Why Apple [Inc.] is a Virus.

[bfdd]

Such a cogent point.

So many on the partisan sides of both major parties fail to see the similarity in their viewpoints, typically they support statism under the guise of their respective philosophies, but it comes down to the same old story at the end of the day, which is to create an ever more powerful central government aligned with the most powerful corporate interests in the world. As even the dyed-in-the-wool hack Michael Moore was forced to concede "we don't have a free market, we don't have free capitalism", when it was pointed out to him that the capitalism he was railing about the evils of was actually corporatism.

i love that shit. what free market?

 

[Patranus]

This is essentially why too much profit seeking is destructive.

This is essentially what has made America the greatest country this planet has ever known.

 

[bfdd]

This is essentially what has made America the greatest country this planet has ever known.

Wrong, so wrong it actually hurt my head to read that. Hard work and liberty is what made America the greatest country this planet has ever known.

 

[ElFenix]

hey look yet another apple bashing thread it's been what a day? can't have ATOT without the ATOT dailies. achievement unlocked!

 

[bfdd]

hey look yet another apple bashing thread it's been what a day? can't have ATOT without the ATOT dailies. achievement unlocked!

the article in the OP goes out of its way to sound not Apple bashing. No one had ever seen anything like the iPhone? LG Prada came out before and Nokia had been dominating the smart phone market for such a long time lols. Its like when they get credit for being the first mp3 player, they mean the first mainstream mp3 player. Just like the iPhone was the first mainstream smartphone.

 

[Mike Gayner]

This is essentially what has made America the greatest country this planet has ever known.

LOL, adorable.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Which is why we need to reduce the lifespan of patents down to say 5 years. That is MORE than enough for technology patents.

On what basis are you coming up with 5 years? Why not 4, or 8, 9.23453223?

People thought X86 technology was dead long ago. Yet miraculously, it still lives and is still profitable. Shouldn't the party who developed that technology be able to reap the rewards for a reasonable life span?

FWIW, patents are valid for 20 years from the date of filing. That is not a terrifically long time. Particularly when you consider the term of a U.S. copyright.

 

[Patranus]

Wrong, so wrong it actually hurt my head to read that. Hard work and liberty is what made America the greatest country this planet has ever known.

which is only profitable with the current patent system.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Imagine if cars were invented the way they were, only GE or some corporation quickly locked up the patents for the fundamental ideas (patents on throttle and steering mechanisms on moving wheeled vehicles). Then proceeded to sue the crap out of anyone else trying to make a car, regardless if they had actually not invented the car in the first place.

Or imagine if Jonas Salk was circumvented on his polio vaccine. When asked if he would patent it, he famously replied "would you patent the Sun!?" incredulously. He gave it away, and his work being open quickly allowed even greater vaccines that saved the lives and prevented disfiguration of countless people. He could have very easily become one of the richest people in the country by seeking massive profits from his discovery, but that path would have been worse for the country as a whole.

For someone who purports to know something about the history of patent law, you actually know quite little about it.

You remarked about throttles for gasoline engines. I did a quick patent search. The earliest patent on a throttle (er., governor) was issued in 1834. See U.S. Patent No. 1,161,763, which is titled "Governor." And yes, early patents were enforced in the courts.

Your comment on Jonas Salk's polio vaccine is misdirected. His vaccine WAS patent eligible subject matter. He simply CHOSE not to patent it. While Salk's philanthropy is something to be admired, it has NOTHING to do with patent law. Salk could have patented his drug and sold it for a very reasonable price. E.g., 1c above cost. Had he done so, I doubt anyone would have found his patenting of the drug objectionable.

As to your comment re: the founding fathers. Of course they didn't fathom genetic engineering, semiconductiors, and cell phones! But what they did see was the value in promoting "...the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Constitution, Article 1 Section 8. "Discoveries" is a broad term, and its breadth was likely intentional. Why? Because the founding fathers were smart and likely recognized that they could not predict what technology would be developed.

For those of you who are complaining so much in this thread. Read up on the america invents act, which was passed into law last September. It constitutes a landmark change in the patent law.

Finally, I read ALL the time how the patent system is "broken!" Patent lawyers are killing innovation, etc. Odd thing is, I never see anyone present a cogent plan to actually reform the system in a manner that fixes the "bad" while retaining the "good."

 

[Pliablemoose]

hey look yet another apple bashing thread it's been what a day? can't have ATOT without the ATOT dailies. achievement unlocked!

This.


As far as the patents go, whatever, the article is from Gizmodo, and in my mind, I pretty well ignore their editorials on any subject about Apple. I read them and catalog them in my National Enquirer portion of memory in my brain.

IMHO, Oracle and MS present a much bigger threat to Android.

(And in full disclosure, I'm typing this on a sweet damn 13" MBA, the best laptop I've ever owned, and paid for it with earnings from Apple stock trading).

 

[bfdd]

which is only profitable with the current patent system.

false.

i think at the most 2 years manufacturing rights, after that it's free game.

 

[0roo0roo]

I don't, I blame them and every other company for exploiting it though.

bullshit,the system requires they exploit it or be exploited, that is the way its rigged.

 

[bfdd]

bullshit,the system requires they exploit it or be exploited, that is the way its rigged.

then get rid of it all together, i don't really care. i think it's stupid anyways.

 

[Arkaign]

For someone who purports to know something about the history of patent law, you actually know quite little about it.

You remarked about throttles for gasoline engines. I did a quick patent search. The earliest patent on a throttle (er., governor) was issued in 1834. See U.S. Patent No. 1,161,763, which is titled "Governor." And yes, early patents were enforced in the courts.

Your comment on Jonas Salk's polio vaccine is misdirected. His vaccine WAS patent eligible subject matter. He simply CHOSE not to patent it. While Salk's philanthropy is something to be admired, it has NOTHING to do with patent law. Salk could have patented his drug and sold it for a very reasonable price. E.g., 1c above cost. Had he done so, I doubt anyone would have found his patenting of the drug objectionable.

As to your comment re: the founding fathers. Of course they didn't fathom genetic engineering, semiconductiors, and cell phones! But what they did see was the value in promoting "...the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Constitution, Article 1 Section 8. "Discoveries" is a broad term, and its breadth was likely intentional. Why? Because the founding fathers were smart and likely recognized that they could not predict what technology would be developed.

For those of you who are complaining so much in this thread. Read up on the america invents act, which was passed into law last September. It constitutes a landmark change in the patent law.

Finally, I read ALL the time how the patent system is "broken!" Patent lawyers are killing innovation, etc. Odd thing is, I never see anyone present a cogent plan to actually reform the system in a manner that fixes the "bad" while retaining the "good."

I of course do not specialize in patent law, or law of any type. I can plainly see when things go insane though (patenting human dna, animal species, fruits, vegetables, etc), and pure patent trolling.

I also never said anything of the sort that Dr. Salk did anything other than by his own volition, so I'm not sure where you're going with that?

The larger point I was making is that things have changed very aggressively towards a system where everyone is patenting everything under the sun as fast as possible, often purely for the possibility of suing someone else. The only people really getting rich off of this are lawyers (you must be having a field day right now), and the corporations lucky enough to be very successful at patent trolling.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I of course do not specialize in patent law, or law of any type. I can plainly see when things go insane though (patenting human dna, animal species, fruits, vegetables, etc), and pure patent trolling.

I also never said anything of the sort that Dr. Salk did anything other than by his own volition, so I'm not sure where you're going with that?

The larger point I was making is that things have changed very aggressively towards a system where everyone is patenting everything under the sun as fast as possible, often purely for the possibility of suing someone else. The only people really getting rich off of this are lawyers (you must be having a field day right now), and the corporations lucky enough to be very successful at patent trolling.

DNA in and of itself cannot be patented, as it is a product of nature. Biotech companies patent isolated portions of DNA that code one or more proteins. While such patents are admittedly controversial, they are a fairly small percentage of overall patents granted.

Re: Dr. Salk - your prior comment was clearly aimed at demonstrating how unpatented products can foster innovation, in support of your overarching point that the patent system is somehow broken. My point was that you (and many others that support abolishing the patent system or reforming it out of existence) is that patents also foster innovation. In some instances, they just accomplish that goal in a different way. Having worked for the government, a large patent firm, a small patent firm, as in house counsel, and as a patent law professor, I have some perspective on how patents are leveraged as business assets. I also understand how companies innovate around existing patent rights. You might be surprised to learn that those "design around" activites produce technological advances too. Sometimes more so than "good ol' collaboration."

As to your final point, I would argue that the reason so many patent applications are filed is because we live in an unprecedented age of technological growth. The shear magnitude of the technical evolution that has taken place in the past 100 years (and the past 30 in particular) has been nothing short of staggering. My grandmother grew up in an age where horse and buggy travel was still the primary means by which people moved from place to place. By the time she died (at the ripe old age of 99), humans had personal transportation systems (cars) that would take them across the US in a matter of days, group transport (e.g., planes) that could take them anywhere in the world in under a day, information distribution systems (e.g., computers, internet) that allow instantaneous access to information on innumerable topics, etc. In sum, there are a lot of patents filed because there is a lot of innovation taking place every single day.

Are there areas where the patent system could be improved? Certainly. I could rattle off a list 3-4 pages long off the top of my head. But the issues I would raise are largely concentrated in certain niche areas such as software, biotech, wireless communication, etc. But in my opinion, it is a long leap to extend problems isolated to those particular areas to the patent system as a whole.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

The larger point I was making is that things have changed very aggressively towards a system where everyone is patenting everything under the sun as fast as possible, often purely for the possibility of suing someone else. The only people really getting rich off of this are lawyers (you must be having a field day right now), and the corporations lucky enough to be very successful at patent trolling.

Do you have any evidence supporting the statements bolded above? Or are you basing your comments off what you see on this forum/some other site like dailytech?

My numbers may be out of date, but not too long ago the following two facts were true:

Fact: Less than 3% of patents are asserted.

Fact: Of that 3%, less than 4% go to trial.

Fact: Many, MANY companies make money by practicing their patented inventions. Don't believe me? Ask Seagate corporation about its hard drive practice (and underlying IP), ask Fujitsiu the same, ask Samsung about its LED TV technology (and underlying IP). The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

On the smaller end of the spectrum, I have clients that employ less than 20 people who are in business simply becauise of the technical advantages their patented products give them over their competition. I also have clients that have captured significantly more share of their respective markets because their technology is patented and gives them a business advantage.

Final note: Patent law in general is a fairly boring subject. The media picks up on issues surrounding software patents, biotech, etc., because those areas present issues that are of interest to a larger portion of the population. But don't misunderstand the media's reporting on problems within fairly niche issues as somehow reflecting on problems with the patent system as a whole.

 

[BoomerD]

I know jack shit about the legal end of patents...but I think that for the most part, patents, copyrights, and MOST other forms of IP are good things. They protect the rights of the creators from predatory companies/people who would rather steal innovation that create it themselves.
I DO think that often patent law is applied in a manner that's counter-productive overall...companies being able to buy patents that they didn't create, just for the purpose of stifling competition or keeping a product off the market that might affect their industry in a way that would be harmful to them.
Over the years, there have been hundreds of rumors and stories about the oil companies buying inventions that would have increased gas mileage by leaps and bounds...not to put those inventions to work...but to keep them off the market.
Are those rumors and stories true? I don't know...and I doubt we ever will...unless they have to go to court to challenge someone else's invention on the basis of the patent.

BUT, as I said, overall, patent and copyright protections are a good thing.

 

[bfdd]

soxfan, you mean Samsung the company a few years ago busted for price fixing LCDs with other manufacturers? yeah they made tons of money.

 

[Arkaign]

I know jack shit about the legal end of patents...but I think that for the most part, patents, copyrights, and MOST other forms of IP are good things. They protect the rights of the creators from predatory companies/people who would rather steal innovation that create it themselves.
I DO think that often patent law is applied in a manner that's counter-productive overall...companies being able to buy patents that they didn't create, just for the purpose of stifling competition or keeping a product off the market that might affect their industry in a way that would be harmful to them.
Over the years, there have been hundreds of rumors and stories about the oil companies buying inventions that would have increased gas mileage by leaps and bounds...not to put those inventions to work...but to keep them off the market.
Are those rumors and stories true? I don't know...and I doubt we ever will...unless they have to go to court to challenge someone else's invention on the basis of the patent.

BUT, as I said, overall, patent and copyright protections are a good thing.

This is reasonable imho.

And SoxFan, I obviously am no expert on patent law. I can only offer my opinions based upon what I have read about in the media and online sources. I don't think all patents are bad or even close, but I do think there's a fair amount of abuse/gaming of the system that is a shame.

 

[Arkaign]

DNA in and of itself cannot be patented, as it is a product of nature. Biotech companies patent isolated portions of DNA that code one or more proteins. While such patents are admittedly controversial, they are a fairly small percentage of overall patents granted.

Re: Dr. Salk - your prior comment was clearly aimed at demonstrating how unpatented products can foster innovation, in support of your overarching point that the patent system is somehow broken. My point was that you (and many others that support abolishing the patent system or reforming it out of existence) is that patents also foster innovation. In some instances, they just accomplish that goal in a different way. Having worked for the government, a large patent firm, a small patent firm, as in house counsel, and as a patent law professor, I have some perspective on how patents are leveraged as business assets. I also understand how companies innovate around existing patent rights. You might be surprised to learn that those "design around" activites produce technological advances too. Sometimes more so than "good ol' collaboration."

As to your final point, I would argue that the reason so many patent applications are filed is because we live in an unprecedented age of technological growth. The shear magnitude of the technical evolution that has taken place in the past 100 years (and the past 30 in particular) has been nothing short of staggering. My grandmother grew up in an age where horse and buggy travel was still the primary means by which people moved from place to place. By the time she died (at the ripe old age of 99), humans had personal transportation systems (cars) that would take them across the US in a matter of days, group transport (e.g., planes) that could take them anywhere in the world in under a day, information distribution systems (e.g., computers, internet) that allow instantaneous access to information on innumerable topics, etc. In sum, there are a lot of patents filed because there is a lot of innovation taking place every single day.

Are there areas where the patent system could be improved? Certainly. I could rattle off a list 3-4 pages long off the top of my head. But the issues I would raise are largely concentrated in certain niche areas such as software, biotech, wireless communication, etc. But in my opinion, it is a long leap to extend problems isolated to those particular areas to the patent system as a whole.

What are your feelings on this issue?

http://bcaction.org/2011/06/01/putting-patients-before-profits-why-we-must-end-gene-patenting/

Edit : I'm genuinely interested, as it's rare to have such an insider perspective in the field, and thank you for your informative replies, I take them at face value. My opinions are obviously strong sometimes, but I am not so arrogant as to think I do not have anything but a lot to learn about the field. Thank you.

 

[Sonikku]

Pretty soon Apple is going to patent the process of taking in air. Want to breath? Pay the fuck up!

 

[QueBert]

Apple better stop Android asap b/c Kindle Fire is about to light iPad the f up this xmas. Wait until you see the numbers, don't be surprised if it outpaces iPad soon...

The Fire's sold at a loss, iPads are sold at a HUGE profit. Would you rather sell 100,000 of something you make a killing on, or 1,000,000 of something you take a loss up front on? That you MIGHT end up making money from apps sold. Welp, Android owners really don't buy apps because they want everything for free. The iPad will do just fine this xmas, it won't sell anywhere near as many as the Fire, but the profit made plus how much the average owner will spend in the App Store. I'd hardly call that being "lit up" hell, I'd say it's even the exact opposite.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I disagree with how apple is handling things, but really, android has ripped so many things off apple its disgusting. The android OS to me just looks like a chinese knock off version of apple.

Flame away, but thats my opinion

 

[Arkaign]

I disagree with how apple is handling things, but really, android has ripped so many things off apple its disgusting. The android OS to me just looks like a chinese knock off version of apple.

Flame away, but thats my opinion

The thing is that iOS is largely made up of previous good ideas that predated it, assembled together into a good mobile operating system. It would really hurt us all if companies were able to solidly lock in obviously good simple UI and functionality patents to the point where each of the alternatives had great points, but due to patent restrictions were unable to put them all together as best they could. Windows and OSX are a good example of that. Imagine if every one of these things they copied from each other were never done due to patents and lawsuits (and yes, I know that both Microsoft and Apple along with others have attempted to do just that in a continual war over the years, leading to fat pockets for their legal divisions).

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/...le-windows-966&current=1&last=11#slideshowTop

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/top-10-features-microsoft-stole-mac-os-x-971

Imagine none of that was possible. Also imagine that someone or other was able to completely dominate the office suite field, and no open-source or alternative was available (no openoffice/wordperfect/libreoffice, or even anything with the same features as Word). Imagine that this is despite the fact that MS Word was by far not the first computer word processor, but rather than Microsoft was able to patent the entire idea of it.

This is much like Apple patenting rectangles. What the fuck.

http://www.talkandroid.com/51767-apple-pastill-dont-believe-apple-is-patent-trolling/

 

[Patranus]

false.

i think at the most 2 years manufacturing rights, after that it's free game.

So you think that (as an example) a drug company is going to spend BILLIONS to develop a drug if another company could make a generic in 2 years?

The patent system fosters innovation because those who innovate have protection to make as much money as humanly possible from their idea.