Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #75029Re: Effect of Apple lawsuit
From: James Helman
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 03:42
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 03:42
43 lines
3038 bytes
3038 bytes
If a company believes a certain course of action would render them at litigious risk, it would be imprudent for that company to pursue that course. That company is effectively barred from entering a market, and it is impossible for them to compete in that market. Perhaps not barred from entering it, but it could end up as a painful experience if that company's lawyers' initial judgement differs from the one eventually rendered by the courts. Kodak vs. Polaroid comes to mind. And if it's difficult even for top patent lawyers to understand the scope and impact of patents and other intellectual property protections, woe be to lowly engineers venturing to build something. RMS's random variable theory of legal decision gains some credence when you see companies get burned by unexpected changes in the legal system (such as the court restructuring about ten years ago that left us with a much more "pro-patent" legal system, a change which Kodak's lawyers did not anticipate. Whoops! Only a couple billion down the drain.) Patent protection was meant to foster innovation. It could probably fulfill this purpose if the laws were modified to reflect 20.9th century technology and society, instead 18th century ones. As it is, sadly, the patent monopolies granted by government to advance technology are often used either as portfolio weapons in cross- licensing battles between the big boys or as a government granted license to sue, extort and intimidate. If current trends continue, upstarts will have nary a niche which isn't blocked by one or more patents or UI copyrights. Some legal protection of intellectual property is needed, but things are getting way out of hand when the government regularly grants one person a 17 year monopoly on an idea which at least dozen other people would "invent" in the normal course of their work or research within a year or so. Protecting the myriad of such minor innovations only benefits the lawyers and their jockeys. It certainly doesn't foster major innovation. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<JIM.90Nov28224257@baroque.Stanford.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!bu.edu!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!baroque!jimReferences:
<9011221812.AA15976@mole.ai.mit.edu> <14433@arisia.Xerox.COM> <BOB.90Nov27132730@volitans.MorningStar.Com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1e40d03b45d4f08f X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1990-11-28 19:42:57 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!bu.edu!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!baroque!jim From: jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Effect of Apple lawsuit Message-ID: <JIM.90Nov28224257@baroque.Stanford.EDU> Date: 29 Nov 90 03:42:57 GMT References: <9011221812.AA15976@mole.ai.mit.edu> <14433@arisia.Xerox.COM> <BOB.90Nov27132730@volitans.MorningStar.Com> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Organization: Stanford University Lines: 43 Posted: Thu Nov 29 04:42:57 1990 In-Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com's message of 27 Nov 90 18:27:38 GMT