Regarding warning labels (Dec. 8, etc.): I received a medication information leaflet for a new medication from the Wal-Mart pharmacy. It read: "contact your physician immediately if you experience confusion or loss of consciousness". (The medication is Phos-Lo).
BTW, great blog. Keep it coming; I look forward to reading it.
-- Jeff Sheridan, Berwick, Pa.
I read the WSJ piece about patent enforcement (see Sept. 16) and I don't get it. I understand that the plaintiffs are persons who do not manufacture the good that has been patented, but so what? I am not getting an impression that there's something wrong with the system, e.g.: (1) the law makes it too easy to determine that someone has infringed a patent; (2) there is a problem in the way that the scope of patents is defined such that persons who really have not infringed are being charged with infringement; or (3) these suits are entirely frivolous (i.e., there's no reasonable question that infringement took place) and yet plaintiffs aren't being sanctioned for their bringing these suits (an example of which would be the case you cite in which the court threw out a claim on statute-of-limitations grounds).
All I'm getting is that Inventor, after properly patenting Invention, sells the patent rights to Enforcer. Enforcer uses the legal system to protect the patent from infringement by Big Manufacturing Conglomerate. Now, I don't know where Enforcer is getting the money to pay Inventor, or (if Enforcer is getting the money from his enforcement efforts), Enforcer is giving Inventor more money than BMC would pay.
But let's assume that's the case.
What makes BMC think that it's OK to infringe on a patent just because Inventor is not making the product himself? It's none of BMC's business. Whether Inventor is or isn't making the product, BMC may not infringe.
And if BMC wants the patent so bad, why doesn't it buy the patent? Or, if Inventor did such a good job with his invention that BMC can't make what it wants to make without using the invention, and it's not willing to pay what Inventor wants, then BMC should make something else. Sorry, but that's life. I'd love to make and sell iPods, but I'm not allowed to.
Then, with fewer infringers, Enforcer can't pay so much for inventions and Inventors have an incentive to market their inventions or to sell them to someone who will make something.
In other words, this problem sounds like one that is entirely the responsibility of Big Manufacturing Conglomerate; if BMC would follow the rules, the market would cause the problem to go away.
-- Barton Jacka, San Diego
If anyone wants to probe the "chilling effects" of copyright lawsuits and the nasty techniques IP lawyers use against writers and publishers, feel free to contact me. I fought the Tolkien estate for over a year for the right to publish my Lord of the Rings chronology, Untangling Tolkien (available on Amazon.com). I won a nice out-of-court settlement agreement that lets me talk about everything but the settlement. And I love to talk about what's wrong with the current system.
-- Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
I am writing to comment about your remark (Reason, Nov. 1997) "Already, Cincinnati is reported to have enacted a municipal ordinance declaring 'Appalachian heritage' to be a legally protected category in hiring and firing. When heading for the job interview, pack your dulcimer."
Although I respect your credentials & you are apparently well-known, you are dead wrong about this particular issue. Yes, indeed discrimination DOES occur as the result of Appalachian heritage & dialect. By dialect alone, the person of Appalachian heritage is distinguished as soon as he/she opens their mouth......and judgments are made that Appalachians are ignorant, poor, inbred & barefoot. The media (& filmmakers) has propagated this misconception. I should know, I am Appalachian-born, the daughter of a coal miner, and very proud of my heritage. I am a registered nurse, have a college degree (as do both my children) and have traveled the U.S. I find this discrimination in "pockets" across the U.S. I view it as evidence of ignorance, regardless of the high-brow circles from which it occurs, and am glad I don't live & work in these areas.
No, I don't "pack my dulcimer" (as you suggest) when I head to an interview, but I enjoy this traditional Appalachian instrument & hope to learn to play it myself someday--it is a delightful instrument. I also enjoy classical musical instruments & opera--because my interests and talents are much larger than the region of my heritage. Perhaps unintentionally, this remark evidences that you also have pre-conceived notions about Appalachia. Contrary to beliefs about the lifestyles in this region, we don't all sit on the porch in the evening, chewing tobacco & strumming a Dulcimer. So I challenge you--before you write another book or appear on another TV show -- to lose the suit & tie & actually come to the Appalachian regions of this country for a visit. If you come with a truly open mind & take an inside look, you will take away a new respect for this heritage.
In your zeal to propose that the discrimination issues have been carried too far, remember that you will never walk in the same shoes & therefore cannot possibly know the real discrimination that still occurs.
-- Pam Baker, Lexington, Ky.