"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Artemus wrote:

At the very least any new law mandating "xyz" should include
mandatory provisions which invalidate all patents, copyrights, etc
relating to "xyz". This would be for the greater good and in
the public interest.

Why in the world would you suggest such a thing as that? I could see it if
you had suggested that the wording of any legislation should be loose enough
to specify alternatives, and not be so specific as to mandate one particular
solution, but to suggest invalidating patents, copyrights, etc. does not
even make sense. I heartily disagree that it would be in the greater good
of the public interest, and even further argue that the public interest is
not sufficient cause for that type of behavior.

--


Replace "xyz" in my statement with "Sawstop" for the perfect example.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Any company attempting to use the
legislative process to gain a monopoly in the market under the auspices
of "for the public good" isn't good. Ergo they should have to relinquish
their patent(s) via the same legislation. Let them compete in the market
on an even footing.
Art