5 ms·

Can you cite that? I was under the impression that Apple only litigated on patents they legitimately held and did not want to licence. This in contrast to some

by deveac 14y ago

Can you cite that? I was under the impression that Apple only litigated on patents they legitimately held and did not want to licence. This in contrast to some of their opponents who are litigating against Apple on FRAND patents. I think your problem is with patent law itself (which would be legitimate). Apple is much better than the large players suing on FRAND or the active patent troll firms imo. You can't bring a butter knife to a gun fight, and as much as you might like any given company to take a principled stand and not protect their IP while other companies are aggressively doing so, for them to do so would actually be beyond naive.

mrich 14y ago
For the cite see above. Yes, my main problem is the patent system itself and that it allows basic patents to be used to ban competing products. Notice that a patent itself is not bad, only the holder decides whether to use it destructively or defensively. Apple was sued originally by Nokia for the iPhone and they had to pay some money as a result. However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. All the FRAND lawsuits were only brought later, although they were in response to years of Apple not paying any royalties as demanded by FRAND, the only vendor to do so. Now don't get me wrong: All other smartphone companies aren't saints either. Nokia wanted to protect their market share and the FRAND guys probably also didn't press for their royalties at first, thinking Apple might get into a cross-licensing agreement with regards to their patents. But Apple has been the lone company not willing to license their patents at all. As a customer, ask yourself: do you want to be dependent on just Apple for continued innovation? If you think they cannot do any wrong ask the early adoptors of Mountain Lion (especially power users).
- shadesandcolour 14y ago
  Not this is on the topic of the article, but there are no early adopters of Mountain Lion. There are developers using beta software and people who aren't developers that want to use beta software. To be honest I hate the term "power user". There are users and there are people who consider their needs to be more than the rest. Aside from changing the way that spaces work (linear as opposed to grid shaped), changing expose (power users are all about the keyboard aren't they?) and a few other cosmetic changes at the hands of some features being hidden I'm not sure what else could bother you. Sure some of it is unnecessary for people, but we already know what the features are, its not a surprise. So go ahead and down vote or comment and call me an idiot or whatever.
- deveac 14y ago
  >However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. I'll just note that depending on your point of view, it is effortless to argue that the entity stealing the IP could be viewed as the aggressor, and suing to stop said aggression would be defense.
  - mrich 14y ago
    Sure, you could also argue that what banks are doing is useful to society since the government, which is elected by the people, tolerates it. But I will continue to argue that companies have leeway in how they use patents, and exploiting a broken patent system is not in the interest of society.
    - deveac 14y ago
      You do realize that the patent system was designed for the express purpose of granting individuals and companies a legal monopoly on technology that they can exploit in the marketplace, with the goal of using that carrot to encourage innovation in pursuit of that monopoly power, right? What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence. Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.
      - mrich 14y ago
        It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets. However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.

by deveac 14y ago

mrich 14y ago

For the cite see above. Yes, my main problem is the patent system itself and that it allows basic patents to be used to ban competing products. Notice that a patent itself is not bad, only the holder decides whether to use it destructively or defensively. Apple was sued originally by Nokia for the iPhone and they had to pay some money as a result. However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. All the FRAND lawsuits were only brought later, although they were in response to years of Apple not paying any royalties as demanded by FRAND, the only vendor to do so. Now don't get me wrong: All other smartphone companies aren't saints either. Nokia wanted to protect their market share and the FRAND guys probably also didn't press for their royalties at first, thinking Apple might get into a cross-licensing agreement with regards to their patents. But Apple has been the lone company not willing to license their patents at all. As a customer, ask yourself: do you want to be dependent on just Apple for continued innovation? If you think they cannot do any wrong ask the early adoptors of Mountain Lion (especially power users).

shadesandcolour 14y ago
Not this is on the topic of the article, but there are no early adopters of Mountain Lion. There are developers using beta software and people who aren't developers that want to use beta software. To be honest I hate the term "power user". There are users and there are people who consider their needs to be more than the rest. Aside from changing the way that spaces work (linear as opposed to grid shaped), changing expose (power users are all about the keyboard aren't they?) and a few other cosmetic changes at the hands of some features being hidden I'm not sure what else could bother you. Sure some of it is unnecessary for people, but we already know what the features are, its not a surprise. So go ahead and down vote or comment and call me an idiot or whatever.
deveac 14y ago
>However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. I'll just note that depending on your point of view, it is effortless to argue that the entity stealing the IP could be viewed as the aggressor, and suing to stop said aggression would be defense.
- mrich 14y ago
  Sure, you could also argue that what banks are doing is useful to society since the government, which is elected by the people, tolerates it. But I will continue to argue that companies have leeway in how they use patents, and exploiting a broken patent system is not in the interest of society.
  - deveac 14y ago
    You do realize that the patent system was designed for the express purpose of granting individuals and companies a legal monopoly on technology that they can exploit in the marketplace, with the goal of using that carrot to encourage innovation in pursuit of that monopoly power, right? What you are labeling as 'abuse' is much closer to 'using the system precisely as it was intended'. You may not like the system. You may disagree with the goals of it, or you may think (as I do) that the goals are worthwhile but the system is actually a hindrance to the goals in many cases, but it is clear that Apple is litigating to protect it's IP in direct accordance with the intent of patent law. They aren't using litigation as a revenue stream like patent-troll shell firms, they aren't using litigation for retribution on FRAND, they are protecting specific designs and technologies for which they have been awarded patents and they choose (as is their right) not to lisence. Abusing a system != using a broken system expressly as it was designed.
    - mrich 14y ago
      It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets. However, with the patent office basically accepting everything as an invention, it has now turned into the opposite. The simple algorithm I could have come up on my own _without_ consulting any patent is now illegal for me to use. Without the patent society would have been much better off since many, many programmers would be able to independently come up with the same solution given the same requirements.