4 ms·

It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law was not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others negoti

It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law was not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others negotiated between each other up front. It was imposed by entirely different group of people who pay armed soldiers to enforce their decisions. This is how patent system could have been done without violence: a group of tech companies willing to protect their IP come together and agree on a single protocol which will register their inventions. They will list what kinds of inventions are patentable and not patentable. If something in this protocol remains vague to anyone it won't be signed. Then, they agree to regularly elect a group of experts who would inspect all incoming submissions and decide which non-patented inventions are violating or not the existing patents. Every participant would have to follow the decision of the experts, or would have to appeal to other participants (in order to re-elect the experts, reexamine the protocol, or reexamine this particular decision). If participant does not follow the decision of the experts, he is publicly defamed and economically ostracised, just like any other non-participant who violates existing patents. If any participant does not punish violators via ostracism (whether participants or not), he himself is ostracised by others. If a large enough group of tech companies really values patents over costs of ostracism, they can do just that. (Like they agree not to hiring specialists from each other.) If they don't find the way to agree on patents, then they do not deserve them. And nobody should go to prison because of that. My gut feeling is that neither Google, nor Apple, nor Microsoft likes patents. They could agree about hiring top people, about very specific trademarks like logos, but they would never spend time fighting over rounded corners if they were not given a poisonous weapon which is a tax-funded patent office, police and prisons. Resume: You do not need violent intervention with guns and prisons to protect yourself. Example: Apple's customers do not like working conditions of its partners' factories, so they can ostracise Apple. Apple in response asks factories to improve conditions, or Apple will ostracise them. There is no violence, but only negotiation.

naner 14y ago
It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law was not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others negotiated between each other up front. It was imposed by entirely different group of people who pay armed soldiers to enforce their decisions. All the incumbents have repeatedly lobbied to strengthen their advantage in the patent system so it is actually their fault. I don't know why you would presume Apple to be innocent. They have more power than most companies, they could lobby for change if they wanted to.
- oleganza 14y ago
  Apple is not innocent for using existing weapon. But do not forget that the patent system was created well before Apple even existed. If there was no patent system, tax-funded courts and police, Apple and others: 1) would have nowhere to go for a cheap and brutal protection. 2) would not worry that someone else will use cheap and brutal protection against them. Why is it cheap? Because couple of millions of bucks spent on lawyers is nothing comparing to amount of tax money and propaganda that fuels police and courts. No company that earns money from voluntary exchange would risk creating its own armed gang: it will quickly run out of customers well before raising enough funds for a small army. And if you are afraid that in absence of tax-funded police, some private companies would not protect themselves and their customers, but instead become super-powerful mafia themselves, then it is yet another reason why you cannot have monopoly of violent power in the first place. My suggestion: no reasoning and intellectual debate is possible if there is a gun in the room. Take away the gun first, then we could discuss different ways to protect intellectual and other property. Guns are needed only against other guns, but even then there's no discussion going on, but pure state of jungle.
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    You obviously have a hard on for guns. Yet the thing that does the most damage to our system is the biggest companies constantly lobbying with their weapon of choice, money, and lots of it. They continue to push for stronger patents, not weaker ones. They want longer time frames and more complicated bureaucracy's so that the massive amount of money they have for lawyers will make sure it's always easy for them to get patents instead of the people working from their garage that invent something and can't afford to get a lawyer and file a patent. All the groups you say your gut tells you want less patents consistently show us via their actions that they want stronger patents. I'll be the first to advocate for a better understanding of non-violent means for negotiation, but the dynamics of violence and weapons and human psychology goes in a different area other then a patent discussion. Unless you're trying to derail the topic into a flame war or something.
    - oleganza 14y ago
codex 14y ago
This just does not work well unless there is overarching enforcer, because the majority can decide to steal from the minority, or those not in the group. And there are some patents so valuable that no social penalty can keep a company from violating them; it's either violate or go out of business. Another voluntary group like this is the UN; it is completely ineffective in matters of security.
- oleganza 14y ago
  If majority can decide to steal from the minority, you cannot have democracy. Do you propose a self-proclaimed minority that will have guns to enforce peace and morality to protect you against majority? Seriously, though. Patents are valuable only because there is a small amount of people with guns and prisons. Everyone else despises guns. Neither you, nor Apple lawyers would want to enforce IP using their bare hands or paying for killers out of their pocket. Same for funding soldiers killing people around the world. The existing threat of murder ("obey the patent or give your money, or go to jail, or be shot down") is here because it is already being paid for by taxpayers. And since nobody is upset about it, it feels clean and easy to use it. But in free society it will not be clean and easy to use violence. You would have to pay for it yourself. And people would pay for guns only in extreme cases for personal protection in some weird dangerous areas. Otherwise it's too damn risky. But when it's regularly paid from taxes, any enforced regulation becomes possible, any crazy PATRIOT act or SOPA becomes readily available to society without much discussion.
dragonbonheur 14y ago
I never said it was only a problem with Apple. There is no need to apologize for them. It is a problem in technology patents and as I've written everyone knows where it is going. It's time to limit the effectiveness of technology patents to 1 year, maybe 2 years maximum or maybe get rid of tech patents altogether.

naner 14y ago

oleganza 14y ago
Apple is not innocent for using existing weapon. But do not forget that the patent system was created well before Apple even existed. If there was no patent system, tax-funded courts and police, Apple and others: 1) would have nowhere to go for a cheap and brutal protection. 2) would not worry that someone else will use cheap and brutal protection against them. Why is it cheap? Because couple of millions of bucks spent on lawyers is nothing comparing to amount of tax money and propaganda that fuels police and courts. No company that earns money from voluntary exchange would risk creating its own armed gang: it will quickly run out of customers well before raising enough funds for a small army. And if you are afraid that in absence of tax-funded police, some private companies would not protect themselves and their customers, but instead become super-powerful mafia themselves, then it is yet another reason why you cannot have monopoly of violent power in the first place. My suggestion: no reasoning and intellectual debate is possible if there is a gun in the room. Take away the gun first, then we could discuss different ways to protect intellectual and other property. Guns are needed only against other guns, but even then there's no discussion going on, but pure state of jungle.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  You obviously have a hard on for guns. Yet the thing that does the most damage to our system is the biggest companies constantly lobbying with their weapon of choice, money, and lots of it. They continue to push for stronger patents, not weaker ones. They want longer time frames and more complicated bureaucracy's so that the massive amount of money they have for lawyers will make sure it's always easy for them to get patents instead of the people working from their garage that invent something and can't afford to get a lawyer and file a patent. All the groups you say your gut tells you want less patents consistently show us via their actions that they want stronger patents. I'll be the first to advocate for a better understanding of non-violent means for negotiation, but the dynamics of violence and weapons and human psychology goes in a different area other then a patent discussion. Unless you're trying to derail the topic into a flame war or something.
  - oleganza 14y ago

codex 14y ago

This just does not work well unless there is overarching enforcer, because the majority can decide to steal from the minority, or those not in the group. And there are some patents so valuable that no social penalty can keep a company from violating them; it's either violate or go out of business. Another voluntary group like this is the UN; it is completely ineffective in matters of security.

oleganza 14y ago
If majority can decide to steal from the minority, you cannot have democracy. Do you propose a self-proclaimed minority that will have guns to enforce peace and morality to protect you against majority? Seriously, though. Patents are valuable only because there is a small amount of people with guns and prisons. Everyone else despises guns. Neither you, nor Apple lawyers would want to enforce IP using their bare hands or paying for killers out of their pocket. Same for funding soldiers killing people around the world. The existing threat of murder ("obey the patent or give your money, or go to jail, or be shot down") is here because it is already being paid for by taxpayers. And since nobody is upset about it, it feels clean and easy to use it. But in free society it will not be clean and easy to use violence. You would have to pay for it yourself. And people would pay for guns only in extreme cases for personal protection in some weird dangerous areas. Otherwise it's too damn risky. But when it's regularly paid from taxes, any enforced regulation becomes possible, any crazy PATRIOT act or SOPA becomes readily available to society without much discussion.

dragonbonheur 14y ago

I never said it was only a problem with Apple. There is no need to apologize for them. It is a problem in technology patents and as I've written everyone knows where it is going. It's time to limit the effectiveness of technology patents to 1 year, maybe 2 years maximum or maybe get rid of tech patents altogether.