4 ms·
Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay
by mort96 3y ago
Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die.
EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work when governments grant arbitrary legal monopolies on ideas like this.
- Zambyte 3y agoThis is true of all "intellectual" "property"
- mort96 3y agoThere is some nuance here. I like trademarks which disallow other companies than Apple from selling products called “Apple Watch” or other companies than Samsung from selling “Samsung Galaxy S” series phones. And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. But intellectual property goes way too far.
- lijok 3y ago> And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. You’re describing intellectual property..
- mort96 3y agoI know, that was the point.
- Zambyte 3y agoI carefully and intentionally included trademark. And copyright. > I like trademarks which disallow other companies than Apple from selling products called “Apple Watch” or other companies than Samsung from selling “Samsung Galaxy S” series phones. Why? It only serves companies to help them become larger companies. If you think it helps customers understand what they're buying, consider: customers are basically oblivious to what they are buying when it comes to technology. If that's actually the problem you want to solve, the solutiom to that is "technology nutrition facts" and spec sheets by law, not trademark. > And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. What're you going to do about it if they do? Sue Disney? Doesn't seem like you'll get a lot out of that. Bonus points for additionally eliminating propriety software at the same time.
- mort96 3y agoI don't know dude, I sometimes know what product I wanna buy and I enjoy that I can more or less trust that among reputable stores, a product carrying the name and logo of the product I wanna buy is the product I wanna buy.
- Zambyte 3y ago> I sometimes know what product I wanna buy and I enjoy that I can more or less trust that among reputable stores That's fair. You can have all of that without trademark or copyright though. > a product carrying the name and logo of the product I wanna buy is the product I wanna buy. Lots of products can carry the name and logo of the product you want to buy without trademark :) Maybe there is something besides the logo that you're more interested in?
- whateverman23 3y agoThis is the opposite of stifling innovation. It's literally not innovative, which is a big point of the ruling. The company produces and sells watches with the technology. It's not a patent troll.
- mort96 3y agoThey may be selling products but that doesn’t mean they’re not patent trolls. This is clear patent troll behaviour even if other parts of the business is honest.
- sokoloff 3y agoBy the common usage of the phrase, that is what it means.
- mort96 3y agoThe way I use the term, a company which engages in patent trolling is a patent troll. That seems natural to me, but I apologise if that’s unorthodox use.
- JohnFen 3y agoWhat is your definition of "patent trolling"?
- pests 3y agoApparently using patents for the reasons intended. Or owning a patent and refusing to let others use it? Entitlement?
- junofan 3y agoI think using the ITC as the forum of choice for patent disputes qualifies. I can’t see why the courts can’t handle this. The federal agency that makes sure the windshield wiper fluid I put in my car is legit isn’t really set up for evaluating complex intellectual property disputes on medical devices.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoThere are two sides to every story, but given some of the evidence in this case, this seems like exactly what patents are supposed to be for. E.g. little company invents novel technology, then big company comes in and copies them (by largely hiring out a bunch of their employees). E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38689442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38689442 I'm also usually strongly against patents, especially for software, but I think your characterization is completely off base here.
- mort96 3y agoMore like: big company is granted legal monopoly on old existing technology, stifles innovation.
- huytersd 3y agoHard disagree. If you come up with a good new idea you should be able to get rich off of it.
- mort96 3y agoI don’t see why it’s the role of the government to ensure that a tiny selection of random people get filthy rich.
- moogly 3y agoPoor Apple. Oh wait... Two words: "rounded corners".
- mort96 3y agoDo you think I’m in favour of that patent or what is your point
- aaomidi 3y agoSo monopolies are only good if they’re unbreakable? Literally a few days ago everyone here was telling us how important it is for beeper to stop working because they’re copying Apple. When is copying and modifications okay and when is it not?
- mort96 3y agoI don’t know why you think monopolies are good if they’re unbreakable. Being government enforced, patent-based monopolies are some of the most unbreakaboe monopolies, are they not?
- yieldcrv 3y agohmm, maybe the government can be instructed to mediate patent licenses the company is being particular about how they want to get paid, maybe thats the anticompetitive practice that the government shouldnt be granting an exemption for there are examples of the government mediating sells such as during bank failures
- asadotzler 3y agoA patent troll is a person or company that acquires patents solely for the purpose of licensing and enforcement, rather than using the patented technology to produce their own products or services. This IS NOT A PATENT TROLL. Please don't water down our language by lumping all patent licensors in with patent trolls. The phrase was created with a purpose in mind and you're harming that with your use.
- mort96 3y agoThey seem close enough to a patent troll to me.
- asadotzler 3y agoThey do and have been shipping products based on their patents for years, precisely the opposite of a patent troll. Words have meanings. When you use words without understanding their meaning you risk confusing the discussion. Be more careful.