Dell Technologies Inc. Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc.

DELL 139.84

-2.0%

9:58 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: rudedog who wrote (67930)	9/28/1998 5:34:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) of 176387

Sorry, dog, but you've made a mess on the rug of Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act, problems of patent pooling, abuse of patents, and monopoly and restraint of trade. First, Compaq should have patented PCI-X because patent (and copyright) is the only mode of intellectual property protection. Had Compaq patented PCI-X or some necessary part of it, it could not then have conspired with IBM and HP to exclude or injure other competitors. This is established law -- a patent cannot be used to leverage a shared monopoly or cartel. A restrictive license between a patentee and only some of its competitors is clearly illegal. Second, any group of competitors who agree to a standard or preferential patent pool are an illegal cartel as long as they have a significant market share (a fifth? a third?). They need not be or directly threaten to become a monopoly. Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 have very different elements of the crime.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next