[8501] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Patents, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tansin A. Darcos & Company)
Sun Nov 21 08:19:40 1993
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 07:51:51 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
To: Privatizing the Internet <com-priv@psi.com>
>From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
With respect to Barry's comments on Patents, I forgot to add in the
$4billion bath that Kodak took because it tried to create an instant
camera and film and infringed on Polaroid's patents, and point out
that there are always going to be problems with trying to develop
something where patented technology is covering either all or most
of the means by which development can take place.
It also says something about the incompetence of Kodak management;
since the chance was 100% that Polaroid would sue, they should have
started an independent company to create and market the product, and
let the small spin off with less at risk take the heat and expense
for fighting Polaroid's patents. They could probably have cut at
least $2 or $3 billion off their liability.
[More from Barry Shein]:
> The amount of damage that's been caused by some patents issued
> over the past several years and what has been done with them
> (in more than a few cases their merely being turned over to
> law firms for exploitation with no hi-tech company or attempt
> at development at all) is more than enough to justify a hue
> and cry.
Then perhaps you need to argue either for compulsory licensing or
mandatory use clauses. Compulsory licensing would mean anyone can buy a
license for some fee, fixed by law. Mandatory use says that a patent
becomes available for use by anyone under even less stringent terms if the
owner fails to put the patented product into production and keep it in
production.
> The issue comes down to, as I said, whether the US via the
> USPTO really wants to shoot the country in its own hi-tech
> foot, and provide so many practical reasons to just ignore US
> intellectual property claims. Running a system stupidly, no
> matter how valid the idea, is a sure-fire way to undo the
> system independent of its abstract merits.
>From what I've seen most large companies tend to ignore intellectual
property claims anyway.
- Look how many companies have been sued over Hayes '402 Hetherington
Patent. At one time Hayes was the only company paying AT&T licensing
fees for the Bell 102 and later modem specifications.
- Token ring has been patented but the owner of the patent still has to
sue some companies.
- The inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper system spent
some 3 million dollars in order to gather the evidence to sue the
automobile manufacturers over his method. Every automobile has
intermittent windshield wipers and none of the manufacturers paid
him a dime in royalties. Ford settled for $8 million, and he still
has GM and Chrysler to either come to court or sue. Note that this
patent has long since expired; he's been fighting for compensation
for years.
---
Note: All mail is read/responded every day. If a message is sent to this
account, and you expect a reply, if one is not received within 24 hours,
resend your message; some systems do not send mail to MCI Mail correctly.
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
When you have shot and killed a man you have in some measure
clarified your attitude toward him. You have given a definite answer
to a definite problem. For better or worse you have acted decisively.
In a way, the next move is up to him.
-- R. A. Lafferty
