[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 18:24:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu Debian-Lenny) |
"Troy Kirkland" <kirk@google.com> writes:
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:fpuq25$c23$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> 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.
>
> Absolutely amazing. Just when I thought that nobody could be more clueless
> than Schestowitz or "Mark S. Bilk" this Kent troll comes along with this
> hillarious suggestion.
>
> Aside from the blatant stupidity... it simply makes zero sense at all. Take
> for example some research being done at IBM. The researcher is being paid a
> salary by IBM. The company (IBM) is also the one funding the research and
> "assuming the risk" because it's completely likely that the research might
> not pan out in the end. Depending on the research being done, the cost of
> the facilities and equipment could easily run $10's of millions of dollars
> which is yet another investment that IBM is making.
>
> According to the Kent idiot... if something is discovered or invented from
> all of this then IBM who paid the salary and put up all of the investment
> and took all of the risk, they would be nothing! The researcher would get to
> keep everything and simply walk out the door.
>
> This is just absurd! No wonder that Mark Kent is an unemployed janitor. What
> a sort of idiot would even suggest something so stupid.
It's amazing isn't it? And the COLA gang sit there at his feet
agreeing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>> FWIW, I do agree with stopping the selling of patents to a degree. Use
>> it or lose it in other words.
>
> Couldn't this be gotten around by granting an exclusive "license" to the
> patent which would effectively be the same thing. And companies do license
> patents all the time which is completely valid as far as I'm concerned.
Which is why you patent something - so people can use it for a fee.
- 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, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.", Troy Kirkland, 2008/02/25
- Re: "My dad is a pirate.",
Hadron <=
- 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
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Mark Kent, 2008/02/28
- Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron.", Moshe Goldfarb, 2008/02/25