4 ms·
>but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived The patent system was conceived to allow the little guy (or little
by ergo98 16y ago
>but Apple at least is playing the game in the exact spirit in which the laws were conceived
The patent system was conceived to allow the little guy (or little business) to invent, and profit from those inventions, even when he lacked the means or scale of manufacture to reliably profit from that invention.
Without such protection obviously there was no way that someone who invented a new method to harness energy from gasoline, for instance, could avoid getting crushed by an established car company: He would have close to zero leverage in such a transaction, and there was little to prevent them from simply saying "thanks".
Honestly I suspect that if companies above some threshold were barred from filing patents, it would have no impact at all on their R&D spend. It might even improve efficiencies as they stop focusing on trying to land grab with hundreds of trivial patents (which is sadly what most patents are now, where offenders accidentally offend simply in the course of building things because overlap is unavoidable).
There is nothing, whatsoever, morally different between patent trolls and a company like Apple. They are both playing the same game to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. As the old saying goes, however, don't hate the players, hate the game, so kudos to Apple for doing what they can to ensure that $4 billion + of profit enriches their account every quarter.
- theBobMcCormick 16y agoThat's a good point. People are so used to thinking of Apple as the underdog that I don't think it's hit everyone yet that Apple is now the 800 pound Gorilla. They're the new Microsoft, but with more style and panache. :-)
- raganwald 16y agoLook, I explained what I thought the patent system was designed to do. You explain a completely different thing. If I'm wrong about my underlying premise, I'm wrong and I appreciate the correction. I'll look into it. But when you say that my argument is "absurdity that borders on embarrassing," you take an otherwise interesting discussion and ruin it with ad hominems. I can't find the strength to get into anything further on the topic. Good day to you, sir.
- ergo98 16y agoAs downtrodden and abused as you might pretend to feel, claiming that I resorted to an ad hominem is quite fallacious: My comment was specifically and only about the argument (which was a variation of the "Apple is always the inventor" theme that is so popular among a few), not about the speaker. It is, quite literally, the exact opposite of which you claim. Though the image of you putting on your top hat and adjusting your monocle was delightful. I pray that you haven't succumbed to the vapors. Patents (which trace back to Venice circa 1474) were always were protections for individual inventors and creators. The "everyone churn out patents for the company to lay a monster landclaim --- just take what you find and add "with a computer" or "with a touchscreen" and we're golden", with patent ownership reverting to the corporate entity, is an altogether recent concept.
- ryanhuff 16y agoThe origins of the US patent system dates back to the 1700's, and so I doubt that its primary purpose was to protect little guys, rather than providing general protection to all inventors, regardless of size. I would appreciate a source if I am wrong.
- ergo98 16y agoOut of curiosity, why does the 1700s timeframe preclude such a purpose? That was an era when incredible individual invention occurred, largely in machines and chemistry. It was seldom the R&D division of a large manufacturer (those robber barons), but was often individual inventors. Virtually all invention was a individual or small group pursuit.
- anamax 16y agoSection 8 of the US Constitution says "To promote 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"