N
Nicholas Buenk
David Maynard said:My answer was correct with the *whole* sentence that you chopped up to
change the meaning.
You were 'demanding' that the *inventor" should be 'required to do more'
to "keep up with other peoples improvements to the product" and the market
*does* take care of that because if he doesn't 'keep up' then he looses
market share just like anyone else would who doesn't 'keep up'.
No it won't, others are effectively kept out of that market niche with the
patent law. That market niche can be incrediably viable to a consumer, the
alernatives can be much weaker.
No he doesn't. He 'owns' his patented idea that is but one piece of 'the
market'.
See above.
You keep claiming that but, as I've said before, studies done on the mater
don't support your 'intuition'.
What studies?
Yes, there is. Because it was *his* damn invention.
That doesn't warrent him holding onto a patent for years and decades, a few
months for the computer industry is fair enough. There must be a middle
ground between what is fair for inventers and consumers.
What you want to do is not much different than stealing your neighbor's
crops after he put in all the work to plant and grow them, with the
'excuse' that *his* stuff is 'better' than the other's crops so you have a
'right' to steal his 'better stuff'.
No not at all, if that neighbor's crops are better than everyone elses than
he has the advantage when trying to sell them. What you are proposing is
that everyone else who tries to make equally good crops are taken to court
and fined.