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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacky AY who wrote (34717)	3/17/1998 6:55:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 176387

I have read your many well thought out posts on this and other threads and therefore am surprised at your inflexibility on the question of process patents. The simplistic examples you give do not cover the range of process which can be patented, which can include methods of analyzing inventory, production prediction methods, etc. General Motors has a large number of such patents covering JIT processes, most developed in the mid to late 70's when they were trying to copy the Japanese model. Few of these have anything to do with the underlying business of making cars. They were put into place because GM was doing a lot of process development work to get suppliers to play along with the JIT game. If GM did not have patent protection, and since Ford and Chrysler used many of those same suppliers, they could have waited for GM to debug the processes and then just implemented the same supply strategies with those same vendors, with no development cost. Sure, Ford and Chrysler did JIT too, but they had to create their own methods, not just piggy-back on GM's. We have a patent attorney on staff who specializes in technology patents, and I suspect Thomas Dakes does also. I'm not talking through my hat. You do your otherwise excellent thinking a disservice when you take a position which can be easily disproved by a huge body of evidence.