Title fixed accordingly.

"Troy Kirkland" wrote in message news:...
> "Hadron" wrote in message
> news:fpuq25$c23$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Mark Kent writes:

>>>> The same should go for patents.
>>> The first thing to consider is whether patent should ever be
>>> transferrable
>>> from the original inventor. To my mind, if a company employs someone
>>> who invents something, that invention should remain the property of
>>> that person, and the company should license it from them, similarly, it
>>> should not be possible to sell on patents to patent trolling companies
>>> like Acacia, or anyone else, for that matter.
>>> It's about time that ownership of such things was returned to the real
>>> inventors...

>> If ever there was a time that Mark Kent revealed himself to be a troll
>> it is now.
>> Listen to what he is saying : a company who employs someone is not
>> entitled to the things that that employee is paid to work on. He is
>> is a troll or absolutely making it with a tele-tubbie.

> Absolutely amazing. Just when I thought that nobody could be more clueless
> than Schestowitz or "Mark S. Bilk" this Kent troll comes along with this
> hillarious suggestion.
> Aside from the blatant stupidity... it simply makes zero sense at all.
> Take for example some research being done at IBM. The researcher is being
> paid a salary by IBM. The company (IBM) is also the one funding the
> research and "assuming the risk" because it's completely likely that the
> research might not pan out in the end. Depending on the research being
> done, the cost of the facilities and equipment could easily run $10's of
> millions of dollars which is yet another investment that IBM is making.
> According to the Kent idiot... if something is discovered or invented from
> all of this then IBM who paid the salary and put up all of the investment
> and took all of the risk, they would be nothing! The researcher would get
> to keep everything and simply walk out the door.
> This is just absurd! No wonder that Mark Kent is an unemployed janitor.
> What a sort of idiot would even suggest something so stupid.
>> FWIW, I do agree with stopping the selling of patents to a degree. Use
>> it or lose it in other words.

> Couldn't this be gotten around by granting an exclusive "license" to the
> patent which would effectively be the same thing. And companies do license
> patents all the time which is completely valid as far as I'm concerned.

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com