Haaaaaaaahahahahahahaha

/

Rick Reilly opines that Mickelson's Masters win is a victory for women......

You know, at the place (Augusta National) where they consider women unworthy of membership.

I'm sure Rick thinks he totally, right on, nailed it too. Nice toadying, dumbass.

Landmark (and great) decision on patents involving DNA

A landmark ruling that, I think, clarifies some of the confusion surrounding patents involving DNA. Some of the stuff in the article itself serves to illustrate confusion in peoples' understanding of what is/was/should have been patentable. The confusion boils down to a lack of understanding of the difference between 'invention' and 'discovery'.

From the NYTimes:

"A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property."

I think this was a great ruling because the BRCA ('breast cancer gene') patents basically (I understand it) were for DNA that occurred naturally in living beings. Myriad Genetics claimed (like other companies have before) that isolating the gene transformed it chemically so it was now patentable. Shrewd lawyers and ill informed judges went along with that idea. But it was flawed from the beginning because Myriad patented the mutant version of the gene (which naturally occurred) and then got sole rights to test for those mutations (that naturally occurred in patients). There was no engineering human engineering involved that made that sequence unique and patentable. The exclusivity for the breast cancer test didn't arise from any technical innovation in the testing procedure --- just from the naturally occurring DNA sequence. Basically, they patented a discovery, not an invention. A lot of the 'gene' patents are fundamentally flawed for this reason: they are patents for discoveries, not inventions.

The NYTimes article goes on to say:

Such patents, it said, have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980.

The first part of this statement is somewhat true; but again, those patents were awarded incorrectly, due to some smart lawyering that muddied the facts about what was natural versus what was portrayed to be 'engineered'.

The second part of it was, at best, a bad example. The patent on living organisms that it refers to is one in which a microbe was engineered, using DNA that was also engineered, to be able to break down crude oil. There is no naturally occurring piece of DNA identical to that which was made and used for the engineering. Consequently, there is also no naturally occurring microbe that can break down crude oil in quite exactly the same way as that microbe --- and it is highly significant that the microbe's ability to break down crude oil is completely dependent on the engineering, and unnatural piece of DNA, that it possessed. The difference in this case, that made the DNA and the microbe patent-worthy, was that they were inventions not discoveries.

Anyway, coming back to the breast cancer gene patents---from related NYTimes article:

Although patents are not granted on things found in nature, the DNA being patented had long been considered a chemical that was isolated from, and different from, what was found in nature. But Judge Sweet ruled that the distinguishing feature of DNA is its information content, its conveyance of the genetic code. And in that regard, he wrote, the isolated DNA “is not markedly different from native DNA as it exists in nature.”

Way to go judge. Freaking nailed it!

This ruling is very significant because Myriad patented a discovery and charged patients a freaking ton of money for a simple test. They charge over $3000 for a test that shouldn't cost more than a twentieth of that. This ruling could open up a ton of competition for the simple test now, and hopefully bring down the cost of the test dramatically.

This should also set the standard for future patenting in biology. It is really not that difficult to determine invention vs discovery --- and award patents for the former and not for the latter.

A thought about Tiger's return

Now that Tiger has announced he'll return at Augusta for the Masters, there is the usual cacophony from all sorts of media outlets about how this move is obvious/smart/arrogant/cowardly/calculating etc etc etc because Augusta is a 'safe' place --- they hold near-absolute control over the media credentials and the crowds...excuse me...patrons.

I expect that every one of the people who have been (and still are) accusing Tiger of arrogant and controlling will absolutely beat down the doors of Augusta National and the PGA Tour if they aren't allowed as many credentials as they want, or if they aren't allowed to ask any damn question they want at the pressers. Further, since Augusta doesn't require any of its participants to appear at pressers, if Tiger chooses to avoid any pressers (which he won't, but still) I trust that the entire media empire will arise and unleash their fury and vitriol on Augusta National and the PGA Tour for not making it mandatory that he ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS DAMMIT!!!!!!

I would even think that, just like the Golf Writers of America boycotted Tiger's public statement a few weeks ago because he wouldn't answer any questions, at least some 'backboned' 'principled' sections of the the media will completely boycott the Masters if Augusta not accede to their requests re Tiger and pressers.

Oh wait....I forgot.....it is perfectly OK for a bunch of rich old white dudes to be totally controlling about every aspect of their existence and message, discriminate as they wish as re their membership, and conduct their tournament by their own rules even if those rules are different from the requirements for every other golf tournament in the world....their invitational tournament will still be sanctioned by international golf bodies and they will all be referred to in hushed and reverent tones by the very same media assholes all the time....even if the Masters took a giant dump on their community once by telling CBS who it can and cannot assign for Masters coverage....ask Gary McCord about his fellow journalists' integrity....!

On the contrary, however, if a supremely gifted athlete ascends, by virtue of his talent, hard work and sheer force of will, to the pinnacle of the sport and popularize it like no one before....and generate unprecedented revenue for every one associated with the sport....if he should want to control his life and his message to his will and desire, then he is to be absolutely and endless vilified in every form of media possible....because the media are about integrity and morality, right?

A glimpse into the corridors of financial power

A good read from Vanity Fair....Larry Fink's $12 trillion shadow.

Excerpt that I found particularly interesting:

He now says he lost money at First Boston because no one really understood the risks involved. The computer systems were inadequate, and so were the programs that measured the impact of key variables such as changes in interest rates. “We built this giant machine, and it was making a lot of money—until it didn’t,” Fink says. “We didn’t know why we were making so much money. We didn’t have the risk tools to understand that risk. It’s what I tell everybody today: you should analyze your portfolio just as much when you are making money, because you could be taking on too much risk.”

Seared by his fall from grace at First Boston, Fink vowed never again to be in a position where he did not fully understand the risks he was taking in the market. What Fink had also come to see during his years at First Boston was how little his clients—pension funds, corporations, state and local governments—understood about the risks they were taking. Indeed, he says they were almost completely dependent on Wall Street firms to measure their risk—which was something, he knew from experience, that Wall Street did poorly. And so he decided to build a company that would not only invest money for clients but offer them sophisticated risk management too.

Worth taking the time to read the whole thing.

Media insanity re Tiger, Part duh.

I had asked, in a couple of my previous posts, why journalists were so upset that Tiger Woods would not entertain questions during his public statement yesterday. Of course, I thought the statement to be unnecessary but a sad inevitability as well. But anyway, my point was that there wasn’t much golf-related to ask Tiger and the rest of the stuff with his personal life was nobody’s business but his family’s….so what did these people want to ask Tiger that could be relevant and not tabloid?

ESPN.com writer Jason Sobel has boldly ventured forth, and actually listed 10 questions that he’d have liked to ask Tiger. Now, luckily for Jason and the rest of the world, it just so happens that I have the answers to most of his questions, and I’m willing to provide them completely free of charge. So quit thanking me profusely and read the damn answers already…..

(Sobel’s questions in bold type, and my answers, bold as they may be, in regular type…..)

Q: Where was Elin?

A: None of your damned business.

Q: What happened on Nov. 27, 2009?

Well, whatever is deemed to be public record is available from the respective police dept. Beyond that, the details of the events are none of your damned business.

Q: Why the prolonged silence?

Didn’t much feel like talking, and was pretty busy with rehab. In case you don’t know, rehab people run a pretty tight ship.

Q: How come questions weren't allowed?

Because I said so. Feel free not to attend my future press conferences or golf events if you are too miffed by this.

Q: What is his addiction?

A: Ever heard of doctor-patient confidentiality? Well, doctors have to adhere to it but patients have a right to it. So I guess my answer is, “None of your damned business”.

Q: Will there be changes in Team Tiger?

Are you willing to reveal to me the intricate goings on regarding any and all sensitive impending policy decisions and management changes etc at ESPN? No? I guess, what I’m saying is that my answer is, “None of your damned business”.

Q: Why hold the speech at PGA Tour headquarters? Why leak driving range photos?

Why not? And wouldn’t you allow that driving range photos are better than driving photos under the circs? Would you not put your best foot forward?

Q: When will he return to competitive golf?

OK, finally a legitimate question.

But it was answered. Tiger said he is not sure when he’ll return. Sorry that he couldn’t schedule his rehab around your desire for a firm timeline to make money off his talent.

Q: Has he been suspended by the PGA Tour?

Another legit, and actually great, question. But one that could have easily been posed to the Commish, Tim Finchem, who has been chatting up a veritable storm to you guys of late…I mean, on TV, in print, you name it…

Q: What would Earl say?

A: Sigghhhh….at the risk of sounding repetitive, but in the interest of preserving the integrity of what principles of newsworthiness may remain….”NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS”.

Thank you, Thank you….

My take on Tiger's statement

What I just left as a comment on Comrade PhysioProf's all too cynical thread....

Nobody but Tiger can know the true motivation behind his actions and the timing thereof. Those who choose to take the cynical viewpoint are just as justified, a priori, as those who choose to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If one has to go by the available evidence, however, it appears that Tiger is trying seriously to get help and is trying desperately to save his relationship with his family. If he were to apologize just to keeping his shilling revenue alive and well, he could have gone a very different path. He could have already done the things the so-called experts have called on him to do, including crying on Oprah and all that crap. He could have come out with such a statement much earlier, when the media and golf powerbrokers were clamoring for it. I am sure he could have saved the Accenture sponsorship if he he danced to their tune—you really think they didnt try to get him to do some such apology-dance-talkshow-circuit-shit so that they wouldn’t have to completely re-invent their entire ad campaign, including removing his likeness from every airport and thousands of billboards, overnight?

Anyway, his statement today, in content, tone and timing, is highly indicative of a man following something akin to a 12-step program. I think this is why Tiger’s agent indicated that the timing of this was not entirely upto them. It appears that Tiger is at a stage of his therapy where he needed to apologize, openly, categorically and unconditionally, to everyone he may have hurt. This is what he did, and he has gone back to resume his rehab.

In my opinion, if he weren’t following a therapy strategy laid out by a medical professional, he could have eschewed this kind of statement and highly publicly humbling scenario—he could have apologized to his family and friends in private and apologized to his fans and followers on his website via a video statement or whatever. And then started playing golf. Let me reiterate what I’ve said before—he could have done no public apologies, and his endorsements would have been back in force when he started winning again. Corporate America has shown repeatedly that it has no ethic—when he started commanding eyeballs to TVs again, they’d gladly whore themselves to him again.

All the events of the past 2 months or so, culminating with today’s announcement, indicate that Tiger appears to be following a therapeutic regimen, and his priority appears to be to save his marriage and personal relationships.

Stop Breaking the News - In which I take on Selena Roberts

OK, this is getting to be even more entertaining than I'd bargained for. First there was all the caterwauling about Tiger stealing the thunder from a golf tournament.

Now it gets better. Selena Roberts of SI.com claims that Tiger Woods, by scheduling his announcement for today, is ,"stealing the spotlight from feel-good (Olympic) games". Selena's article is so remarkably stupid, on so many counts, that I feel compelled to respond to it.

Firstly, I didn't realize (and I think neither did Tiger) that he needed to cross-check his calendar with every other significant event in the world and schedule his announcement accordingly. I guess he should have had the sensitivity to schedule his announcement sometime after the NCAA tournament, after hockey season, after the NBA season, before NFL training camp, and at 2 am on a Tuesday morning so as to cause minimal disruption to whatever pathetic golf event was being held that week. Thank you, golf scribes, bitter PGA pros and Selena Roberts for pointing out how freaking inconsiderate and egotistical Tiger really is.

Secondly, it seems to have chapped Selena's ass too that Tiger will not entertain questions at his announcement today. What questions would you like to ask, Selena, that are relevant to Tiger's golf, that will not embarass him and his family any further? Or would you like to get a Ken Starr-esque play-by-play of who he banged and how he did it, so as to enrich the lives and the essential knowledge-base of the world at large? And because that would be the right thing for Elin and the kids, y'know? Right?

Thirdly, I didn't realize that the 'feel-good' for an Olympic games constituted some Americans winning gold medals. Because, you know, I might have been thrown off by the fact that the Olympic movement has become the examplar for corruption, politics and the fine art of putting whipped cream on a turd. I, for one, have been disgusted by these Olympics. The lead story should be the arrogance of the Olympic committee in not listening to serious concerns and complaints about their dangerous tracks, an arrogance that has already led to the loss of a young and promising life. Oh, I forgot.....it was not an American life, so it doesn't impinge on the feel-good-ness of these Olympics for you, huh? The second lead should have been about how tens of millions of dollars were spent in importing snow for these games, so that, you know, you'd have your feel-good fortnight, at a time when such money could have been used to far better effect in any of many efforts starting with, say, the relief effort in Haiti. The third lead should be the absolutely disgraceful commercialization of the event as well as its TV coverage (by your fellow 'journalist' community, no less) that has resulted in the complete betrayal of the very athletes whose cause you claim to speak for. If you want someone to give these winter athletes a break, maybe you should get your bosses to show some of these events live, or at least at a decent hour so people could watch them, and preferably without sandwiching each minute of actual sport within five minutes of advertizing filth. Then we'll talk. But anyway. You keep right-on feeling good there, now, y'hear?

Fourthly, Selena, you have the gall to use the Olympics (and comments by Jacques Rogge) to pass judgment on Tiger's Woods' sex life? I mean, SERIOUSLY? Here's a tip from an amateur investigative journalist---go ahead and do a Google search for the terms "Olympics and condoms". Are you aware that, like for the Beijing Games, the Vancouver Games are also arranging to hand out approx 100,000 condoms to the participants this year? Don't believe me? Look here, and here, and here, for instance. That translates to about 14 condoms for each player, trainer, official and coach in the Olympic Games. Given the reality of what clearly transpires at the Olympics, handing out condoms is clearly the smart public health move. But then Rogge thinks that Tiger failed becuase he "likes their athletes to be good role models for youngsters"? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, I don't care if the entire Olympic village bursts out into a Caligula-worthy fuck-fest and orgy every night....that is the prerogative of the athletes there...but I do think that such rampant sexual behavior eliminates anyone associated with the Olympics from having any authority to comment on the sexual mores of somebody else.

So, Selena, when you decided to pile onto the assault on Tiger using your Olympics angle, did you do so in the full knowledge of exactly how 'feel-good' the Olympic games really were, or did you just employ your trademark oversight and sloppiness in the haste to make a name for yourself at Tiger Woods' expense. You know, like you did with the Duke lacrosse case. Or with the Alex Rodrigues book.....

And you call yourself a journalist. Shame on you.....