|
Authored by: UncleVom on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:16 PM EST |
I suppose there is a limp excuse for that? ;-)
OK probably one of the spammers favourite brand names or something similar. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:41 PM EST |
Link
The Supreme Court of [redacted] this morning shocked
the pharmaceutical industry by voiding Pfizer's patent in [redacted] for
[redacted]. The unanimous decision provides a strong reaffirmation of the policy
behind patent law, namely that patents represent a quid pro quo bargain of
public disclosure of inventions in return for a time limited monopoly in the
invention. The Supreme Court describes it in this way:
The patent system is
based on a "bargain", or quid pro quo: the inventor is granted exclusive rights
in a new and useful invention for a limited period in exchange for disclosure of
the invention so that society can benefit from this knowledge. This is the basic
policy rationale underlying the Act. The patent bargain encourages innovation
and advances science and technology.
Disclosure is therefore a crucial part
of the patent bargain.
Sanity. Nice to
see.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 09:03 PM EST |
That is, those who share are in fact the ones purchasing the media, to the
tune of 30% more money on average than nonsharers?
RIAA-linked researchers dispute this, of course... More copyright math...
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|