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.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (6459)	2/22/2000 1:15:00 AM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Respond to of 12823

Hello Jim, > First, from a philosophical viewpoint, I understand the view that > we should dispense with patent protection altogether. It reminds me > of the ideology that believes there should be no such thing as > "property". As an abstraction, it's not bad; in reality, it doesn't > work. I agree completely ... I hope that my comments didn't come through that extreme ... > As an addendum to all this, I posted a while ago the story of a > wireless company, who agreed to pay royalties to another company, > even though they disputed the patent. Why? Because the royalty > payment was only $250,000 for the life of the patent. If the price > is low enough, and fair enough, progress is not impeded. Everyone > wins, and innovation continues. This is more the principal that I agree with ... the biggest gains will be made when the market has the ability to grow and foster competition. I actually believe that the mere presence of higher royalty requirements will naturally stifle the progress, and often the success, of any particular technology. I do understand the need for payments to encourage continuing research and development. I like your terms of "low enough, and fair enough" ... Scott C. Lemon