[A2k] WIPO study on Patents and the Public Domain

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Fri Nov 18 08:54:21 PST 2011


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I would do to begin to make this report collapse out of inherent
> internal contradictions, would be to start by asking them to clarify
> what they left out of the sentence fragment.
>
> "While the obvious significance and potential importance of this
> information to the public domain, it should be understood that this
> provision of the TRIPS Agreement does not address public domain
> concerns."
>
> Then couple that inquiry with any number of questions about what
> exactly the authors mean by claiming that this provision does not
> address public domain concerns.  They have not substantiated their
> position, and they have failed to confront that fact.  :-)  The
> missing piece of the introductory clause is the whole key to their
> position -- how do they treat the "obvious significance and potential
> importance of this information to the public domain" such that they
> render it secondary to the public domain concerns?


Clarification:

How do they treat it to make it secondary to the claim in the main
clause that the TRIPS provision is not about public domain concerns?


(EOM)

> Just expand that contradiction.  The collapse inherently follows.
>
> (Compulsive grammatical nit:  the introductory clause is not
> independent, as my previous comment said -- it is a clause though,
> requiring a verb.  It is just suspended, rendered subordinate to the
> main independent clause through the conjunction "while.")
>
>
> Seth




More information about the A2k mailing list