|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
Yes, I felt a bit dirty when I realized I had ended on Quinn's page, and as I
read some of it, I quickly got sick of the cheap rethorical tricks he uses,
definitely form over substance (and even though he's not in the courtroom,
methinks he pounds on the table an awful lot).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
See the correction thread. Someone has posted the correct link. This article is
from a guest author who wrote a legal analysis without propaganda.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
| The link was wrong. Try this one by
someone who is a
law professor, not
Quinn. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
We need a study to examine the actual ratio of money that goes to the origional
inventor receives out of all the money spent in litigation. Why? Because the
purpose of the entire patent system is for the benifit of the inventor, so that
they can afford to keep inventing.
litigation is for the benifit of the lawyers, and the corporations, not the
inventor. The inventor would likely be paid the same amount reguardless of the
lawsuit outcome, which defyes the entire purpose of the patent system. Showing
that the patent system generally fails at this goal would take a big bite out of
any reason to keep this failed polocy.
---
The Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation is measured as the
inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently litigating.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
