Hell, it's not even the first one that I think I know enough about to
disagree with. Unfortunately Patent law has become less a way of
incentivise invention and more a way to bludgeon competitors into
submission. Much needs to be reformed, and it seems recently reform is
perverted so that were best that reform had not been attempted in the
first place.
On 8/25/2012 5:39 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote:
From: steve harley
years of appeals will probably ensue, but the stifling effect will start
now
Pretty much the way I read it.
The stifling of patented Intellectual Property theft? I believe that
is the purpose of the laws that are on the books (to prevent or at
least disincentivize that). I'm sure that most of you know that
patents exist to reward innovators and stimulate innovation, for the
good of society. To allow Intellectual Property larceny would stifle
that innovation (and from that we all would suffer).
Some of you act like this is the first patent lawsuit judgement you
have ever heard of.
Presumably most of you are in favor of Pentax being granted patents on
their innovations and would have an opinion if some other company
"lifted them" to Pentax's detriment. Frankly, it seems like some of
you hear the word "Apple" and your heads disappear up your arses.
--
Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a
lengthly search.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
