[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "My dad is a pirate."
From: |
Hadron |
Subject: |
Re: "My dad is a pirate." |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:23:30 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu Debian-Lenny) |
Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> writes:
> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:16 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>El Tux wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In contrast, copying for your own personal use is a legal gray area in
>>>>> the US. None of the cases you cited involves such use.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a legal grey area not because it is written in the law( if it were
>>> it would not be grey) but because it is impossible to make lawas which
>>> 90 % of the population violate. YOu cannot throw 90% into jail. It is
>>> also a grey area because making backups IS authorized in law. Thus
>>> attempts by the companies to negate that right are themselves arguably
>>> illegal.
>>
>> What I'd like to see is a law that says any copyright verdict must
>> support the original intent of copyright as expressed in the U.S.
>> Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
>> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
>> Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." If you can show
>> that a specific application of copyright law is having the opposite
>> effect to that stated intent, then that application should be declared
>> unenforceable. And if it can be shown that a copyright owner is
>> deliberately abusing copyright law in a manner that is *clearly* in
>> contravention of that intent, the judge should have the option of
>> declaring his copyright null and void.
>>
>> The same should go for patents.
>
> The first thing to consider is whether patent should ever be transferrable
> from the original inventor. To my mind, if a company employs someone
> who invents something, that invention should remain the property of
> that person, and the company should license it from them, similarly, it
> should not be possible to sell on patents to patent trolling companies
> like Acacia, or anyone else, for that matter.
>
> It's about time that ownership of such things was returned to the real
> inventors...
If ever there was a time that Mark Kent revealed himself to be a troll
it is now.
Listen to what he is saying : a company who employs someone is not
entitled to the things that that employee is paid to work on. He is
is a troll or absolutely making it with a tele-tubbie.
FWIW, I do agree with stopping the selling of patents to a degree. Use
it or lose it in other words.
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", (continued)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", El Tux, 2008/02/23
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", rjack, 2008/02/24
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", El Tux, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", rjack, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", El Tux, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", rjack, 2008/02/25
- Message not available
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", El Tux, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", Mark Kent, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.",
Hadron <=
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", Troy Kirkland, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", Hadron, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Troy Kirkland, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Hadron, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", spike1, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", The Ghost In The Machine, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Hadron, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Hadron, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Moshe Goldfarb, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", spike1, 2008/02/26