Subject: RE: IC's patent-pending technology
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:09:33 -0700

> Supposing I *did* apply Mr. Cameron's invention for some
> revenue-generating purpose -- I think it *would* be a fair trade
> that either directly or indirectly he got a reward for that.   It's
> not not nearly 20 years of indefinite amounts of reward that I
> think is bogus in this case.

I find it amazing how ready others are to set a price for my property, or to
value my ingenuity and creativity by their own standards. 

Should we resurrect the "sweat of the brow" theory of value for intellectual
property? Does education and experience over a lifetime count for anything
when it makes it possible to recognize the light when it flashes? Does it
matter that the rest of the world missed seeing the light all this time?
These are the issues that patent law raises; they can't be ignored for
software any more than for any other kind of technology.

In any event, what you have told me so far is that, for YOUR free software,
you'd rather avoid patented technology altogether even if it is offered to
you for free but not for commercial use. You don't care that your free
software could be much faster. You'd avoid patents no matter what value they
could add to your software. That's one data point. Thanks.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:52 PM
> To: simo
> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Free Software for Business'; 'Rob Cameron';
> mbeinschlag@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: IC's patent-pending technology
> 
> simo wrote:
> > Under patent law it doesn't matter if you are naive or willfully
> > infringing on a patent.
> 
> It most certainly *does* matter when it comes to damages.
> 
> 
> 
> > That's what I find most disgusting about the
> > patent system, and yet there is no sane way to legislate so that you
> > have patents and still save the naive.
> >
> 
> Supposing I *did* apply Mr. Cameron's invention for some
> revenue-generating purpose -- I think it *would* be a fair trade
> that either directly or indirectly he got a reward for that.   It's
> not not nearly 20 years of indefinite amounts of reward that I
> think is bogus in this case.
> 
> -t