"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:llfrv7tshh8nm5u2p...@4ax.com:
Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is the best solution.
>>>>I believe that the main problem with the
>>>>sawstop technology is that Stephen Gass looked at it as a get rich
>>>>quick scheme. Of course that is fine if he can sell it to industry
>>>>and consumers of all kinds. His heavy-handed sales techniques have
>>>>offended everyone (just about), but that does not mean his
>>>>invention(s) are bad, on the contrary. Patents were invented and
>>>>instituted to promote inventions, enhance the public welfare
>>>>(whatever), and give the inventor a just reward.
>>>
>>> We agree on this part. We don't agree about the solution. I'd
>>> rather do something that's, you know, legal (and moral).
>>
>>But there is a solution. If Gass's patents turn out to be a de facto
>>monopoly, because the bills being discussed will absolutely require
>>using his technologies (remember?) then government or whoever should
>>set the maximum license fees. Or don't you remember that Gass really
>>wants a lot?
>
> No, the solution is for government to tell him to pound salt. He'll
> then drop the licensing fees to something more reasonable. ...or not
> and leave money on the table (saw).
I don't know what the best course of action is. There are too many
tablesaws in use by people who don't know how to handle them (I got
lessons by my Craftsman what NOT to do. but it could have come out worse,
and I had good insurance). For those people it would be good to have
something like sawstop technology. While I don't really think that there
ought to be laws imposing the Gass patents on all consumers, the approach
of encouraging similar technology seems justifiable. But then we get
into the problem of encouraging a de facto monopoly, and I would
definitely be against that.
>>>>I believe that in the case where an invention becomes a monopoly,
>>>>that the inventor is obliged to license his invention at
>>>>"reasonable" cost, not an exorbitant cost.
>>>
>>> It's only a "monopoly" if government forces it to be a monopoly.
>>
>>But if CA or the Consumer protection whatever issue rules or laws that
>>require the technology, then "government forces it to be a monopoly".
>
> Well, there's the *real* problem that needs fixing!
I'd call it a conundrum if you would like to prevent the injuries but
don't like Gass's prices.
>>>>My hyperbolic statements were meant to emphasize
>>>>the reasonableness of the fees. As for taking, there is also
>>>>eminent domain - much maligned, often improperly practiced, but such
>>>>"takings" are allowed by the Constitution.
>>>
>>> That's right. You lefties think it's OK to take someone's house to
>>> give to a shopping mall builder because they'll pay more taxes.
>>> Taking someone's IP, so the government can meddle more, isn't a big
>>> stretch, is it?
>>
>>I didn't think the CT case was a very good one, and there are likely
>>many more. Sometimes though, eminent domain is good. I'm sure you
>>can find examples ...
>
> There are *many* that the Kelo decision let loose. ...and you want to
> widen the chasm even further.
?? What chasm am I widening?? The Kelo decision has to regarded as an
aberration. Especially after "they" decided not to do the project they
initially proposed.
>>As for Gass's inventions, I'm sure that they'll eventually will come
>>up with a way to remunerate him. After all, he is a lawyer ...
>
> "They"? Who's "they"? Why don't *we* let his invention stand on its
> own? Sure, I'd like to have a SawStop but I wasn't willing to pay 2x
> for it. A couple hundred, most probably. $2000? Not happening.
When (as may seem likely) the CA or Fed authorities mandate Gass-like
technology, the license fees will need to be established.
My TS is still OK. But if I were to buy a new one, I think SS is in the
running. I'd have to price it carefully, though. Not anytime soon ...
>>As for "taking IP", most companies take their employees' IP very
>>easily and fast. Just read the rules of employment. You have to have
>>very good records to show that your invention was yours, derived at
>>home, outside working hours, if you don't want "them" to take it. I
>>believe that the "Auto-Analyzer" invention was such a case.
>
> They didn't *TAKE* anything. It's a contract, willingly entered into.
> There is a *big* difference!
If Joe working for Big Gadgets in the daytime makes something in the off-
hours that he is then marketing as a viable competitor for Big Gadgets'
product line, then I assume that Big Gadgets will want the rights. In
the case of what became Auto-Analyzer, Big Gadgets was NOT successful.
>>And yes, I am of the opinion that an inventor should be rewarded for
>>his/her efforts. Just not that it should be an exorbitant reward,
>>thanks to lawyering, lobbying, and prescribing (with great emphasis on
>>exorbitant - generous is enough).
>
> Who decides what's "exorbitant"? You? I haven't paid Gass a dime,
> and won't.
I'm sure lawyers will determine that.