After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <LRyAk.37749$De7.35183@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> He's done a lot of stuff, and some of it good (for the world) stuff.
>> That doesn't mean his interests are always coincident with the public
>> good, however.
>
> Of course. It would be interesting if someone could offer an argument
> as to which side of the fence his patent buying and licensing company
> falls. So far, all we've seen are arguments from people who believe
> that there shouldn't be a patent system at all.
I'd liken Nathan's activities to those of a professional ticket scalper.
Except that there seems to be a real possibility of litigation following
eventually from some of the patents.
Myhrvold's group, according to a fairly recent article in the New
Yorker, brainstorms a lot of ideas and concepts and patents the good
ones for later sale. Buying up a lot of the landscape, and selling off
some of it. To the extent that the land is put to fertile use, that is
probably a good thing. Otherwise, it is like letting people move onto
the land and build on it, then suing them for trespass.
The small players don't get use of the land, and the public commons
shrinks.
Myhrvold is milking the patent system, the way that Gates was able to
milk the OEM system, and others have milked accounting practices and
shell corporations.
Or "gamed" instead of "milked", if you prefer.
It's just my little old analogy, don't over-analyze it!
Shall I mix in a few more metaphors?
--
Youth had been a habit of hers so long that she could not part with it.
|
|
