On 25 Apr 2006 09:05:45 -0700, cs_posting@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> John Fields wrote:
>> > The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know
>> > it. Here's the original:
>> > "Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing
>> > as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual
>> > property."
>> > And here's its second even more heinous incarnation, from above:
>> > "recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to
>> > use the invention"
>> That's your statement not mine!
>Specifically, by dropping the "as virtual property" from my original,
>John constructed a new statement with a nearly opposite meaning of the
>original, then fradulently attributed his new statement to me so that
>he could argue against an outrageous straw man, rather than the
>reasoned arguments I actually presented.
I misread your second statement and trimmed it for convenience. I
apologize for that.
However, my position is still that the idea is inherently the
property of its originator, who should be free to do with it what he
chooses. Give it away, sell it, rent it, whatever.
Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the
idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of
collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how
it'll be used.
Professional Circuit Designer