Money is not the point. The point is that if a company steals a technology from an inventor (again I am not saying Defkalion has stolen anything, I am speaking hypothetically) the company who stole the technology should not be allowed to sell products using the technology. Of course if the inventor WANTS to make a deal with them that is fine. However, if he does NOT want to make a deal with them, it should be his option to have the company that stole his technology re-call their products.
It does not matter if the inventor could make a trillion dollars, and the offending company would only make one million dollars. If a company steals a technology they do not deserve to make one red cent off it, if that is the inventor's decision. Rewarding theft is not acceptable. If anyone supports companies being allowed to use technologies they have stolen against the will of the inventor, they must also not have a problem with burglars making profit off items they steal when breaking and entering into someone's home. For example, what Jed Rothwell describes is exactly the same as the following scenrio. A burgler enters someones home and steals thousands of items. He then starts a business selling those items. For example, maybe the business was baseball cards. The issue goes to court and the Judge fines the burglar for stealing the cards, but then allows the burglar to continue running the business. The fact is if someone steals from you they should not be able to continue using the stolen items in their business, period! It does not matter how much they are fined, or how much money they are willing to give you for allowing their business to stay open. The victim should be able to choose if he wants the burglar's business shut down or not, at least when it comes to the use of the stolen items. It is the same exact thing. ________________________________ From: Chemical Engineer <cheme...@gmail.com> To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time 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> 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 > >
