[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron."

From: Hadron
Subject: Re: "My dad is a pirate" but "Mark Kent is a clueless moron."
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:50:59 +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:fputjr$ij7$
>> "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
>> 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.
> There's a reason why things are done the way they are today instead of the 
> ridiculous way that the Mark Kent idiot suggests. Primarily because despite 
> some flaws, it's basically a fair system. If any company were stupid enough 
> to follow the Kent model here's what would happen:
> Pfizer Pharmaceutical - Hires researcher "Dr. Smart" and pays him $220k/year 
> for 10 years.
> Pfizer Pharmaceutical - Provides "Dr. Smart" with office and lab space and 
> sends him to medical conferences around the world.
> Pfizer Pharmaceutical - Supplies "Dr. Smart" with several $10's of millions 
> of dollars in specialized lab equipment.
> One day "Dr. Smart" makes a breakthrough discovery in cancer research and 
> gets a patent. According to the Kent idiot Pfizer gets nothing. Despite 
> taking a risk by investing over a $100 million into the research they get 
> nothing.
> Dr. Smart would immediately get job offers from every other pharmaceutical 
> company out there for millions of dollars. The only reason being is that 
> with this insane model they would be able to buy the $100+ million worth of 
> investment/research that Pfizer invested in for pennies on the dollar.
> This has to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. How freaking 
> stupid to you have to be not to realize that companies who invest millions 
> of dollars in research and salary are the *PROPER* owners of the patents. 
> Mark Kent's stupidity knows no bounds!

I'm not sure how long you have been posting here Troy, but the one thing
that will become apparent is that COLA is like no where else on the
net. And Mark Kent is one of the biggest idiots you are likely to come
across. When NVidia finally solved the Linux problem and released
working HW Acceleration drivers for OpenGL on Linux, he referred to
their drivers as "malware". Why? Because they refuse to open up their
API (and hence the HW pretty much) to their mark leading performance
leading video cards. So on one hand we had people like me telling people
"go with NVidia - they are MUCH more supportive of Linux and their
drivers work on Linux" and then we have Mark kent "Go with ATI since
although their drivers do not work they are more open". mad eh?

reply via email to

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