Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 05:25 PM EST |
I agree! Patents often protect your inability to further
innovate. You get your patent on rectangles with round
corners, and then you are all set for years without any
further innovation. Meanwhile, all he non-patent holders have
to innovate to stay in business.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST |
The concept goes like this: If someone spends
money on R & D, comes out with a new product, and
everyone else just copies the end result immediately,
without having to spend on R&D, it's not fair and
in the end no one will do the R&D, because you
then can't get your money back that you invested.
Folks who didn't do R&D then benefit from your
investment, and you don't get the full benefit
that you worked for.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 07:15 PM EST |
Semantics are important. It is informative to see how people
use terms that have very favorable connotations to describe
the ideas they favor, and use other terms with negative
connotations for their opponents' ideas.
The repeated use of the term "patent rights" in this article
is a good example. Who could be opposed to "rights"? But
the actual function of a patent does not grant any rights to
anyone. It rather limits the expressive and economic rights
of the rest of society, all premised on the bargain of
eventual societal benefit. Likewise, copyright "protection"
is prevention of the creation of copies. It doesn't protect
the original, because the act of copying doesn't do anything
to the original.
Similarly, downloading unauthorized copies becomes "internet
theft", and prevention of gay people from getting married
becomes "defense of marriage".
All of these terms are intellectually dishonest. They
should be avoided just as Stallman refuses to use the term
"intellectual property".
DSB[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST |
This headline sounds far too much like:
"The Beast Must Die!"
Spare us all the melodrama. Apple was not compelled to sue
over anything because what it is suing over is trivial
design details. There are no technical innovations in any of
patents apple is asserting so there certainly isn't any
reason that they had to sue. Motorola does have reason to
sue Apple for standard essential patents but it was Apple
who turned to the courts over look and feel rather than
basic functionality.
Apple is the bad boy here. "They're my toys, all mine! Mine!
Mine! Mine!" is just childish.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|