-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael O'Keefe wrote: > That's true, but then how would they protect their work ? > That's the dilemma I'm faced with in taking this stance.
Perhaps they don't have to. How much money do they make from selling quality hardware? Sure, someone else might come along eventually and clone their hardware if it were not protected by patents but would it turn them a profit before they did so? The only thing we need to look at is if there would still be incentive to do it. Not whether they would still get ludicrously wealthy off of it. If there is any money in it someone will still do it. That is all that matters. I don't think the movie industry needs copyrights longer than a few years. That's how long it takes them to turn a very nice profit. Anything after that is just waste. Give them just enough incentive to make it worthwhile but no more. - -- Tracy R Reed http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCW0Cr9PIYKZYVAq0RAib2AJ9NFhwviOYKmgkQGgdad8yzOzBd0QCggWu6 fPoWGjCPElEQ9grV3GqPSmU= =oYW9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
