[ale] Phillips CD patent

[Geoffrey]

tfreeman at intel.digichem.net wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
> 
>>tfreeman at intel.digichem.net wrote:
>>
>>>IANAL either, and a copy of the letter from Phillips might make much 
>>>confusion go away, but I understood the issue to be the use of blank media 
>>>from manufacturers who are not paying for the use of the technology. As 
>>>such, perhaps, and IANAL, the legal theory may fall more on the side of 
>>>knowingly receiving stolen goods 
>>
>>Unlikely I would think.  How is it that you would know that the 
>>manufacture did not pay the royalty fees?  You don't.  If I steal a 
> 
> 
> Well, with a letter you now do. Looking at the posted letter, the lawyers 
> are putting people on notice that there is a risk involved with 
> associating with certain, named, corporations. Given the speed of legal 
> processes, Phillips is certainly using scare tactics. The tactic may well 
> have just enough validity to be both painful and expensive for somebody on 
> the receiving end, even if ultimately specific cases would be never 
> brought to trial.

I don't believe that the fact that you didn't research whether all your 
vendors were licensed would hold up in court.  It's not your 
responsibility to police them.

If this was true, companies wouldn't be doing anything BUT researching 
all their vendors.

> 
> 
>>electronic piece of equipment and you buy it from me at a yard sale, you 
>>are not aware of the crime, therefore it's unlikely that you would be 
>>even charged.  IANALANWTB...
>>
> 
> 
> I'm translating that as "I ain't a lawyer and never want to be", a 

Correct.

> sentiment I agree with fully. Unfortunately, lawyers sit in judgement of 
> business operations (actually all professions), so a business needs to 
> make decisions which not only make business sense, but have solid defenses 
> against legal predations. Phillips has made a legal position known. 
> Ignoring that position potientially could be expensive, regardless of 
> outcome, and should be addressed.

Regardless, I still don't believe that because you received a letter 
indicating that SOME people are doing something illegal, that you are 
bound to verify that none of your vendors fall into that category.

> 
> IANAL, don't actually understand their supposed logic, but have seen their 
> ability to absorb thirty-seven times their own weight in other people's 
> resources far too often. (FWIW, I've got two relatives who lost businesses 
> due to their inablitlity to defend against legal predation.)

I understand your point, but would hope that there would be enough 
intelligence out there that this would not get that far.

Yeah, yeah, I know....

> 
> 

-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale