3 ms·

My fear would be some consortium of big-box retailers, the MPAA, police unions, and fearful save-the-children groups lobbying congress to create laws requiring

My fear would be some consortium of big-box retailers, the MPAA, police unions, and fearful save-the-children groups lobbying congress to create laws requiring the inclusion of such turn-off features in all cameras. Possibly paranoid, but not exactly far-fetched. See: Communications decency act; DMCA. I agree, photo crippling features seem hardly in Apple's interest.

antihero 15y ago
Perhaps then people would consider rioting. Probably not, seeing as the critical aspect the average person is essentially neutralised if they have been appeased by gadgets and cheap entertainment.
sixtofour 15y ago
1. Patent something that appeals to government and other control freaks. 2. Watch the technology become mandatory by law. 3. Profit.
- camiller 15y ago
  Worked for the SawStop, oh wait, no it didn't. Despite their intense lobbying to get congress to mandate that all table saw manufactures use their patented tech, congress never went for it.
  - thebooktocome 15y ago
    It failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.
    - camiller 15y ago
      And it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade below the table surface instead of destroying itself. Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, tried to get it mandatory by law, so they could charge large license fees. Edit: Besides, what IS licensing a patent if not leveraging a monopoly.
      - thebooktocome 15y ago
        When you license a patent, somebody else can take on manufacturing costs and/or risks. Theoretically, there is competition, consumers have options, and the argument for legislation doesn't look quite so self-serving.

antihero 15y ago

Perhaps then people would consider rioting. Probably not, seeing as the critical aspect the average person is essentially neutralised if they have been appeased by gadgets and cheap entertainment.

sixtofour 15y ago

1. Patent something that appeals to government and other control freaks. 2. Watch the technology become mandatory by law. 3. Profit.

camiller 15y ago
Worked for the SawStop, oh wait, no it didn't. Despite their intense lobbying to get congress to mandate that all table saw manufactures use their patented tech, congress never went for it.
- thebooktocome 15y ago
  It failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.
  - camiller 15y ago
    And it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade below the table surface instead of destroying itself. Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, tried to get it mandatory by law, so they could charge large license fees. Edit: Besides, what IS licensing a patent if not leveraging a monopoly.
    - thebooktocome 15y ago
      When you license a patent, somebody else can take on manufacturing costs and/or risks. Theoretically, there is competition, consumers have options, and the argument for legislation doesn't look quite so self-serving.