Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pukin Dog
It means that without enforceable patents, no technical advances can be sustained.

Sorry, but that is nuts. Change it to "no company that patents technology can be sustained by it" and you would be right. The technology itself marches on, regardless of what country performs the advances.

I suspect that what he means is, that without enforceable patents, companies will not invest in R&D. Why spend the money and give everyone else a free ride? If this occurs, then technology itself will slow waaay down in its "march".

10 posted on 02/24/2004 4:59:29 PM PST by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: dark_lord
I understand, but that is wrong too.

Think about what Sony did when RCA decided that their patents were not worth enforcing. We still got WEGA, my man. If there are dollars to be made, SOMEBODY will pick up the technology and move it to profitability. The point is that the company that does this will not always be American, and we had better get used to that, and learn to compete more effectively unless we want the trickle to turn into a flood.

14 posted on 02/24/2004 5:17:49 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson