|
Hey,
Having
been in a company where we were battling with another one over this kind of
issue, I can strongly speculate what is happening.
- Stock price valuation
In the
case I am aware of, company Q claims to have invented a technology actually
invented by an actress in 1942. But by making such claim, and
strongly enforcing it via legal and political avenues, the company took
it's stock price up 1000% in the late 90s (ok it is lower now, but the main
company officers are well rewarded).
Lesson
1 = Tell everyone you are the keeper of knowledge, and the first ones to believe
you (and the last to realize facts) is the investor community (especially the
public ones not the industry ones).
It
does not mean that any company is "bad" but does mean they mean
business... The kind where they make enough to be satisfied with.
Now if they can also build a product that is very available, inexpensive, and
market controlling the results are even more enjoyable.
Right
now it seems to me that Tasco has shown that they will invest funds to make a
move on the marketplace and Meade has to show the Street they will respond to
keep their stock from devaluating further.
Fun
stuff to watch and purely speculation on my part.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org [mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org]On Behalf Of Andy Wallace Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:00 PM To: astro-photo@seds.org Subject: Re: [APML] hey Tony! As you must know, these lawsuits are very common in the software
business. It is one thing to file a suit, another to win. Is there a chance
Celestron is violating Meade patents with their "go-to" technology? Is it
impossible to design a "go-to" mount without violating Meade patents? If
those of you who write software had it copied by your competitors, would that
concern you? Would you try to protect your intellectual
property? Doesn't Astro-Physics sell some voice-recognition software? Is it
in the public domain? Or is this a case of "Meade big, Meade thus bad"!
Andy
|