On Oct 9, 10:44*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ea311077-257b-4041-adc5-
, says...



On Oct 9, 12:37 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Elect a Congress that will take the asshole's patents away from him if
he continues to insist that the government force other businesses to
license them.

He's _insisting_ that the CPSC grant him a de facto monopoly? *They're
free to say no. *You're projecting superhuman powers onto this Gass
guy. *I wonder if he can fly backwards around the Earth and reverse
time?

And he'll keep on lobbying until eventually they say yes. *This isn't
the first time he's tried this approach you know, and it's clear that *
he won't give up until either he gets his way or somebody takes his ball
away from him and sends him home.

I'd like to elect a Congress that would take away your right to post
on Usenet.

It is unlikely that the courts would find that Congress has that power.

That makes just as much sense. *The guy is doing nothing outside his
rights, yet you want government to intervene and _take_ something away
from him. *There was a mention of the government buying his patent
from him, which makes way more sense.

No, I want government to place a condition on giving him his way. *If he
wants to lobby for forcing people to license his patents then the
conditions should be that he's not allowed to profit from the
regulation.

All the CPSC has to do is adopt the new safety regulations and place a
compliance date that is well into the future. What, five years? That
should give the lawyers and development teams time to duke it out and
come up with alternatives.

That's similar to what the FDA did with BPA. When the BPA reports
first came out the FDA went on record saying that was NO problem with
BPA...and then a while later said OOPS! The intervening time gave
manufacturers time to retool and get rid of inventory.

In any event there are mechanisms in place for dealing with monopolies
and anti-trust regulations. *Oh, wait, those aren't free market
mechanisms so they must be bad things. *

So you're saying that you're fine if the government gives him his
regulation then takes his company away from him under the antitrust act?

If so then we're pretty close to the same page.

Pretty close. I didn't say take the patent away. The guy deserves to
be paid for his work and invention. A forced arbitration would be a
start. A lump sum payment, amortized and paid back by the licenses
over five or ten years would make sense.

The guy developed something new that works, patented it, set his price
and tried to license it, got shot down, persevered, started
manufacturing them himself, and is now going through the proper
channels to improve saw safety (though he does seem to believe he has
a lock on any and all attempts at an alternative system). If by
chance he happens to make the odd million or twenty for his largesse,
well, that's not his fault!

If that's not an American success story I don't know what is.

Remember the Workmate guy? He dabbled in workbenches and was always
tinkering. Had his shop make some magnesium prototypes, and tried to
sell the patent outright to the major tool manufacturers for $50K.
Free and clear - $50K...and he got shot down. Started manufacturing
them himself and last I knew he'd made enough money to buy his own
island.

Gass is that same type, except he's a patent lawyer and a PHD. I have
no knowledge of what the guy is like personally, but from his actions
I'm guessing he's part pitbull and maybe a little short on the warm
and fuzzies. But the guy's no dummy and it will probably cost the
tool manufacturer's more in the long run to have shot him down.

I'm still going to look into electing a Congress that will take your
Usenet posting rights away. I'll be doing it for the children.

R