On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> From: steve harley
>> years of appeals will probably ensue, but the stifling effect will start >> now > > > Pretty much the way I read it. The stifling of patented Intellectual Property theft? I believe that is the purpose of the laws that are on the books (to prevent or at least disincentivize that). I'm sure that most of you know that patents exist to reward innovators and stimulate innovation, for the good of society. To allow Intellectual Property larceny would stifle that innovation (and from that we all would suffer). Some of you act like this is the first patent lawsuit judgement you have ever heard of. Presumably most of you are in favor of Pentax being granted patents on their innovations and would have an opinion if some other company "lifted them" to Pentax's detriment. Frankly, it seems like some of you hear the word "Apple" and your heads disappear up your arses. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
