[Arm-netbook] R-Pi Only Better and More Available?

[lkcl luke]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote:

> Surely you can see that having a patent on something isn't going to stop
> a noname Chinese manufacturer from making a product based on it, right?

 that's actually incorrect.  i may have mentioned before that we know
of a law firm in Bristol that has successfully pursued Copyright
violations across International Boundaries.  also, you have to bear in
mind that we are working with a large PRC State-Sponsored company who
supply governments and schools with hardware.  if the safety of their
products are threatened because of some idiot no-name chinese
manufacturer, do you think they'll stand by and let it happen?

 the scope and scale of this project is really, really large.  i
haven't mentioned much about it, mostly because it's confidential but
also mostly because if i actually described what's going on and what's
involved there's a risk that many people simply wouldn't believe it.
contact with PRC State-Sponsored companies normally don't just
"happen", and we're unbelievably lucky to have the opportunity.  which
is why i'm rather annoyed at the way things have been going recently.
oh well.

> It might work, it might not, it may or may not be dangerous. But you can
> be sure that by the time the product is on eBay the actual manufacturer
> will be unfindable, and certainly not economically pursuable.

 that's not the point: it's about being responsible.   there's been a
cross-over, i sent a reply which explains the strategy that can be
deployed, but *only* if there is a patent.  in this example
theoretical case it would be possible to theoretically and
hypothetically sue ebay in order to obtain the required information,
then go from there, passing on the information to those people in
china with a vested interest in protecting their billion-dollar
business and enormous responsibilities to their citizens.

l.