Analysis of the EAP, page-935

@LeftYahoo - you appear to be writing some good stuff. And its being appreciated going on the tick and great analysis count.

But what "issues of infringement" are you aware of?

I noticed another well regarded postor Ecoool2 in a recent post seemed to change or modify his position on patent infringement in that he at least acknowledged the possibility that MSB too could infringe on patents. His acknowledgement was, in my opinion, just the sort of acknowledgement of it being one of a range of types of risk. He was speaking generally not specifically.

I'm not trying to give posters who are pro MSB a hard time. I'm not anti-MSB. But I do want to make the point that patents aren't magic and they aren't like some latin mass that has to be interpreted to the masses that can't speak latin - they aren't intended to be make-work for a priesthood (though priesthoods of the modern variety will accept make-work if they can get it) - they are intended to be instruments of sound social and economic policy in which a temporary specific monopoly is granted as an incentive to innovate and run the expense of innovating with a prospect of getting a fair return. They need to be specific. Fuzzy talk about families of patents seems disingenuous to me regardless of who does it - only a specific patent can be infringed. Though of course more than one infringement may occur.

To talk of infringements without specifying what is infringed i like talking about trespassing without saying on which ground or land the trespass occurred. It seems mischievous. If you are not personally aware of any specific patents being infringed please don't suggest they have been - if you are please state which are the patents of concern to you.