Originally posted by shartley

This has NOTHING to do with SP wanting the sport to grow or not. It has to do with them thinking they have a right to something and are now attempting to enforce that right. We may not agree with it, and they may be wrong in thinking they have a right… but they deserve to be able to state their case in court.

Again… if AGD, WGP, or ANY other company (aside from BE, since folks seem to hate them as well… for running their BUSINESS like a BUSINESS), were to aggressively enforce what THEY thought were their rights, folks would cheer them for it. Enforcing what you consider your rights does not mean you don’t want the sport to grow. Heck, it would actually be to your benefit if it DID grow, all the while getting what you deserve from its growth.

Folks just want to be polarized on this issue because of personal feelings… I can understand that. But at least be honest about it. I don’t think any company listed, if held up to scrutiny on each and every decision they made, would walk away shiny and clean under the same standards folks want to hold the “bad guys” to.

This has nothing to do with who wants the sport to grow or not. But of course, as in most cases, it is common practice to make the other side “look” bad…. whether they truly are or not. It is easier to form a “like” or “dislike” about a person or company, than it is to just look at what is actually happening….. that is why not everyone makes good Police Officers, or Judges.
well, you are absolutly right on a lot of things. However the point of this is not a company enforcing their rights.. it's a discussion about if they should have the right. Does SP have the right to patent the electro? Other companies HAVE patented things, and noone has thrown a fit about it. Does anyone think it's ok to copy the shocker or Imp? NO. Don't go making those clones, but the basis for the design is public knowledge, and has been for some time.

And as for this being competitive and just standard jockying in business, that's not true. Patents are inherently anti-competitive. They are there to promote innovation. If noone has the assurance that their ideas won't be stolen, it gives them less incentive to design new things. Patents don't make things more competitve, they eliminate competition. That's not necessarily bad, as you can see, innovation is a good thing. However when someone patents an invention that isn't theirs, what do you do?

So no, this isn't all just a polarization, whipped up by emotional exuberance. It's about intellectual property rights, and their affect on an industry many use and depend on for goods. The argument is that SP shouldn't be allowed to force others to stop producing, because they have no legitimate claim to the invention of these products.

not a major disagreement, I try to be as unbiased as possible. But I've seen enough to know that SP knows that what they are doing is shady, and yet they continue.