Science Memes

19777 readers

2735 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

SciBot@mander.xyz

fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com

1753

Insulin (infosec.pub)

submitted 4 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

282 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Tbh, I am surprised that you seem to know the exact legal situation in regards to patent law in Canada of 1923, and that you have such a strong opinion on that matter.

I would recommend you to read the corresponding Wikipedia secton where all the thinking that went into that decision is laid out quite well.

I would venture to say that legal experts of the time at the time understood the patent law of the time a little better than some random users on Lemmy.

[+] Devial@discuss.online 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.

While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren't supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn't "having new arguments". It's "running out of arguments but not admitting to it". And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there's no point bringing new arguments apart from "a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row".

[+] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You haven't provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.

If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.

Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that's what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it's on Wikipedia?