[Ip-health] [A2k] WIPO study on Patents and the Public Domain
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
> 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?
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?
> 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.")
More information about the Ip-health