Ars Technica has a story about how Microsoft tried to patent clustering phylogenetic methods. If the patent would have gone through, it could have meant that anyone who wanted to use a phylogenetics clustering program (PAUP, Mesquite, etc) would have suddenly found themselves unable to do so, at least not without paying Microsoft first the associated fees for licensing their patent (or else by pirating the software, which seems to be a common theme in cash strapped labs). Luckily, there is plenty of prior art (meaning, Microsoft was obviously not the first person to do it), so they won’t be granted the patent in the end. Something like this makes an (arguably) good case for scientists to release any code and programs they produce under an Open Source license, which in effect would preserve their work in the public domain for future scientists to use.
Twitter Feed
- RT @DrScottSampson: My new article is out in Scientific American. Dinosaurs of the Lost Continent: http://t.co/TSCo409B via @sciam @nat ... 2 days ago
- Dinosaurs first appeared on Pangaea; what might show up on the future supercontinent Amasia @ROMtoronto http://t.co/yqvfBNS8 4 days ago
- Oldest fossils of animals found in Namibia? http://t.co/VCA4J3CS Maybe, maybe not: http://t.co/ZDLYjzVL @OliverKnevitt 4 days ago
- RT @billmckibben: Poisoning wolves to keep the tarsands humming. Thanks to @nwf for new report http://t.co/SEUGC2RI 6 days ago
- RT @andyfarke: Caleb Brown talks about his recent @PLoS ONE paper on pachycephalosaur tails - http://t.co/t7DhCJfq - orig. paper: http:/ ... 6 days ago
-
Recent Posts