The last time Hackerfall tried to access this page, it returned a not found error. A cached version of the page is below, or click here to continue anyway

Moom removed from salehopefully temporarily · Tales of a Running Bird

“Eugene Sinestra:”

> Should be very easy to take a license and continue selling.

How do you know this?

How do you have even the faintest idea re ease/difficulty of obtaining a license in this specific case?

> The patent owner (who is the little guy here, contrary to the jungle law comment above)

Again, how do you know the relative “size” of the patent owner? Do you have a copy of their annual report?

You have zero idea what you’re talking about.

> [The patent owner] wrote you, he didnt sue you.

a) No one said anyone sued anyone. Why are you bringing it up?

b) How do you know the patent owner is a “he” and not a corporation?

The INVENTOR is listed as “Nelson; Daniel Paul (Salt Lake City, UT).” That could be a person or a corporation. Or a person who sold the patent to a corporation that is now the owner.

Again, you haven’t the faintest idea who’s big, who’s little, or whether that’s a hole in the ground.

> In fact, Im not sure why a license wouldnt be a clear avenue for proceeding here,

Then allow me to assist your understanding.

A license could be ruinously expensive.

A license could be encumbered with onerous limitations which make carrying on business difficult.

A license will definitely need to be negotiated. That will require an attorney. Aside from the eventual cost of the license itself, the cost of the legal services to obtain it on sane or reasonable terms start in the thousands for the initial consultation and escalate rapidly from there.

This is why a license isn’t necessarily a clear or even a possible avenue.

You’re welcome.

> …instead of writing a blog post

Learn to read.

Rob and Peter explained their reason posting. They couldn’t have been more clear. They were forced to yank their product abruptly and it will be several days before they can find out what is going to happen next.

They posted in order to explain this.

> …to decry that youve been caught taking someone elses property?

If a straightforward and fairly obvious idea that’s been implemented and brought to market by several companies at various times is “someone’s property,” then Rope, Protective Covering for Human Feet (with Laces), and “The Wheel” are also someone’s “property” and we should all hire attorneys before leaving the house in the morning.

No one got “caught taking” anything.

Here’s the deal:

Some people devote time and energy to building things of value.

Others have no interest in building anything. Instead, they use a severely broken legal system as a weapon to shake down the builders and creators for cash.

Ultimately, who pays that cash? If you think the answer is Rob and Peter, take econ 101.

You may or may not be a purchaser of this particular product. But anything that increases the cost of ANY product increases its price.

Do you get it?

All of us pay for this useless, unproductive extortion all day long. It’s kind of like a sales tax, except we don’t get any roads or bridges out of it.

There are companies whose entire business consists of buying stacks of idiotic patents and threatening to sue people. That’s all they do. They invent nothing. They build nothing. They contribute nothing. They just take money.

So maybe rethink how “clear” an avenue this license is, because you’re the one paying for it.

Continue reading on