4 ms·

I think this is actually a bad thing because at a certain point it discourages innovation and the creation of new things because competitors will just copy what

I think this is actually a bad thing because at a certain point it discourages innovation and the creation of new things because competitors will just copy whatever you create. I'm not for patent trolls making money for simply owning someone else's invention, but I feel like if you invent something, patent your invention, and build a real product around that invention, then the patent should be upheld. Otherwise, you might as well cut most R&D spending and focus on reverse engineering. Getting really good at following fast is probably a lot cheaper than getting really good at inventing new things that turn into products. Also, then you could spend a smaller fraction of money to "acquire" (through various means) the schematics and trade secrets and produce your own version of the next big thing. Sure, that is probably unethical, but without any semblance of protection via patents, trademarks, other IP law, it seems like that is what you would get. That being said, as it gets cheaper to distribute information and turn that information into physical goods, the amount of value in the production of physical goods is going to approach the cost to manufacture those goods. There will always be some money in service, repair, etc. but a lot of things value will be destroyed along the way and it is not yet clear if that is a net positive for society at large.

shardling 14y ago
What the heck are you on about? The challenge to this patent is prior art.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
antiterra 14y ago
> I think this is actually a bad thing because at a certain point it discourages innovation and the creation of new things because competitors will just copy whatever you create. That's an absolutely ludicrous conclusion in this case, irrespective of the suitability of software patents. The patent office has said these specific patent claims are unpatentable due to prior art. That means that they're saying Apple didn't actually make anything new. Further, in 2011 the US moved to first-to-file, so expect unpublished prior art to matter far less and give even more security to those who file patents.
guelo 14y ago
There are thousands of developers working right now on coming up with new ways of interacting with touch-screens and coming up with new gestures. The market is providing plenty of incentive for these innovations. The only thing that is discouraging innovation are these patents and lawsuits.
sridharvembu 14y ago
That being said, as it gets cheaper to distribute information and turn that information into physical goods, the amount of value in the production of physical goods is going to approach the cost to manufacture those goods. There will always be some money in service, repair, etc. but a lot of things value will be destroyed along the way and it is not yet clear if that is a net positive for society at large. --- Let's assume that because of patent protection not being available, smartphones are widely copied and become really cheap and all the 5 billion adults in the world have access to them. Clearly the smartphone makers themselves would make less profit. Now what? Would it make society as a whole worse off? There would be a lot of ideas that will be born on top of the smartphone - in fact, we are already seeing many of them. And profit would shift to people who execute on those ideas. There was a time not that long ago AT&T used to justify its monopoly and sky-high prices for long distance calls on the investment it was making in Bell Labs. The profits that used to be enjoyed by AT&T have become distributed (to Apple, Google, Qualcomm and so on) and the R&D has also become distributed. If you looked at Bell Labs in isolation, the end of AT&T monopoly was a big negative. But if you look at the ecosystem as a whole, there is no contest.
megaman821 14y ago
How much R&D went into pinch-to-zoom? When they first launched a product with pinch-to-zoom, Apple did not know if they would be granted the patent. They launched it anyway because it made the phone better just like any other company would do, regardless if someone could copy it. The patent in question has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with threatening competitors.

shardling 14y ago

What the heck are you on about? The challenge to this patent is prior art.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

antiterra 14y ago

> I think this is actually a bad thing because at a certain point it discourages innovation and the creation of new things because competitors will just copy whatever you create. That's an absolutely ludicrous conclusion in this case, irrespective of the suitability of software patents. The patent office has said these specific patent claims are unpatentable due to prior art. That means that they're saying Apple didn't actually make anything new. Further, in 2011 the US moved to first-to-file, so expect unpublished prior art to matter far less and give even more security to those who file patents.

guelo 14y ago

There are thousands of developers working right now on coming up with new ways of interacting with touch-screens and coming up with new gestures. The market is providing plenty of incentive for these innovations. The only thing that is discouraging innovation are these patents and lawsuits.

sridharvembu 14y ago

That being said, as it gets cheaper to distribute information and turn that information into physical goods, the amount of value in the production of physical goods is going to approach the cost to manufacture those goods. There will always be some money in service, repair, etc. but a lot of things value will be destroyed along the way and it is not yet clear if that is a net positive for society at large. --- Let's assume that because of patent protection not being available, smartphones are widely copied and become really cheap and all the 5 billion adults in the world have access to them. Clearly the smartphone makers themselves would make less profit. Now what? Would it make society as a whole worse off? There would be a lot of ideas that will be born on top of the smartphone - in fact, we are already seeing many of them. And profit would shift to people who execute on those ideas. There was a time not that long ago AT&T used to justify its monopoly and sky-high prices for long distance calls on the investment it was making in Bell Labs. The profits that used to be enjoyed by AT&T have become distributed (to Apple, Google, Qualcomm and so on) and the R&D has also become distributed. If you looked at Bell Labs in isolation, the end of AT&T monopoly was a big negative. But if you look at the ecosystem as a whole, there is no contest.

megaman821 14y ago

How much R&D went into pinch-to-zoom? When they first launched a product with pinch-to-zoom, Apple did not know if they would be granted the patent. They launched it anyway because it made the phone better just like any other company would do, regardless if someone could copy it. The patent in question has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with threatening competitors.