On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:

The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
him up on it.

I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.


Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
to a starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-...ave-1069825878


It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
plain and simple.

If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.

If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it.

If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
they earn, then you are the problem, not them.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply