[Totally OT] Re: Hmmm. A question. Was [Re: Debian is losing its users]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
|> On 04/02/08 03:42, Chris Bannister wrote:
|>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 04:17:33PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
|>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 06:06:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
|>>>> On 03/31/08 17:42, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
|>>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 01:54:44PM -0500, Vikki Roemer wrote:
|>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Chris Bannister
|>>>>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
|>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:09:10PM +1100, Owen Townend wrote:
|>> I guess Jolly Jaguar would get Apple filing some sort of law suit. :-)
|> You can't trademark a species, especially one that's been in the
|> public domain for thousands of years.
| I was trying to come up with a witty one, but all I've got is
| horribly depressing...
| since USPTO seems to think it's okay to patent gene sequences, then
| clearly the jaguar is not in the public domain. Or at least the
| instructions for making a jaguar aren't...
| As to whether a jaguar has been trademarked or not, I don't know, but
| it's increasingly likely that at least part of it's genetic code has
| been patented. I suppose that means that any actively reproducing
| jaguars at a minimum owe licensing fees to someone for the rights to reproduce.
I'd like to them try to get their licensing fee out of *real* Jaguars
reproducing the natural way... I think they are mainly concentrating on human
genes, but I could be wrong.
Of course there is the car called Jaguar...
On the other topic, how about Jumping Jalopy? Or has that already been suggested?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----