Richard Clark wrote:

Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art,
and promote entepreneurism.


This lies somewhere between misty-eyed dreaming and the soft-porn of
industry pleas.

I'm really just paraphrasing those laws we had been talking about.

There is absolutely no grant nor entitlement, much
less funding that is vested into R&D by the government's supporting
monopoly. Copyrights and Patents are boldfacedly proclaimed as rights
of enforcement ONLY. No R&D lab I've been in had a legal department,
and most companies that did have a legal department, bought their R&D
and simply did the marketing.

Always with the negative waves, Mr. Clark.

Jim, you got any of your own patents? Ever copyright any substantial
work? How much did it tilt the balance ledger? There's reality.

Yes, I have and it is. But apparently my expectations were more
realistic than yours, and I somehow managed to avoid becoming a bitter
and pessimistic 'victim' of the big mean government men. Buck-up a
little fer cryin' out loud.

ac6xg