Apple isn't a patent troll(themactivist.com)
themactivist.com
Apple isn't a patent troll
http://themactivist.com/2012/05/19/apple-isnt-a-patent-troll/
12 comments
Funny that the article uses a photoshopped comparison. This is how both devices look next to each other:
http://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/1108/Apple_Samsung_Rechtsst...
http://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/1108/Apple_Samsung_Rechtsst...
"Yes, Apple didn’t invent any of the new features found on the iPhone"
Right, so why are they protecting of their own? A design which also existed before the iPhone?
Apple didn't invent any of the features; they just put it together in a unique way. They didn't patent putting it together in that way.
Right, so why are they protecting of their own? A design which also existed before the iPhone?
Apple didn't invent any of the features; they just put it together in a unique way. They didn't patent putting it together in that way.
"Smartphones wouldn’t look anything like they do today if Apple hadn’t created the iPhone back in 2007, and for that we can be grateful."
We don't have to be 'grateful'. They already earned billions from their idea, becoming the most valuable company on the planet.
I just don't see why apple needs protection considering how hugely profitable they are.
We don't have to be 'grateful'. They already earned billions from their idea, becoming the most valuable company on the planet.
I just don't see why apple needs protection considering how hugely profitable they are.
> I just don't see why apple needs protection considering how hugely profitable they are.
Because you can't have a double standard. Why would Apple not deserve protection and why other players should? Size? Profit? Would you want more of a patent system if it had a clause invalidating a patent past some profit made on this patent?
I for one would rather see the patent system go down, because it's supposed to push competitors to innovate, when in reality it pushes competitors to work around, which is completely counter-productive: instead of swimming along the current of innovation, everyone has to battle to swim against it.
Because you can't have a double standard. Why would Apple not deserve protection and why other players should? Size? Profit? Would you want more of a patent system if it had a clause invalidating a patent past some profit made on this patent?
I for one would rather see the patent system go down, because it's supposed to push competitors to innovate, when in reality it pushes competitors to work around, which is completely counter-productive: instead of swimming along the current of innovation, everyone has to battle to swim against it.
The backlash toward Apple seems silly to me, they're playing the game within the rules that exist.
If you're mad that patents consisting of obvious combinations, evolution's, and (ux) optimizations of prior or existing technologies are a thing: rail against that, not against Apple. In the end who really cares if Apple wins or loses their patent dispute, almost undoubtedly eventually a settlement will be reached and there will be some sort of patent licensing agreement reached and someone will be out a few billion in fines.
If this case started a movement that was more like: "I don't like how Apple is able to abuse the patent law, lets change how patents work", and then real patent law got changed, that would be huge not only in regards to this particular case but to the whole industry. That would make sense. The media/community drama now? I don't get it.
If you're mad that patents consisting of obvious combinations, evolution's, and (ux) optimizations of prior or existing technologies are a thing: rail against that, not against Apple. In the end who really cares if Apple wins or loses their patent dispute, almost undoubtedly eventually a settlement will be reached and there will be some sort of patent licensing agreement reached and someone will be out a few billion in fines.
If this case started a movement that was more like: "I don't like how Apple is able to abuse the patent law, lets change how patents work", and then real patent law got changed, that would be huge not only in regards to this particular case but to the whole industry. That would make sense. The media/community drama now? I don't get it.
You don't get it? So just because something is within the law that makes it ok? Was slavery ok back in the day just because it was legal?
What I don't get is how people can justify using this argument.
What I don't get is how people can justify using this argument.
Slavery was fucked up, so we got rid of slavery.
Patent law is fucked up, so we get mad at Apple.
These two things are not alike, and the latter reaction doesn't really make sense.
I never said anything remotely close to the idea that I think what Apple is doing is OK, rather quite the opposite. But I'm not going to be mad at Apple about it because being mad at Apple accomplishes pretty much literally nothing. Instead I'll direct my frustration at the true cause of the insanity: the inane patent law itself.
Patent law is fucked up, so we get mad at Apple.
These two things are not alike, and the latter reaction doesn't really make sense.
I never said anything remotely close to the idea that I think what Apple is doing is OK, rather quite the opposite. But I'm not going to be mad at Apple about it because being mad at Apple accomplishes pretty much literally nothing. Instead I'll direct my frustration at the true cause of the insanity: the inane patent law itself.
There were people rallying against slave masters. Yes, back when it was still legal to own slaves. Do you say these activists had nothing to do with abolishing slavery? Do you say they were wrong to be mad at slave masters because it was the law back hen?
Apple isn't a patent troll in only the most technical sense -- they're not a "non-practicing entity" but rather a company that actually makes things.
They still have a bunch of terribly overbroad patents made by a broken patent system. And they're using those dysfunctional patents as aggressively as possible, which is exactly the same danger patent trolls pose.
They still have a bunch of terribly overbroad patents made by a broken patent system. And they're using those dysfunctional patents as aggressively as possible, which is exactly the same danger patent trolls pose.
Myhrvold is a patent troll. A better term for Apple is probably something like "patent abuser."
Lodsys were "just protecting an idea" too - does that mean that Lodsys are no longer patent trolls?
Of course the general consumer - Apple main customer today - does not give a damn about all this but developers, it is another story.
And it's not about defending Samsung, I don't give a damn about Samsung, it's all about that slight sense of discomfort I get now when I fire up my macbook. Completely irrational maybe, but last time I had it was about launching Windows.
I have to give a good look at those Google's notebook now...