Leitrim - I like the analogy you painted. Allnumbers had a good point as well, showing our hypocrisy, or perhaps just our stupidity, when he said that we are building fences around ourselves while we are giving blanket access to all our potential economically beneficial ideas. It's bad enough we have spent over a TRILLION dollars on a military conflict that will pay back absolutely zero returns, and will cost us ten times that for many years down the road. What are the implications for us in that regard? I don't mean to be political here, and I do not care what side anyone is on, but the reality is that we have spent and spent and spent. I learned in kindergarten that you can't spend more than you have. And if we send all out ideas out to other countries to steal and produce, then haven't we done a two fold insult to our futures? No return on the investment, and less chance of making it up in other ways, like manufacturing new technologies. My point is that someone will have to pay for this, and you can bet it will be you and I in the very near future - this can't last forever...
Back to the legislation: Yes, the negotiations are likely not at risk in any way, but my fear lies more with the future if there is no opportunity in the near future. There would be some kind of "overlap" where the potential buyer could simply drop out of the commitment and wait 18 months and discover the technology and attempt to build it themselves, which as we all know would be stealing and completely unethical. I do not think they necessarily could reproduce anything, but that risk is there.
That is my real concern. I have not called them to speak, as I am a big fan of looking people in the eye and seeing their body language, etc. My next trip home, which should be in a couple months, will afford me the opportunity to meet them in person for the first time. I do look forward to that.
-Neb
