3 ms·
To play devil's advocate: Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them? If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think
by starkfist 17y ago
To play devil's advocate:
Apple does own these patents. Why is it evil for them to enforce them?
If Android was a Microsoft project, would people still think this legal action was evil?
If the iPhone OS was "open source" and there were other means of selling apps other than the app store, would people still think this legal action was evil?
If Google (the "underdog" (?)) owned these patents through the purchase of Android and was suing Apple, would people think Google was evil? Or would it be a David vs. Goliath story? (goliath vs. goliath?)
If I make BLOOPT.com which does the same thing as loopt.com, is it evil for Sam Altman to sue me, when he gets his patent?
- ajross 17y agoAll patent suits are evil. If all software patents were enforced, no new software could be written without licensing thousands or tens of thousands of patents from hundreds of holders. And no free software could be written at all. So the answers to all your your questions is "yes". Except the last, which is kinda dumb. "BLOOPT" would no doubt be a trademark violation, you can't patent a name. But yeah, if Loopt filed a patent suit against someone simply for competing with them, then it would be evil too.
- stcredzero 17y agoAll patent suits are evil. From what you are saying, it only follows that most patent suits are legal. I am sure one would eventually find the odd legit patent suit after a rigorous enough search. (Analogous to real avail among spam.)