book called Themis. Its not about law as such. The ancient Greeks(according to Harrison) did not use the word Themis for actual codified law. Themis ment something more, it ment the sense of decency/piety/awe embedded in a community which allowed that community to function as a harmonious, productive place, a place where induvidual members could flourish. In Homer much is made of the fact that when Zeus called a Council of the Gods, it could not begin till Themis appeared and passed the cup(this being for the Gods I assume a cup of ambrosia.) Without Themis and the cup there was no Council. Even the Gods were a community, and even Zeus had to accede to that.(Themis, btw, was a Titan, a being older than the Gods.) I am not a lawyer, nor am I much good at trying to think like one. But I understand this Greek idea, which is as tied to our feelings as our intellect. My feelings, most people's feelings, are outraged by the thought of a sick man being exploited like this by someone whom he trusted. What I find sad is that the doctor and whoever he was working with would act like that. Its not so much that money will be made as the fact that these people have violated their own integrity, even thou they are probobly not capable of experiencing of it as such. Still, they have lessened themselves by lessening another. Even if they cant feel it emotionally they have intellects which can comphrehend it. As for the corporations that will profit-- well, precisely because corportations are legal fictions, things which exist as if they were human beings but which arent, well--they lack integrity by definition and can -only- be evil. Law is a last resort. An inner sense of justice works far more efficiently than law. Does the fact that we need more and more laws and more and more lawyers have anything to do with the lack of community in our postmodern world? Well, obviously I think it does. Themis arises from community, from fellow-feeling --without that, I wonder just how much justice the laws are capable of enforcing. End of old-fashioned rant:-) "fair play" Kay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:39:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: Jools et Jeff whoops! I knew that! I wuz typin' faster than I wuz thinkin' chris is a kewl guy! check out his clinton st video store(in portland,or.) its just hot! On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > >and on other notes > >check out chris sluserenkos new concept/compilation album > >jerry pumperknickel, hes way rad! > > Hate to get all pedantic and self congratulatory (who said "yeah, right" at > the back there?!), but I mentioned this album a few weeks back, and just to > get it straight for people who want to explore it's called Colonel Jeffrey > Pumpernickel - more info at There are contributions > from Guided By Voices, Malkmus, The Minus 5 and Howe Gelb from Giant Sand > amongst others. A wonderful splurge of sound IMHO. > > I was in the audience for Jools Holland's Later last night. It's broadcast > on Friday night. I'm going to be watching The Soft Boys that night and I'll > probably forget to set the video. I wore my 'If it ain't Stiff it ain't > worth a fuck' T-shirt in tribute to Ian Dury (The Blockheads were playing > with Suggs and Robbie Williams) and I want to know if it shows up. Tubby > bloke, average height with longish hair - T-shirt - white writing on > black. Brit-fegs, let me know if you spot me! > > Sorry to disappoint Kay, but I'm doubling as the butlers, Merriman and Lane > in The Importance Of Being Earnest. I'm afraid I'm one of life's character > actors...Oh, for one romantic lead..... > > jmbc. > > Leaving for Cambridge in three hours... > the average person eats about three pounds of food a day, 1095 pounds per year. by the time you blow out the candles on your 70th birthday cake, you will have eaten 33 tons of food, or a pile about the size of six elephants. Your total waste exiting from a certain orifice will amount to the size of a car! - -"the encyclopedia of everything nasty" Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:49:25 -0700 From: "victorian squid" Subject: RE: soft boys videos - -- On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:40:22 Poole, R. Edward wrote: >Quicktime versions of the same clips (smaller, but probably better quality), I just got around to d/l ing these and they're really good quality. I like the sort of underlining the song title on the setlist thing. That is quite a startling shirt he has, even for a guy who wears a lot of startling shirts. > I'm looking for CDR trade of West coast SBs show I'm also looking to trade for Seattle and Vancouver shows, vastly prefer CD-R. Again, contact offlist. I'm not a regular trader so I don't really have that much. If I haven't got anything you want I'll reimburse for media and postage costs. We'll work something out. Portland fegs preferred as they can nag me in person to complete my end, thus ensuring it gets done in something like a timely fashion. loveonya, susan Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:50:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: morning bulletin On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Natalie Jacobs wrote: > Viv and Jeme's neighbor says: > > >check out chris sluserenkos new concept/compilation album > >jerry pumperknickel, hes way rad! > > That's *Jeffrey,* not Jerry... It is way rad, and I had the revelation that > GBV's excellent contribution, "Titus and Strident Wet Nurse," is actually > about Gormenghast. Think about it, won't you? Thank you. I am so sorry its jeffrey, I know, I know! I musta had a brain fart and suddenly thought of the ever-so-wierd supervisor of stacks in the late '80's that me and chris worked under, Gerry Opsahl, who also was a "special" chiropractor- practiced out of his home. lets just say that he was one of two people in the state of oregon who would massage your tailbone......I have already said too much! I need to take a shower now! eeeeewwwww!!!!! - -viv and jemes neighbor. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:53:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: Slits(not the band) good one Kay! On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Spring Cherry wrote: > To Mahoney, who wants to go while: > >watching un chein andalou > Forget choral symphonies. Wouldnt you prefer be listening to Eye at that > point? > > Kay, keeping it short and gross. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > the average person eats about three pounds of food a day, 1095 pounds per year. by the time you blow out the candles on your 70th birthday cake, you will have eaten 33 tons of food, or a pile about the size of six elephants. Your total waste exiting from a certain orifice will amount to the size of a car! - -"the encyclopedia of everything nasty" Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Good Captain Memories My first foray into the world that is Capt was on the other side of a cassette my friend made me in highschool.... on side A we had Husker Du (a mix he made) and then the other side was the good Captain and his eternal hit album (yes, the source was vinyl) "Lick My Decals Off, Baby!" Loved that record, lost the case when i first got it though. oh well.... Herbie Now Playing Beatles "30 Years" Disc 1 - Three Cool Cats Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:01:08 -0700 From: "Natalie Jacobs" Subject: Re: morning bulletin >I had a dream last night in which the French were calling the Soft >Boys >the Softies Boys. When the mild mannered girls from the Softies, with their matching pink guitars, join forces with Robyn's rough and ready lads, who knows what mayhem may ensue? Jen from the Softies has a tattoo of an armchair on her arm. That's cool. >For all who do not know, Natalie Jane Jacobs has a lovely mop of >curly >soft hair, and should I ever be blessed enough to see it grow >long, I >shall take up scissors and hack it off in her sleep, and put >it on top of >my own head, and prance around, cooing softly. Note to self: do not grow hair long. In my "Afro phase," my hair was nearly down to my shoulders - the longest I've ever had my hair since I was a kid - and it was quite monumental: not really an Afro, but still very large and impressive, sort of like LJ's hair but not quite as curly. In a fit of despair/perversity one rainy day, I chopped off my Afro with a pair of embroidery scissors. A friend then touched up the remains with an electric razor, thus ushering in my "chemotherapy phase." n. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:34:36 -0700 From: "victorian squid" Subject: Re: Jools et Jeff - -- On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:39:32 Stephen Mahoney wrote: >chris is a kewl guy! >check out his clinton st video store(in portland,or.) >its just hot! I always used to say "I wish video stores would have -director- sections". This one does. I love it even tho "Ghost Dog" is always out. clinton st. video's neighbor Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:48:25 -0000 From: "Spring Cherry" Subject: Reality Characters Susan, who must be on hallucegens, wrote: >I'm so glad I'm not boring -everyone- :). Reality, reality calling for Susan, is Susan home? She is, good. Please put her on the line. Susan, you are incapable of being boring. Reality over and out. Brandscombe: >Sorry to disappoint Kay, but I'm doubling as the butlers, Merriman >and >Lane >in The Importance Of Being Earnest. I'm afraid I'm one of life's >character >actors...Oh, for one romantic lead..... Well, it could well be said that Algy and Jack are really character parts and not romantic leads;-). And isnt there a saying--no man is a hero to his butler. So if you could have one romantic lead, what would it be? (Being a tall, broad-shouldered alto girl at a girls school, I got to do Romeo and Orlando ... long long ago. And awhile ago, for a joke, I made a lovely Bottom.) Walker on Aimee Mann in the kitchen I read that implication the first time around but ... why let reality get in the way of a good high? Kay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:54:22 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Taper Weenie Question I am out of CD-Rs, but I have a stack of blank, unused CD-RWs. If I use those to burn a few CDs, am I risking anything in quality or degradation? Oooh, what a question from me! - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Get Yer Steamy People Parts! (Or, "Me! ") On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > Ahem, and why not? Shall we do the > once-body-parts-become-commodities-then-the-underclass-becomes-the-(literal) > -meat-market-for-the-"haves" dance? While in the past I've taken a stand that roughly resembles this particular dance, I would say that my new kind of shimmy is a hybrid of this and something of my own design. I agree with Viv on the correlation between this and prostitution. I do fundamentally believe that you have the right to rent out your body or hack off parts of it (even lethal amounts). Let me preface my furthered statement with a couple of sentence about the nature of law and government in my mind. Law and Government exist to protect the individuals in a society as well as the integrity of the society as a whole: the ability of the society to remain both civil and social. I think some people fail to see that what is that there are things which are moral and ethical on a personal level that simply aren't appropriate to allow in a society. For example, I think a person has every natural right to walk around naked, sexually aroused, and wearing only sign that says "Touch me for luck!" I also think it's a good thing that this is illegal to do in public. So while I believe that your body is yours in a very real sense and you can hack it up and give the parts away as Christmas gifts or whatever, I think it's absolutely vital to keep these transactions non-commercial. When you're buying a VCR on ebay, it may well be stolen. So fucking what? Somebody's out their VCR. They're fine. When you buy a lung on ebay and that lung is stolen property, somebody is out THEIR FUCKING LUNG. QED. :) As long as the SALE of body parts is illegal, every transaction is investigated thoroughly, the casual surgeon has no profit motive (in addition to whatever personal motives) to remove a person's parts without permission, and the poor are not tempted to ditch their leg now for some temporary gain. Seriously, the mafia (which doesn't exist, I promise) launders MONEY now... imagine what kind of processes they'd build when they find a kidney is worth twenty-five large on the open market (and sixty on the black). > True story: man in California [yadda yadda yadda] > cannot sue for "theft" of your precious bodily fluids (worth starting > a war over, though, right?), nor do you have any proprietary interest > in the cell lines developed from your cells that may be worth 100 > billion to Pfizer or Merck or whomever. In Oregon, we have a law that basically says that your parts yours and if this happens, you can kick some civil ass in court (dunno about criminal charges, though). But we have another law which is somewhat confusing and contradictory. I don't remember the details. > Moral: people should be able to exploit their own bodies. Lack of > property rights actually encourages mistreatment. Woah, woah... The problem here is that Pfizer or Merck or whoever is going to patent a process that happened naturally in this man which they've only casually observed (rather than developed on their own). And if anyone else observes this man's natural biological processes and tries to emulate them for profit, then the first casual observer (with the best lawyer) comes down like a two-hundred pound shit hammer. I think this fellow should be justly compensated for his lost tissue. I think he'd have a really hard time claiming damages beyond a few dollars for the needle puncture suffering, though. I mean, how much labor did this guy put into making those cancer cells (or marrow or whatever the sample was)? He's hardly out a substantial investment. Viv ses: > I love how the drug companies want to patent other entities' genes > (thereby making them property), but they ALSO want to deny regular > folk the rights to their own genes. Okay, which is it, guys? Property > or not property? Cain't have it both ways. This is a common stance in industry today. "When we have it, we'd like to say we own it and control its use. When you have it, you're standing in the way of progress or stealing from its rightful owner." In the world of physical objects, this is the natural result of Adam Smith + the basic market flaws of advertising and generational inheritance of property (please note that I'm not saying any of those three things are WRONG, just that they perpetuate certain processes with predictable results) and consumer indifference (I am condemning this, however). One entity accumulates and uses that wealth to acquire more wealth through investment in future profits, etc. Corporations emerge and merge. And eventually the bulk of all physical things belong to a handful of entities. It is worth the cost to buy up all of a thing today so that you can rent it out for all of the tomorrows. Of course, you can't make your money renting a thing if people can go home and make their own... so you have to control the process for making or using the thing as well. > I'm not an expert on this by any means, but my understanding of the > very tricky subject (and very imperfect system) of patenting genes is > not that they become 'property' of the patent holder. Rather the > ability to use the FUNCTION of the gene to profit is what it is all > about. Patents as a whole are not a reservation of "ownership" rights of a process or device, but of the commercial use of said process or device. Patents are granted in return for the public description of the process or device. See, you figure something out that's never been figured out before and you tell the world. In exchange, the world agrees to not make money off of your work for a little while so you can recoup your costs and maybe improving your standing a little. In a sense, patent is a reward for sharing what you know with the public. All patents include a detailed description of the process or device patented and are a matter of easily accessible public record. If there is a patented device that you cannot afford to buy or process that you cannot afford to license, you can read the patent and recreate it yourself... just not commercially. Copyright was intended to be the same, but is now being used to keep what you know from the public. The problems with US Patent law are generally the following: The period of protection is too long. The rules regarding "prior art" are poorly enforced. "Prior art" research is almost non-existent. Patents are being granted for processes and devices that are not man-made. The first problem is a result of patent holders making patent law. Of course they are trying to extend their privilege. Our legislators and our courts should be keeping up on this stuff and limiting patent per industry and to a reasonable amount of time for each industry. The second and third come up whenever someone applies for a patent on a device or processes that is already in use or is an obvious practice. There is the infamous XOR patent (and how software can be both literature and a device, I don't know, either) as well as that hideous woman's patent on the antique art of micromosaic (which she acknowledges was developed in Rome in the 19th century, but patented a few years ago because nobody was doing it today) and Amazon's moronic "one-click" patent. The last is becoming a huge problem in modern times. Companies are describing processes that occur in nature that have been available to the casual observer for all time and receiving patents for same. This is, in my opinion, the private appropriation of a thing that is not private in origin. It is not the synthetic work of a human mind seeking an answer, but a processes developed by trial and error over millenia by nature itself. Unravelling natural mystery is the domain of all men (note the lower m) and the nature that is described in that unravelling is still the same nature that surrounds us all unshackled. Natural processes are used by many without an understanding of their internal workings. If a person described the physical processes, heretofore unknown, that allowed a bumble-bee to fly, today, that person could be granted a patent on "a small, winged heavier-than-air craft capable of sustaining flight with disporportionate mass to wingspan" (of course the name would also include HOW it sustains flight). Now, is it really WRONG for a person to make their living using bumble-bee flight without permission of he-who-discovered-the-secret? Take the very real case of farmers in Central and South America who have been growing the same crops for centuries. American agri-business is sending researches down to find out how these crops are resistant to certain pestilence and how they maintain their high yield in adverse conditions. These businesses are now coming to the US and patenting the genes in these crops. After all, the protein sequencing has never been described before and is a legitimate scientific discovery... they put in significant time and energy to decode the genetic sequence and to understand how this biochemical process works. So now these farmers can't sell their seed crops in the US... it's a violation of the agri-business patent because using those seeds is implementing their patented gene-product. Ahem. Bullshit. [ By the way, I DO defend sensible patent law. I also defend sensible copyright law... sensible only means a restriction on commercial use of an intellectual product in exchange for publication (emphasis on PUBLIC) of the contents. Commercial use of a piece of literature or a painting or song or written article or speech includes use for promotional purposes or direct sale of copies of the piece copyrighted. In this modern age, however, it is quite easy to disseminate copies of the piece without investing significant time or money. Therefore, people now disseminate information for reasons other than promotion or financial gain. The traditional copyright holders are rebelling against this fact of the modern age and trying to expand copyright to unpublished works (hey, wait, if you never openned it to the public, then why are we as a society giving you this privilege?) and non-commercial copying. That kind of extension is wholly un-sensible and I cannot defend it. ] > If I discover a gene, or gene-product, I generally cannot just go out > and patent it, without clearly knowing the biological function, and > making clear statements on how the use of that genetic information is > worthy of patent protection. I am not clear on how drug companies > want to "deny regular folk the rights to their own genes". For example: Let's say I have an anomalous mutation that allows me to be, say, resistant to AIDS. I am researched by folks interested in discovering why... perhaps, initially, because they are morally compelled to improve the human condition. These researchers then synthesize my genes that are producing the anti-AIDS substances or processes and describe it in exacting biochemical detail in a paper. Then, before publishing the paper, they get a patent on the process that fights AIDS... after all, they discovered it. Then the world is notified and people can start lining up for the AIDS "cure"... if they can afford the high price being demanded by the sole commercial purveyor of the process or device (be it a treatment or a vaccine or what-have-you). Now, I'm still walking among humanity with the cure for AIDS in my body... working away and doing its thing. And now that the paper is published and read by the ENTIRE biochemistry community, reverse engineering the process from my genes is going to be impossible to prove (when I'm sued by the now ENORMOUSLY wealthy company that first brought the cure to market) at all satisfactorily. > Most of us do not have the ability to profit from our genetic > information, although I would love to learn how! Hell, anything for a buck, right Matt? Heck, if you can make money by withholding something that you could just as easily give away, you withhold and make the money, right? No sense improving things if you can't make a buck at it in the process. > The idea of patenting a gene, in principle, is not a whole lot > different than many other patents in biotechnology. However, it does > sound kind of scary, and I think the media and common interpretation > of patent holders "owning your gene" is not entirely accurate. Of course the gene isn't "owned" any more than Java Jacket, Inc. owns the piece of cardboard that came with my co-worker Andrew's morning mocha. It's Andy's cardboard, damnit. He bought it. So, OF COURSE, it's not entirely accurate to say that a person "OWNS" a thing because they have patented it. It's a false analogy. But the truth isn't much better. > The system clearly isn't perfect and the rules are not crystal > clear (on getting gene patents) - but I think the future may get even > worse in this regard. As genome sequencing becomes more common, and > the small differences among individuals become understood, the idea of > personalized pharmaceuticals, based on your own genetic makeup, will > grow. THIS, I think, is where the real battles between us "common > folk" and BigPharma will begin (regarding privacy and ownership). Not just privacy and ownership, but dig this: My genes are sequenced by A-1 Health Service when I'm thinking of procreating. This is "the future", you understand, and there are very fast computers that understand biochemical processes quite well. Now A-1 Health Service patents my complete genetic make-up as "a device for diplaying chemical response exactly like Jeme A Brelin". Then, when I have an illness, they bring forward the Custom Chemical Cure for my ailment. I can't get a second opinion on the CCC because that would mean using my genetic map for some other physician's "commercial" purposes. Dandy. Again, there are things man makes and things man does not make. Patents need to be limited to those things that man made... and we need to keep the two separate. They do not play nice. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #133 ********************************