4 ms·
It's hard to believe they'd actually do something so hostile to their paying customers.
by gmac 10y ago
It's hard to believe they'd actually do something so hostile to their paying customers.
- vmateixeira 10y agoWell.. it could take the liability of copyright infringements from their paying customers.. but what would be the point?
- M4v3R 10y agoIt's only a patent, and old patent for that matter. Apple has many patents for stuff they never implement.
- V-2 10y agoIf they ruled it out, however, they wouldn't have obtained the patent in the first place
- curiouscats 10y agoExcept our patent system is so screwed up that may not be the case. For example, if you wanted to stop such idiotic policies being placed on users of any devices getting patent on doing it and then charging those that want to do it $500 million can prevent it from being done (for a few years anyway). I am not saying that is Apple's thinking, I am just saying our patent system is so messed up that rich companies can spend a great deal to create tons of patents for things they have no interest in today because of the incentives in the broken system we have now.
- givinguflac 10y agoYes, because every patent a company holds is explicitly intended for public use. No one ever patents something because it's a new and unique idea right? /s
- V-2 10y agoStrawman argument? All I said is that apparently they don't rule it out. Of course we cannot know for sure either way, but we should consider the context here. Apple, of all companies, is probably the most infamous for its policy of tight control over user devices. The idea itself is not extraordinarily hard to come up with, and yet it happens to be no other than Apple who thought it worthwhile to patent it. I think scepticism is perfectly justified in this case