Jed is right on. There will be plenty of money to go around if this
technology is a go
On Friday, February 24, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> noone noone <thesteornpa...@yahoo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'thesteornpa...@yahoo.com');>> wrote:
>
>>
>> We do not need both companies if one company has stolen intellectual
>> property. We do NOT know if this is the case. I am not saying they have
>> stolen intellectual property. But if they have, they need to be stopped
>> from selling any products that use Rossi's IP (or use IP they developed by
>> studying Rossi's IP without permission.)
>>
>
> That never happens, at least not in the U.S. That is not how civil
> lawsuits and patent laws are enforced. Everyone continues selling until the
> court decides. If there is an infringement the judge awards the winner with
> a large share of the profits from the loser. No one "stops X from selling"
> except when X is a minor player and putting X out of business would have no
> impact on consumers.
>
> They *never* shut down an industry or a major producer in such
> cases. When IBM and Hitachi fight about a semiconductor patent, both sides
> continue to manufacture and sell the chips until they settle out of court
> or the judge rules. The judge never tells IBM to stop making the chips in
> the meanwhile, because that would hurt other companies and consumers.
>
> There have been fights like this since patent laws were invented in the
> 17th century.
>
> This is not widely known, but the U.S. Patent Office and the judiciary do
> not allow companies or individuals to stifle an important technology. If
> Rossi does not sell his product, even if he has a patent others will soon
> be allowed to make the product. If Rossi refuses to license them, the judge
> will force him to do so. The judge will -- in effect -- draft a license
> agreement, or tell the lawyers to do it. It is widely believed that "big
> companies" can "buy up a patent" and prevent important technology from
> being developed. This is a myth. As I said, the courts will not allow it.
> They have ruled that the patent system cannot be used to prevent the spread
> of useful technology. They take a dim view of companies that seem to be
> stalling. In any case, patents do not last long and another company can
> often "invent around" the patent if the owner refuses to license it, so
> this strategy would not work.
>
> - Jed
>
>
