In Reply to: RE: patent -t posted by Sordidman on April 3, 2015 at 10:00:47:
"I apologize as my knowledge here is a bit limited, I also didn't want to stray too far away from music, and music royalty IP."
Well, you prolly have a lot better grasp of the issues for electronics than I do for music. Like most things the rich or unethical have an edge.
But the systems do work some of the time and that's better than nothing. A lot of having them work is playing fairly. For hinstance, back in the early 70's I worked for a smallish outfit, maybe 120 folks or so but it was an old place and had a slough of different products. Once a year RCA would show up to figure out how much we owed them. They owned patent rights to almost everything you could imagine, stuff like Hartly and Colpitts oscillators, various implementations of amplifiers and on and on so we had to pay a royality for each instance. On the other hand the royaltys were tiny for each instance so they would just go through our products to update their data from the previous year and we'd pay them a few thousand buck royalty.
Now the nasty side of patents is where they try to, say, destroy your business rather than just share in the gains to the amount that their invention contributed to it...
Rick
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: patent -t - rick_m 15:48:00 04/03/15 (0)