The article asks:
So why are there so many folks deeply insulted
or angered by the features that Apple has cherry-picked from its
rivals?
The article answers the question quite
well.
However, I think it's beneficial if it's said in several different
ways to get the point accross. So here's my wording:
I'm upset with Apple
because they take a position of "do as I say, not as I do".
In other
words:
It's ok for Apple to behave a certain way but not others.
So
when Apple is busy borrowing ideas of others they get upset when others borrow
Apple's ideas.
Additionally, it doesn't matter that - at the basic
ethic/moral level - that the particular "whatever" may be patented/copyrighted
or not.
The whole exchange of patents/copyrights is to grant a limited
monopoly in exchange for the knowledge of the "whatever" to be immediately
disseminated to the public so the public can immediately make use of the
knowledge of that "whatever". The knowledge is not supposed to be taxed by way
of patents/copyrights.
As a result, in my humble opinion, Apple is
basically saying:
It's wrong for you to use any knowledge in the
public domain!
And that's just totally wrong*!
At the heart, I think
a lot of people recognize that on a subconscious level even if they don't
understand on a conscious level why they're annoyed with Apple.
* As a
side note: Of course, I also believe the Patent System is feeding Apple's
behavior by granting patents on things that shouldn't be patented - such as
patenting the knowledge rather then a particular implementation of the
knowledge. Patenting "rectangle with rounded corners" on anything should have
been completely refused given the obviousness of the design as applied to
anything and it's historical existence going back a very long time (like
thousands of years old).
Just query Google images for "table 1950's" and
you'll see many pictures of rectangle with rounded corners. Query "monitors
1980's" and you'll see many with rectangle with rounded corners. Query "tv
1950's" and you'll see rectangle with rounded corners.
Examine the
display area of tv's closely and you'll see the rectangle shape with rounded
corners. Not just the units encasing the display but the display themselves as
well.
Now ask yourself:
If tv's as early as 1950 have viewing screens
and encasing units designed as "rectangle with rounded corners" - and the
retooling of the viewing screens for smartphones makes most sense to just
shrinking the viewing size - does it really make sense to grant a particular
company a patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" and force all the other
manufacturing that has already been doing that for 2 decades to change?
I'm
sure even the USPTO - if honestly answering that question - would agree that it
does not make sense. That's just wrong!
Some may scoff on the 2 decades
claim. In Google images, query "cell phone 1980's" and take a close look at the
images.
A patent grant has a 20 year maximum lifespan in the US. A
patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" granted in 1990 expires in
2010.
A very serious question for the USPTO: Why was Apple granted a
patent on "rectangle with rounded corners" they can use as a Legal Club today
against manufacturing that has been doing this for at least 30 years? (Google
images, "cell phone 1970's") - of course, the timeline is variable depending on
which "subject matter" you target:
"communication devices" = 30+
years
"electronic displays" = 40+ years
"external to
electronic surfaces" = 2000+ years
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|