"Troy Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Hadron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Mark Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> El Tux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> espoused: >>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:16 +0000, Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>> rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
