[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Answer to Dinogeorge



Dinogeorge wrote: 

>The government has stated, as far as I know, that the man may dispose
>of the specimen as he sees fit. There's nothing wrong with him trying
>to set himself up for life. That's what any rational person would do,
>given such a windfall. 

That would be true, except he already accepted a fee for Sue, from the BHI. 

>philanthropically inclined rich person or foundation purchased the
>specimen from him at his asking price (more or less), then donated the
>specimen to a qualified scientific institution.

Who or what would make that determination, "qualified scientific institution?"

>avoiding the multitude of thieves out there trying to _take away_ my
>money and my property for nothing.

Deja vu...didn't that already happen in this case?

>If he were to donate the specimen to science, science would simply
>walk off with it. A few scientists would publish a few papers on it
>(for which they would be paid from various grants and other income
>sources), and he would be left with nothing but, perhaps, a little
>plaque with his name on it in some museum. And that would be that.

Okay, since we're playing "what if" here, building scenarios in the
sky, what if Williams only donated the USE of Sue...retained all
commercial rights to the specimen.  In other words, what if he gave
scientists the right to study Sue in exchange for prep hours, signed a
50 year lease with, say the National Museum, in exchange for a fat
percentage of every admission charged to see Sue - - why wouldn't that
serve the scientist and the capitalist?  Hmmmm?  Does the "American
Way" have to be an all or nothing proposition?

kel