Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : NCDR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (683)	6/10/1999 10:25:00 AM
From: lindend	Respond to of 1440

Art, apparently you have a patent attorney that likes to churn your account. I've never paid for a patent in my life (although I'm good friends with my IP attorney). Anyone familiar with the software industry realizes that software engineers assign their rights to their employers (typically in exchange for a bonus) and are not responsible for fees. So far, I've worked at two large companies and two small ones and they all were fanatical about getting software patents. Large one's like IBM don't care what its about, smaller ones require it to be germane to the field in question, but they ALL want patents. but that countries like Taiwan and the Philippines have gotten so good at pirating, that the trend was away from patenting software. This person literally has no idea what they are talking about. Care to name names? Software patents have meant the difference between victory and defeat for solutions such as audio and video watermarking and a host of other IP related decisions. For small companies, the need is magnified even more. The only reason two small companies will win in DVD Audio watermarking is because of their strong patent position: techweb.com Both are said to hold essential patents as well as robust watermarking technologies. Small Taiwanese companies may pirate, but the Sonys, IBMs and Matsushita's of the world won't.

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (683)	6/10/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: lindend	Respond to of 1440

I forwarded your so-called Professor's comments to my IP attorney. After he finished laughing, he made the following statements: 1. The professor does not understand of the law (if he indeed said this). 2. Patenting software can be used as a tool to stop pirating. 3. A copyright can be useless if a pirated product is indistinguishable from the real protected work (witness Lotus & Borland's 10 year lawsuit). 4. Companies spend at least 10x more patenting software than copyrighting. He has very serious questions about whether an accredited professor would make such a preposterous statement. Can you name the person who said it and the firm he works for?