On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:48:30 +0200 Polytropon articulated: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:08:19 +0000, David Brodbeck wrote: > > Now, it's reasonable to argue that in some fields the duration of > > that limited monopoly is too long, given how quickly technology > > advances, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't sound. > > It's also debatable if one of today's most prominent use > of patents is fair: "I tell you! I have patents! You are > infringing! I'm not gonna tell you which patents about > what, but I'll sue all your users!" Of course, if such > a claim enters a court, it might be verified or discarded > (because it's just a claim, nothing applicable). In order > not to "risk" a lawsuit, it seems that spreading FUD is > often the more profitable way of using patents: "I told > you! I have patents! But if you pay me $$$, maybe I won't > sue you and your users. Maybe... but now PAY!!!"
How many verifiable (the key word here is verifiable) cases can you name where party A paid party B over an undisclosed patient solely on the bases that party B might institute legal action? -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
