distant-uncle

6 ms·

1.
by distant-uncle 13y ago
It seems to me that when you say that people have a natural right to profit, you actually mean a "right to exclude". I think that's a whole nuther kettle of fish. For one, the two are in contradiction. Suppose you believe tha
2.
by distant-uncle 13y ago
> Trespass is about land Well, to borrow a phrase, it really isn't. Or more precisely, land is one subject area. Take a few moments to research if you're curious, but do go beyond a law dictionary. > that I was defending p
3.
by distant-uncle 13y ago
Infringement is not theft, it is an entirely separate legal concept. Dowling v. United States http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/22513210998.shtml The above deals specifically with copyright, but the concep
4.
by distant-uncle 13y ago
I've been mulling over the most common argument predictably wheeled out by the patent aggressors and their supporters: "Theft! We don't want them to steal our stuff!!" Never mind that even if one allows that the whole co
5.
by distant-uncle 13y ago
> Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical. I would argue, it's more like: "using patents as weapons is completely unethical." And yes, it's a shame to see any patent aggressor get aw
6.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
It's only an offensive move if you consider battle 'N + 1 == N'. Google didn't start this war.
7.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
Very true. Or even just: "A combination of chemicals". What I also find remarkable is how much actual research in biotech is done with public money. And how much big pharma spends on marketing, as opposed to actual research. http://www.huf
8.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
> when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would. I wouldn
9.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
In a system without patents, collusion would be checked by increased competition. As it is, FRAND patents are irrelevant, because as it has been already shown, some companies fail to disclose, others refuse to play... and are not required t
10.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
If anything makes the case for the complete abolition of the patent system, then the so called FRAND patents are it. It's interesting to see how the notion is completely lost on some supporters of the FRAND patent regime. Their argument is
11.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
Lol that would be highly unethical. More seriously though, names are not people. Corporations are people, my friend. Oh and lastly, I do tend to think that on the basis of defamation alone, a reasonable argument for trademarks could be made
12.
by distant-uncle 14y ago
At least in the case of trademarks, the potential for defamation gives it some credibility. I suppose from the standpoint of brand confusion alone, trademarks and patents are both equally unethical in that they both do not recognize indepen