[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Software patent debate: we lose round one

• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:59:33 -0500

Kay Michael wrote:
> 
> >Third, perhaps the term for patents should be set on a
> >per-patent basis?
> 
> Copyright too... If copyright were to expire after a million copies have
> been sold, the developer would still get a fair return and anti-trust trials
> would be unnecessary.

That reminds me of one of my sigs.

Still, what if it takes two million sales of Tomb Raider to recover the
development costs? You just don't make Tomb Raider?

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
At the same moment that the Justice Department and the Federal Trade 
Commission are trying to restrict the negative consequences of 
monopoly, the Commerce Department and the Congress are helping to 
define new intellectual property rights, rights that have a 
significant potential to create new monopolies. This is the policy 
equivalent of arm-wrestling with yourself.
	- http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/04/07/greenspan/index.html

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Software patent debate: we lose round one
    • From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@c...>

• References:
  • RE: Software patent debate: we lose round one
    • From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Software patent debate: we lose round one
• Next by Date: Press Release -XSDG
• Previous by thread: RE: Software patent debate: we lose round one
• Next by thread: Re: Software patent debate: we lose round one
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread