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 : Gemstar Intl (GMST) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Bond who wrote (3796)	9/10/2000 8:23:05 PM
From: Jeff Bond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6516

I still believe GMST owns key proprietary and intellectual property that puts them in the drivers seat. However, I am also somewhat critical of the concept of obtaining patents on universal ideas or concepts vs. specific technological achievements. An analogy would be the idea of patenting a specific better mousetrap vs. the patenting of the concept of building a better mousetrap. One gives rights for a specific products, the other gives broad sweeping rights to a conceptual idea. I DO NOT approve of the second patent method, and unfortunatley this is becoming all the more common these days. Mattel hauled a publisher into court becasue they published a magazine that contained hobby material for Barbie dolls. Mattell argues their rights to Barbie extended into the realm of publications about the buxom babe :o) NBC has patented the three disticnt chimes played on their affiliate stations. A New York attorney is presenting a case arguing professional athletes should have the right to patent their trademark moves, so that no other athlete could use the same move. Agracetus attempted to patent the concept of genetically altering cotton in any manner, after they were successful in creating a specifically altered cotton strain. David Brinkley's publisher quietly paid payoff to an individual who owned the patent to the title of his book "Everyboy is entitled to my opinion". The examples go on and on, and the system in my mind may at some point undergo a shakeout. I'm bringing up the discussion mainly because GMST makes a strong gorilla candidate based on it's patents. Some questions to ponder: 1. Does GMST own broad sweeping patents, or are their patents specific and based on unique application of technology or product? 2. If there ever is a shakeout, how would it affect GMST? 3. Is there a logical point at which technology becomes more important to remain the property of the public domain vs. the property of an individual or corporation? 4. Is the privatization of information, including the ownership of information contained within vast databases of knowledge a threat to future progress? 5. Does this new-age economy need to address the dilemna by over-hauling the patent process, which has remained relatively unchanged since it's conception? I'm particularly discouraged by this turn of events because it has systematically been used to exact a toll from citizens in many of their day to day events. TV signals used to come freely over the air waves, now you pay for that via cable TV. Improvements have been made in content, but what about the basic content for free concept, it will disappear at some point when the FCC cuts off broadcasting via analog signals. More specifically, this inhibits the ability of those less economically priveleged to get ahead. They "waste" resources paying a "toll" for information and concepts at many junctures. It may not be directly, but it is indirectly built into the cost of almost everything we consume. ----------- John Quincy Adams was quoted to say "the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country". ----------- I applaud him for his understanding that our society is built upon the foundation of a lower and middle class that MUST remain the key factor going forward. There will be NO future without the lower and middle class, and to ensure this happens the patent system may have to undergo some serious changes if the pattern that is currently fashionable continues. Perhaps the discussion is a little astray, but it is the feelings I have as I consider why my son's school teacher is forced to come knocking on my door on a Sunday to promote a local bond measure to provide funds for re-vamping schools in need of repair. If the middle class becomes unable to fund the necessary educational process to ensure their children are able to learn what they need to know, I'd say we're close to the point of something happening. How does this relate to GMST directly? Probably not very much ... but does it not relate to each and every one of us in one way or another? I think so! I encourage all readers to consider what exactly is proper or not to patent, especially as it relates to foregoing direct financial benefit for the good of society going forward. If we don't, we run the serious risk of stagnating the very process that made this country so great, and plant the seeds for rebellion from those that no longer have access to the information and technology they need to participate in this society. Make the process of supporting the lower and middle class a part of your everyday life, and you will be doing much to ensure the future of your children and grandchildren is a little bit brighter. In working to get so far ahead, there comes a point where it may make sense to ask "why am I so focused on this endeavor, and where do I draw the line between supporting my own personal goals vs. those of society as a whole"? Happy Sunday to all, best to all GMST longs, and just a warning ... don't even mess with the idea of cutting & pasting, saving, or printing this post ... because it is my intellectual property :o) Regards, JB P.S. All comments on GMST technology and patents sincerely appreciated, I am not up to speed on the extent to which the 100 plus patents are categorized as broad and sweeping vs. specific patents.