Originally Posted by Orlando
But the problem is patents are weapons. It is no longer about who makes the better products it is about who has the most weapons (ie who has the biggest patent portfolio). If you have a large portfolio you can copy another company's inventions because t will just end up as a cross licensing deal.
1) I think that is why you see Apple aggressively per suing patents like this. They are actively creating and
they are actively positioning themselves to protect their innovation.
Also I doubt they will be cross-licensing tech they consider core like certain aspects of multi-touch.
If you don't have a large portfolio it almost worth going to work in the mornings because it is virtually impossible not to fall foul of some patent and get sued.
Sure - but the converse is also true - the "little guy" who comes up with that really great insight or innovation can protect it and benefit. Yes, larger companies have more resources to do it - but at least it is possible to protect yourself with patents if you are an individual inventor. For all their foibles, without patents there would be NO hope for "the little guy" - just ask Robert Kearns
Again, the concepts of intellectual property protection were considered so essential to the success of our country that it's one of the few things that the founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution. And despite what people think, especially given the size of our current federal government, there isn't much in the US Constitution. It's a pretty lightweight document when you get down to. If you haven't taken a look at it (whether you are an American or not), you really should - I think most people would be astonished at what isn't in the constitution vs. what is in there (Hmm, similar to Apple's approach for products - successful country, successful company - I wonder if there is a connection?!?)