btw, you can recoup your costs by building good *products* that customer want to buy.
2011/8/10 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM, phil swenson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Reducing the term I think is doable. Getting rid of transferability >> sounds complicated. You take on a new investor, is that a transfer of >> ownership? > > To whom? The patent is filed in the company's name, additional investors > change nothing to that fact. > >> >> What about voting rights vs outright ownership? Plus you >> are already removing much of the perceived "value" with reducing the >> term + ditching transferability > > So now you're seeing value in software patents besides protection? I thought > this whole discussion started because nobody saw *any* value in software > patents, not even protection? > >> >> - so why go the extra bit and just abolish software/process patents? >> >> I still haven't heard much about the benefits of software patents. >> Could someone enlighten me? > > We've covered this extensively, haven't we? You get a short term monopoly on > derived technology so you can recoup your costs. > -- > Cédric > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
