Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lapchinj
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by felixdd
Because you lay stake to "intellectual property" that you're not using, nor have any intent in doing so. Someone else whose intent is to make life easier are now denied their legimate needs, based on what we dictate to be "legally" right and wrong...
|
Are you saying that in order to own a patent I must be doing something with it and am not allowed to sit on it? I can buy real estate and do nothing for years with it. I only have an intention to build on it - someday. |
I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, that you must do something with a patent. If you own a patent and don't do anything with it, then you are holding back technological advancement and society as a whole in the name of greed. As the old saying goes, "sh1t or get off the pot". If you don't do anything with it, then give it to someone who will. By "doing something with it", this includes coming to an agreement to share with someone who will. That is perfectly acceptable if this intention is clear from the start. If NTP had gone out looking for partners to work on this, all would be fine. But they didn't. They just waited. To lie in wait, then ambush someone with a patent violation as NTP has done is immoral and wrong. Legal, but wrong.
Its also ironic you bring up the land example because there are in fact emminent domain laws in the US that allow the government to take land from people in the interests of societal improvement. The Supreme Court in fact just held up an emminent domain case a while back. We do this with land, but not with ideas.
Oh, and Ed, by the way, just because we don't agree with your opinion on this doesn't make you the rational one and us a bunch of raving, illogical lunatics. No one is denying that NTP has the law on its side. At least not me. But the patent laws are clearly outdated and to urge changes so that what is currently lawful is changed to become right morally too is not crazy talk. There have been injustices throughout history that have only been corrected when "illogical ones" tried to urge changes.
In any case, I cannot believe that you truly believe that NTP has the right to $612 large ones based on invalid patents - that you believe that the court can't change it's rulings based on new evidence. I'm not a lawyer but I can't believe that there is precedent that allows the court to ignore pertinent new facts in a case. If there is, I'd like to see the judge's reasoning behind his ruling that the patent rejections by the patent office are "a separate issue" and not pertinent to the case.