You must log in or register to comment.
Nestlé has been patenting human milk proteins for decades. To my understanding, this prevents other companies to add such molecules to baby formula, even if somehow methods to synthesize said molecules were developed.
That is a scary notion, a malevolous intent and a gross outcome.
These shouldn’t hold up. Wouldn’t the prior work of thousands of generations of mothers invalidate such a patent.
“Excuse me madam but do you have a license to use those tits? No? Didn’t think so. The content of those bazongas is Nestle property. I’m afraid I’m going to have to clamp those nipples until such time as the proper Bandonkadonk subscriptions are paid”
i got this new legal drama plot. basically there’s this patent infringer except she’s got huge boobs. i mean some serious honkers. a real set of badonkers. packin some dobonhonkeros. massive dohoonkabhankoloos. big ol’ tonhongerekoogers.
what happens next?!
lawyer shows up with even bigger bonkhonagahoogs. humongous hungolomghononoloughongous
I read this story in Barney Stinson’s voice.
Have you considered a career in avian taxonomy?
As long as the tits aren’t used for commercial purposes you don’t need a license. Anyway, I doubt that in Europe you could patent any naturally occuring molecules in any kind of milk.
You can patent pretty much anything in Europe.
However, enforcing those patents is a completely different affair.
Prior work exists, source: all of history lol
Something doesn’t add up here since you can’t patent anything for decades.
I read that as:
For decades, Nestle has been patenting milk proteins.
They’ve been doing it for a long time, not somehow getting extra-long patents.
He owns a yacht. I’d be interested to hear of a single yacht owner who is a decent person. I’m not sure one exists.
Edit: Thanks for the cool examples of decent people with yachts!
The one guy who downvoted owns a yacht
My ex-teamlead owns a yacht (if he didn’t sell it). The catch is that yacht is worth about $40 thousands, not $4 millions.
Also there was a person in USSR who built a yacht and circumnavigated the Earth on that, not everyone who do own a yach own that luxury slab of floating gold
That’s awfully cheap for a yacht. Did it float?
Some people live on yachts and that’s their entire home. So like a 70,000£ yacht, then like 300£ a month in slip (berth) fees, including electric and whatnot. I strongly considered it. It’s roughly the same cost but better than caravan living, IMO.
It’s a decent alternative to a landlocked home.
But yeah, millionaires with yachts are a different thing.
That’s a good use case. I’d be interested to know more about the idiosyncrasies that come with that lifestyle, like if they go out to sea when a storm is expected, or just weather it out in the harbor.
They are almost always better in their dock, specifically boats optimised as condos are terrible at sea since open ocean is not in their design brief
Perhaps they might be better up river as far as they can go
This person seems decent. Her and her S.O. live on a 50-year-old 36’ sailboat that they bought for $7000 and refit themselves.
That’s an excellent exception, and quite interesting. Thanks for the link!
Noah seemed like a chill dude. Man liked his drink, for sure. Loved animals…
Noah would’ve been a genocide-complicit, doomsday cult prepper, similar to those who build private libertarian cities on the ocean or some planet as a climate adaptation strategy.
Noah was the original Joe Exotic, except with every single exotic pet in existence
Noah brought along mosquitos, the guy is filled with hate
Wasn’t he the one that banged his daughters? Idk there was a few of those types in the bible.
Lot.
And actually, to be “fair” to him, his daughters raped him.
As written it’s not strictly his fault. Even if his parenting skills clearly lack.
As a person who just paid a fuckton of money to publish in open access (literally half an hour ago), that HURTS.
Open Access is good, but first we have to abolish an entire publisher industry that lays insurmountable costs - either on readers or researchers themselves. Their work is not remotely worth that money. By making it a public good, we can cut down on so much unnecessary expenses.
I’m not even sure what he’s talking about. Open access journals are the ones who charge authors to publish.
If you publish in a journal that has closed access, there is generally no fee to publish. If you want your paper to be open access, you can tack on an additional open access fee so that your paper doesn’t end up behind a paywall. The last time I looked - and this was several years ago - the going rate for making your paper open access in a closed access journal was about $2-3k. We always budgeted for publication fees when we were putting together our funding proposals.
The fee structure is similar for open access journals, except that there’s not a choice about paying them. For researchers whose work isn’t grant funded, it generally means they’re paying out of pocket, unless their institution steps in.
I had a paper published in a small but (in its field) prestigious journal, and the editor explained to me that he only charges people who can afford it, and uses those funds to cover the costs of the journal. He explained that he had a paper from a researcher who couldn’t cover the publishing fee, and he let me know that I was helping out the other person, too.
What I don’t understand is how anyone how has gone through academia doesn’t know this.
Can’t you just post that sheet all ober the Internet?
Of course you can put it anywhere you’d like. Services like arXiv specialize in hosting pre-prints of published papers as well as white papers that only have an institutional association.
The problem is that the job of an academic is to publish. That’s how you build credibility and seniority. For it to count as a “published paper” it needs to have undergone peer review so that the people who want to read/cite the paper at least have the confidence that it’s at least been reviewed by other experts in the field.
There are some “journals” that will publish anything as long as they get their fees. Most academics are wise to that by now, but it can still impress people in business for whom a pub is a pub.
If you publish in a journal that has closed access, there is generally no fee to publish.
What field are you in? In the life sciences, there’s normally a fee to publish closed-access and a higher one for open-access. My last paper was open access and costed about 3500, compared to 1500 pay walled.
no fees in closed access in organic chemistry, as far as i know. some other subfields can be different
open access can be easily two, three grands, and you better have a grant that covers this
Sci-hub
Paywalled articles are still openly available if you politely email the researcher. While we should strive to have no barrier, if you can’t afford to publish openly those who need the research can still acquire it under the table. Having research unpublished because the researchers could not afford to pay the fee is worse than having the research published in a closed journal.
I’ve gotten a few dozen papers from closed journals that way, and I’ve never been told no.
Or use scihub
My prof. said sci-hub is like banned and papers older than 2022 are not availiable. Is that true or thats only for some instances?
Banned from use in the uni perhaps. It’s working fine and I just pulled a paper from the 90s the other day
Nope he said its illegal and site is blocked.
I’m sorry i mean papers newer than 2022 are not availiable
Both are false
Surely there has to be a cost to the infrastructure of publishing and curation though. And possibly all the work of setting up and organizing the peer review process. So they probably charge the institutions or authors submitting the paper instead of their readers. But perhaps we should treat scientific journals as a public good, like libraries, or at least have a publicly funded option. Or have universities and institutions fund it for the public good.
But it’s mostly a scam. The costs don’t remotely compare to the revenue. Reviewers time is not paid, and there’s a price to both publish and access. It’s all about the prestige to publish. If you contact the author directly they’ll typically gladly send you the article for free.
Tbf he evolutionarily developed that genome all by himself. That’s how capitalism works
What even is this argument?
“Scientists who say they can’t afford to do X should do X”? Does he think this makes him sound smart?
