Based on what you describe:
Where is the "crime"?
Is this research an abuse of technology?
If this kind of activity is a violation of the law or should be, how can it be stopped, especially if the doctor goes overseas? / this is a group project for college course in criminology. the questions above will be answered by other team members. the two questions i gave you were assigned to me. there is no specific crime, except what is written in the scenario and we are comparing...US vs overseas. the patent is to create a new type of organism for human growth and development.
Thank you. That helps a lot. I will have this completed for you shortly.
Here is your answer.
Please be sure to SAVE it to your PC (so you have easy access to it) and let me know when you are satisfied with the answer so I can delete it to help protect against plagarism.
The paper discusses who would be a victim in several places:
a person harmed by an immoral action is also a victim. In the situation here, therefore, any person who is harmed by the failure of this invention to find a cure for their illness or to save their lives can be seen as a victim of a crime.
A crime, both legally and under a non-legal definition, however, would also occur, were all inventions automatically granted Food and Drug Administration or patent rights simply because the inventor threatened to take their invention elsewhere or to continue to work on their research without approval. -
Medicines and other implements rushed through approval have a long, painful history of harming consumers, even killing them
Also, note that the use "overseas" also creates the same victims as those discussed here.
You may want to re-read the work.
Also, I can always add more or take away anything you want to a paper/answer such as this.
Let me know if you need more or less and I will be happy to assist.
I understand you have already accepted, but even then I do not like to "leave" things if a person is not pleased, so even after accept, if a change or so is asked, I will normally do that.
Just an FYI.
I realize a paper is a subjective writing, such that one either likes it or not, but I have to disagree with you. This paper takes the law on patents from soup to nuts, as it were and is NOT, at all, generic.
First, let me begin by explaining that often, in many legal writings, one begins be explaining the legal definition of a term because only by doing that can all understand what is or is not included in a word such as "crime". After all, just saying a crime is doing something that is against the law means nothing because then you have to ask "whose law" and who decides what is right or wrong. Therefore, the "introduction" here is used to get the definitions straight because a person cannot begin to discuss a legal topic without first assuring all people know what is being discussed.
Because the actions described in your scenario do NOT paint a "crime" under current US law (and as this is a paper about "future" possible laws/crimes, I also brougth in the "common" English definitions of the words to use them to compare and contrast to the "legal" definitions obtained from legal dictionaries. This serves to bring the discussion into where there may be a victim in a situation even where a "crime" (under the law) does not exist. It also brings the discussion to the fact that even where a legal "crime" may not occur, there may still be a victim, which allows the discussion of who suffers if the idea is taken out of the US. Also, it brings out the reality that simply because actions may not be illegal (as defined by a legal dictionary) there may still be a victim (as defined by the regular dictionary). This alone opens up a large area of discussion of whether there must be a "crime" (under legal dictionaries) for there to be a victim. This then takes us to the prevention of there being a victim through the lack of caution in the approval of an invention. As the doctor is basically threatening the nation to "accept it" or suffer the loss of it - he seems to be arguing for just the acceptance of it, regardless of any testing for hazards or other precautions.
Because inventions require careful screening (by FDA and other US agencies) the point about the failure to have any supervision of law over inventions is also brought out in that discussion (hence the long quote regarding FDA purpose). However, this need for public protection must be balanced against the national interest in new inventions (which is why I go into the discussion of the history and purpose of the Patent laws.
Then I discuss that if inventions were to be "screened" before inventors could go forward and build, the US would lose the entire purpose for having a Patent Office. All of the build up about the purpose of patents, the need to regulate patent development, culminates in explaining that even after all that, invention ideas should not be screened as it would violate legal tradition, purpose, and harm the development of new ideas. On short, the last paragraph provides a legal "proof" or logic argument that shows why it is that American law forbids such screening. It is NOT, in the least a simple declaration that its "unAmerican."
I can see that you may not have seen all of that in the writing, but please, do not say the work is generic and nothing but definitions were given. Moreover, I did not say screening was not American - I discussed the legal building of the patent office and explained (as is done by courts when attorneys and judges build legal arguments) that, therefore, the full weight of American law (its Constitution and the very laws passed by Congress that created the Patent system) do NOT allow or support invention screening.
If the paper alone did not help you understand these principles, then the explanation here should help bolster that presentation.
I know I paid 30 dollars for something I could not use.
I said on February 1 to you "I understand you have already accepted, but even then I do not like to "leave" things if a person is not pleased, so even after accept, if a change or so is asked, I will normally do that."
You did not request any changes and then 2 days later said you could not use it. At this point this is nothing I can do, but I would have worked with you otherwise.
I am sorry, and since you seem to be misunderstanding me, I will not try to communicate again and it is, as it has always been, your decision to respond or not (JA only gives me the option of "Answer" or "Information Request" and I can only use Answer when I provide an answer so IR is the only choice for other communications BUT no response is required). Please realize that I responded to you only after you provided a comment I found incorrect and a bit insulting - I responded to you so that I could provide service to let you know I stood behind what I provided and would not have otherwise disturbed you. I also tried to provide additional assistance by providing a discussion to you about the paper which I hoped you could use.
I also responded to show you that if you requested something else I was always willing and happy to do that so you would be happy, but you did not ask me to change anything yet keep saying I did nothing. I assure you, through my 2 undergraduate degrees, and my two graduate degrees, all papers I turned in were no lower than B grades and most were A or A+ grades and in my work as an attorney I am known for me well written legal briefs and that is the quality I try to provide to all. That is all I have to say and again, no response is "insisted" upon now nor has ever been.
I understand that I shall not try to work with you again. I wish you the best and am sure you will be pleased with other JA experts.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).