Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:23:00PM -0400, John Pedersen wrote:
>
>
>>>If you won't stand to protect Reebok's IP rights, don't sqwak
>>>when a loved one is ill and your health insurance says
>>>'tough'. It is the same bundle of rights being protected.
>>
>>Yes, there are some IP rights being trampled. But I don't know
>>if *I* should "stand to protect Reebok's IP rights".
>>
>>They chose to shaft the American workers, and send their
>>jobs overseas. That was their right.
>>
>
>
> Tit for tat, eh?
>
> The point here was that if you fail to protect the property rights of
> others, you can't very well complain when your property rights are
> violated. Both sides of the same coin.
I think you guys missed my point. You're saying that we should fight
for somebody's rights--that implies that they have lost their rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Reebok still has their
property rights. If I start making Reebok running shoes in my
basement, they can sue me. I can counter-sue. It will all get
settled in the courts. The constitution is intact. What's the problem?!
In this case, I presume that Reebok will exercise whatever rights they
have, in China, to shut down the copies. If they have trouble, in
this foreign land, at forcing the law to take up their cause, you seem
to be saying that *I* would be wrong in not rallying to their cause,
and that by not rallying, somehow MY rights, and the constitution of
THIS land, are in peril. Com' on, they made their bed--they knew what
they were doing--they didn't lose any rights.
Why not simply subscribe to my approach: put a tarrif on imports to
make things a bit more equal. Problem solved. Not much incentive to
make knock-off copies of Reeboks if you end up selling them at the
same price, is there?
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:27:13 EDT