Tbh, I am surprised that you seem to know the exact legal situation in regards to patent law in Canada of 1923, and that you have such a strong opinion on that matter.
I would recommend you to read the corresponding Wikipedia secton where all the thinking that went into that decision is laid out quite well.
I would venture to say that legal experts of the time at the time understood the patent law of the time a little better than some random users on Lemmy.
You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.
I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.
While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren’t supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn’t “having new arguments”. It’s “running out of arguments but not admitting to it”. And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there’s no point bringing new arguments apart from “a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row”.
You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t mention the arguments you made and just called it a “contemporary source”. I can’t take you seriously anymore, you’re arguing on the level of a C- high school student.
You’ve also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I’ve said. Every single time I’ve pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you’re right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t even mention the word “disclaim” or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.
Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they’re just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don’t want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That’s not a legal arguement, that’s an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can’t be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.
You haven’t provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.
If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.
Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that’s what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it’s on Wikipedia?
I’ve directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You’re literally just making shit up now. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to engage with you anymore. You’ve notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would’ve been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is “they didn’t chose it, and they couldn’t possibly have been wrong”. According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must’ve been the right decision.
Come back when you’ve learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.
Tbh, I am surprised that you seem to know the exact legal situation in regards to patent law in Canada of 1923, and that you have such a strong opinion on that matter.
I would recommend you to read the corresponding Wikipedia secton where all the thinking that went into that decision is laid out quite well.
I would venture to say that legal experts of the time at the time understood the patent law of the time a little better than some random users on Lemmy.
You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.
Just a weird, coincidence I’m sure.
I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.
While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren’t supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn’t “having new arguments”. It’s “running out of arguments but not admitting to it”. And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there’s no point bringing new arguments apart from “a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row”.
You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t mention the arguments you made and just called it a “contemporary source”. I can’t take you seriously anymore, you’re arguing on the level of a C- high school student.
You’ve also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I’ve said. Every single time I’ve pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you’re right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t even mention the word “disclaim” or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.
Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they’re just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don’t want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That’s not a legal arguement, that’s an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can’t be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.
You haven’t provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.
If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.
Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that’s what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it’s on Wikipedia?
I’ve directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You’re literally just making shit up now. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to engage with you anymore. You’ve notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would’ve been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is “they didn’t chose it, and they couldn’t possibly have been wrong”. According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must’ve been the right decision.
Come back when you’ve learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.
You haven’t provided a single source that backs up your claim. I will continue to talk with you once you did.