[Top][All Lists]

[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" <> writes:

> "Hadron" <> wrote in message 
> news:fpuq25$c23$
>> Mark Kent <> writes:
>>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:16 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>>>>> rjack <> 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

>> 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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]