On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 16:53, Fargusson.Alan wrote: > > Actually this kind of thing was common in the early days of the automobile > > industry. There was even a patent granted on the car. GM and Chrysler paid > > royalties to someone for years, but Henry Ford refused. The case went on for > > several years. The patent holder died, and his family decided to drop the patent > > claim. > > > > There is a lot of cross licensing in the automobile industry, and a lot of working > > around patents by making small changes in the design, then filing a new patent. I > > hope the software industry does not go the same route, since this has caused > > stagnation in the automobile industry. Have you noticed that most cars look like > > they were designed by the same guy? > > Its a fine longstanding tradition of fighting progress with lawyers > > Marconi was forced to build his telegraph station outside newfoundland - > by lawyers. The useful high pressure steam engine was delayed many years > by patent lawyers. Intel v AMD is another fine example of the SCO > technique btw if you look back at the 386/486 days. > > Nowdays there is a simple solution people are adopting - make the bloody > thing somewhere that has less lawyers, import it through a front company > and fold the front company if you are ever sued. Keeps wages down, > liabilities controlled and all the cash out of the hands of the IRS...
Sounds a bit like a technique used here by a stevedoring company. A pays the workers. B holds the contracts to supply services. Pays A when A needs to pay the workers. C owns both. Who do the workers sue if they're not paid? A, the company with no assets? B or C with whom they have no relationship? -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
