Re: "My dad is a pirate."

[Troy Kirkland]

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:fpuq25$c23$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> El Tux <nope@spamsucks.invalid> espoused:
>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:16 +0000, Unruh wrote:
>>>
>>>> rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>El Tux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In contrast, copying for your own personal use is a legal gray area 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the US. None of the cases you cited involves such use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a legal grey area not because it is written in the law( if it 
>>>> were
>>>> it would not be grey) but because it is impossible to make lawas which
>>>> 90 % of the population violate. YOu cannot throw 90% into jail. It is
>>>> also a grey area because making backups IS authorized in law. Thus
>>>> attempts by the companies to negate that right are themselves arguably
>>>> illegal.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to see is a law that says any copyright verdict must
>>> support the original intent of copyright as expressed in the U.S.
>>> Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
>>> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
>>> Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." If you can show
>>> that a specific application of copyright law is having the opposite
>>> effect to that stated intent, then that application should be declared
>>> unenforceable. And if it can be shown that a copyright owner is
>>> deliberately abusing copyright law in a manner that is *clearly* in
>>> contravention of that intent, the judge should have the option of
>>> declaring his copyright null and void.
>>>
>>> The same should go for patents.
>>
>> The first thing to consider is whether patent should ever be 
>> transferrable
>> from the original inventor.  To my mind, if a company employs someone
>> who invents something, that invention should remain the property of
>> that person, and the company should license it from them, similarly, it
>> should not be possible to sell on patents to patent trolling companies
>> like Acacia, or anyone else, for that matter.
>>
>> It's about time that ownership of such things was returned to the real
>> inventors...
>
> If ever there was a time that Mark Kent revealed himself to be a troll
> it is now.
>
> Listen to what he is saying : a company who employs someone is not
> entitled to the things that that employee is paid to work on. He is
> is a troll or absolutely making it with a tele-tubbie.

Absolutely amazing. Just when I thought that nobody could be more clueless 
than Schestowitz or "Mark S. Bilk" this Kent troll comes along with this 
hillarious suggestion.

Aside from the blatant stupidity... it simply makes zero sense at all. Take 
for example some research being done at IBM. The researcher is being paid a 
salary by IBM. The company (IBM) is also the one funding the research and 
"assuming the risk" because it's completely likely that the research might 
not pan out in the end. Depending on the research being done, the cost of 
the facilities and equipment could easily run $10's of millions of dollars 
which is yet another investment that IBM is making.

According to the Kent idiot... if something is discovered or invented from 
all of this then IBM who paid the salary and put up all of the investment 
and took all of the risk, they would be nothing! The researcher would get to 
keep everything and simply walk out the door.

This is just absurd! No wonder that Mark Kent is an unemployed janitor. What 
a sort of idiot would even suggest something so stupid.


> FWIW, I do agree with stopping the selling of patents to a degree. Use
> it or lose it in other words.

Couldn't this be gotten around by granting an exclusive "license" to the 
patent which would effectively be the same thing. And companies do license 
patents all the time which is completely valid as far as I'm concerned.





-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com