Breaking: Apple found guilty infringing Nokia's/Sony's patents!

[Red Storm]

No, actually, it's not like that at all.

Yeah that was an odd example.

It's like bullying. You hate bullies and think it needs to stop. Then one who is known for bullying a lot gets bullied themselves. You still don't like bullying, but at the same time you don't feel any sympathy for the bully who just got a taste of his own medicine.

 

[JD50]

Yeah that was an odd example.

It's like bullying. You hate bullies and think it needs to stop. Then one who is known for bullying a lot gets bullied themselves. You still don't like bullying, but at the same time you don't feel any sympathy for the bully who just got a taste of his own medicine.

Yep

 

[preslove]

Its more like you dont like rapists, you dont think rape should be legal, but you are fine with Kobe Bryant getting away with it because you love the LA Lakers and the girl 'had it coming'.

[REDACTED], you'd know that the proper Kobe rape analogy rolleyes would involve Kobe getting raped. Most people would find that funny, while still not approving of rape.

Removed the personal attack, and this is a warning to everyone in this thread. I know how heated you all get, so remember to debate the issues, don't attack the posters.

Moderator TheStu

 

[Phokus]

Why do you seem to think apple has some god-like control over a patent system that covers every industry in the US?

No, they don't have control over the system, but they're the most abusive and are the prime example of why we need reform.

edit:

And at least Microsoft isn't trying to shut down competition with their patents, they actually act in good faith when asking for royalties. Apple's #1 goal is to destroy the leader (android). Arguing anything else is disingenuous.

 

[Broheim]

No, they don't have control over the system, but they're the most abusive and are the prime example of why we need reform.

edit:

And at least Microsoft isn't trying to shut down competition with their patents, they actually act in good faith when asking for royalties. Apple's #1 goal is to destroy the leader (android). Arguing anything else is disingenuous.

uhm, not even close.

 

[Phokus]

uhm, not even close.

Their stated goal is to destroy another competitor, not extract rents from them. Yes, i do think that qualifies as 'the most abusive'.

 

[Zaap]

Heh! The only hypocrisy I see is where are all the Apple team-sports players insisting that: "this is just Nokia and Sony protecting their patents, not abusing the system, so Apple should just suck it up and stop copying."

What goes around, comes around indeed.

 

[Broheim]

Their stated goal is to destroy another competitor, not extract rents from them. Yes, i do think that qualifies as 'the most abusive'.

and you somehow think apple is the first or the only one to do this?

 

[Phokus]

and you somehow think apple is the first or the only one to do this?

If a company with a reputation like microsoft can be reasonable, then Apple can be reasonable as well.

 

[lopri]

and you somehow think apple is the first or the only one to do this?

Apple isn't the first nor the only one. They all do it. Apple's contribution has been, by virtue of it being big, to help raising public awareness on this issue, how seriously defunct of our IP laws.

I am glad that more and more people pay attention to this issue. The laws have been moving consistently to "pro-business" side for such a long time. (at the same time moving decidedly toward anti-free-market) Now many corporations and even their advocates realize that current situation is nothing but an arms race which stifles freedom, thus innovation.

Last year, some IP lawyers brought a suit to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Their contention was that a "business method" can and should be patent-eligible. What is a "business method"? Think of 12-step recovery at an AA meeting as an example and you are not that far off. Or imagine a divorce shrink asserting that her/his way of consulting somehow yielded happier divorces, then attempt to patent whatever that might get stick. S/he will want to patent what to discuss/talk about, how to schedule the meetings, or even how the consulting rooms are decorated, etc. The possibiliy is endless.

Basically the lawyers wanted to be able to patent how to think and act. It sounds silly and outrageous, I know, but it's a scary thought that such a claim can even reach up to the nation's highest court. (and some ideological justices seemed sympathetic!) They lost 0-9 at the SCOTUS at the end, but the opinion/concurrences are quite complicated. I am simplifying things here so that more people can understand. If anyone wants to know the details, google Bilski v. Kappos. (and yes, there have been some business methods granted with patents in the U.S. history)

Tech companies with high-profile lawyers have been the largest beneficiaries of this convoluted, arcane, and nonsensical scheme. (Remember Rambus?) Because no market moves so fast as tech industry does, all they've had to do is let other industries set the rules, and just follow those. All you need are good lawyers. (High-profile lawyers are a much, much more important asset than engineers in these battles)

Things have been reaching to the boiling point. Way too slowly, regrettably, i might add. But if one believes in a free market, freedom to think for herself/himself, and freedom of speech, s/he should give this issue a serious thought.

 

[TuxDave]

Last year, some IP lawyers brought a suit to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Their contention was that a "business method" can and should be patent-eligible.

In case anyone wants to read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2010/06/28/the-supreme-court-keeps-business-method-patents-alive/

The case was for a specific patent and the lawyers lost their case The Supreme Court also chickened out by still allowing business method patents and so nothing really progressed.

Also, Rambus was a totally different story. They had legit patents. The problem is that they were showing it off to everyone and trying to get everyone to use it while at the same time getting ready to sue them if they REALLY did use it. They then later got screwed over by a completely DIFFERENT reason regarding DDR price fixing (which I actually think they should've won)

 

[lothar]

If you do not like patent trolls there is no way you think this victory is a good thing. This 'company' fits the patent troll definition perfectly. If anything this victory encourages patent trolls and changes absolutely nothing regarding patent law.

Except this isn't a patent troll company because they are completely owned by both Sony and Nokia.
Patent troll companies are usually owned by lawyers or law firms.

 

[BenSkywalker]

'We need patent reform, but patent abuse is ok if apple 'gets their ass handed to them'.

I raise my kids never to start fights, teach them violence isn't a good solution and that they should try and avoid it. If they start a confrontation that leads to violence they are in big trouble.

One of my kids got in trouble at school because the playground bully was pushing him around and he laid him out. He wasn't in any trouble with me.

Everything I just stated is true. If you don't understand how that can be, I have to assume you have seriously underdeveloped reasoning skills. Seeing a bully getting his face smeared across the sidewalk doesn't mean you condone violence, but sometimes when you are against a thuggish moron without decent societal skills you have to stoop to their level to get your point across.

 

[Mopetar]

Except this isn't a patent troll company because they are completely owned by both Sony and Nokia.
Patent troll companies are usually owned by lawyers or law firms.

Yeah, this is more of a holding group like the MPEG LA.

 

[Mopetar]

Their stated goal is to destroy another competitor, not extract rents from them. Yes, i do think that qualifies as 'the most abusive'.

They're not. Apple is involved in as many suits as other similarly large companies. And if their (It was Steve Jobs who said he viewed Android as a stolen product and he's dead now) view was to destroy another competitor, why did they settle with HTC?

If a company with a reputation like microsoft can be reasonable, then Apple can be reasonable as well.

Microsoft is a poor example. They've sued (or threatened to sue) all of the same companies that Apple has. In fact, due to all of the licensing agreements that they've made, many people have said that it's likely that they make more money off of Android than they do off of Windows Phone.