or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential - Page 2

post #41 of 271

Sorry, Googie, you knew full well, all along, Apple never intended their technology to be standards essential--outside the realm of Apple products, that is.

 

Steve Jobs, Jan. 2007: "And boy have we patented it!"

 

I know, Larry "Gurgles" Page is speechless, simply unable to innovate at the present time... or for the last 5+ years. Times change and one-trick-ponies disappear into the dust bin of history.


Edited by Cpsro - 7/20/12 at 6:48pm
post #42 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

I wonder if Apple could actually use this against Google/Motorola in court. Did Google specifically mention Apple's patents as being essential? Isn't that admission that it's innovative and no one else has been able to create something like it?

 

Google seems to be expressing an opinion about Apple's multitouch patent. This falls short of an admission.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

FAIR WARNING, from 2007.

 

 

 

What, did everyone think he was kidding??

 

Yes, brilliant!   This video clip should make any jury "clear as day" just what Apple was expecting when they launched the iPhone.   What's actually happened is the court system and patent system was too slow to stop the offenders early enough to prevent widespread market abuse, and egregious abuse of Apple's patents.  As sad as seeing the slick Samsung SIII taken off the market, this pretty clearly makes Google's use of Apple's multitouch claims a deliberate offence, and by proxy Samsung and all Android licensees too.

 

Right now our set of rules for patents state Apple should win this.   If we had better rules for more liberal fair use for great concepts, re-implemented, then Google should win.

 

The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense.  A broad re-think should be in order.

 

- Aaron.

post #44 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

My hatred of Google is growing daily.

 

 

 
 

Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?

post #45 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

I believe a nearly identical scenario arose in 'Atlas Shrugged'. Apple... patent holder of Reardon Metal.

 

Please don't use Apple to try to justify retarded Ayn Rand philosophy.

 
post #46 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

I wonder if Apple could actually use this against Google/Motorola in court. Did Google specifically mention Apple's patents as being essential? Isn't that admission that it's innovative and no one else has been able to create something like it?

Perhaps it could be construed as an admission by Google that it has infringed on Apple's IP, since Google apparently isn't innovative enough to come up with their own technological solutions or innovative enough to develop an alternative technology that's at least as seductive as Apple's. Poor babies.

post #47 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by otri View Post

 

If we had better rules for more liberal fair use for great concepts, re-implemented, then Google should win.

 

The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense.  A broad re-think should be in order.

 

There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #48 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

No, it's a very thin claim indeed.  It's also illogical.  

The reason the cellular radio patents are essential is that you can't make a phone without them.  Clearly, you can make a great phone, even a great multi-touch smartphone, without Apple's patents.  You can also make a search engine without Google's algorithms.  


This has it nailed.

Google wants free reign to use whatever they want that others created for free or dirt pricing. But you can bet if someone argued that their algorithms are de facto essential they would shit a brick at the notion

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #49 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

Please don't use Apple to try to justify retarded Ayn Rand philosophy.

 

 

I guess we know where you stand. (...with two you get eyeroll...)

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.

 

Yeah, I don't believe in your property rights, either. Your big screen TV, your computer, your car, your stuff should not belong to one person. Everyone is entitled to it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #51 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?

 

Long series of actions that I consider unethical and anti-consumer, increasingly arrogant, outlandish and hypocritical positions, combined with a dearth of innovation or quality products or services. In other words, very much like Microsoft at their worst.

 

I'm not going to take the time to produce an exhaustive list, but their theft of Apple's iPhone concept while their CEO was on Apple's board, and their purchase of Motorola with the intent to continue their shameless misuse of standards essential patents to try to force innovative and successful companies to license their private patents are pretty high up on my list. Add to that their nonexistent customer service and the escalating discontinuation of previously popular Google services and policies in order to push their worthless Google+ strategy.

 

To quote Jobs, "This don’t be evil mantra: It’s bullshit."

 

I detest this company's values.

 

 

 
 
 
 

Edited by freediverx - 7/20/12 at 7:04pm
post #52 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by rioviva View Post

I actually agree with Google. On that note, I think their search algorithms have become essential for the industry. As much as I've tried switching to Bing or Yahoo, I keep coming back to Google's engine.
Those algorithms should be de facto standards and licensed under FRAND

 

 

That is wacky. First, because Google licenses the algorithms it uses in search from Stanford University under an exclusive deal. It doesn't own the algorithms. Second, the premise of Google's argument is if a company makes something popular then every company has a right to use those inventions. The only way that would make sense is if the popular way of doing something was essential to how something was done. None of the at issue Apple patents are essential. They just are preferred because competitors can't or don't want to invest the resources to innovate a better way of doing something. Further, being bound by the terms of a standard body also is strictly voluntary and benefits all competitors because they don't have to compete to create individual standards for underlying technologies like wi-fi or 3G. Allowing companies like Google free access to Apple's non essential patents doesn't benefit Apple or consumers. It undermines Apple's motivation to invest in innovating, and consumers end up with less enjoyable products. 

 

With that said, I think Apple's approach here is wrong, but is within its right to pursue the approach it has taken. It can't easily win this battle because it is far outnumbered. It would have been better off forcing companies like Samsung and Google to take a license like Microsoft has done. Apple could make more money off Android than Google. This would eventually have the same effect as seeking injunctions. 

post #53 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.

It should belong to everyone, however, its the patient on how you get multitouch to work not multitouch its self, so if google figure out their own way, they can use it?

post #54 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

There is actually relatively little wrong with the current patent system. It works, overburdened though it is. What's wrong is companies ripping off the patent holders and trying to change the law to fit their misdeeds. If Apple had ripped off Google, the obvious would still apply.

 


You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.

 
post #55 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

Long series of actions that I consider unethical and anti-consumer, increasingly arrogant, outlandish and hypocritical positions, combined with a dearth of innovation or quality products or services. In other words, very much like Microsoft at their worst.

 

I'm not going to take the time to produce an exhaustive list, but their theft of Apple's iPhone concept while their CEO was on Apple's board, and their purchase of Motorola with the intent to continue their shameless misuse of standards essential patents to try to force innovative and successful companies to license their private patents are pretty high up on my list. Add to that their nonexistent customer service and the escalating discontinuation of previously popular Google services and policies in order to push their worthless Google+ strategy.

 

I detest this company's values.

 

 

 
 
 

Wow you are very passionate with something that doesn't really effect you directly. I imagine you have a long list of other things you hate too.

post #56 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by otri View Post

 

The patent system, trademarks, and copyright, and the context of fair use are fundamentally flawed and should be re-imagined to settle this nonsense.  A broad re-think should be in order.

 

- Aaron.

This cannot be settled by rethinking the law. Future issues can be avoided, perhaps. But none of this can be fixed retroactively. Apple has played by the existing rules. Under those rules. Google are a bunch of thieves. It is like a team maximizing their gameplay for the current rules of Baseball, then beating everyone 100 to 0 every game. After winning what should be the World Series, they are informed that the rules were changed because the season was boring. Therefore, their wins have been retroactively converted to losses, and the other teams also have a right to your equipment.

 

I don't care how much a persons dislikes the game. As long as it is being played by the existing rules, they should not be penalized. Google is trying to say that Apple's legal, innovative advantage should be considered unfair.  Essentially, Apple should have to be the developer for all the companies, just to make it fair. Changing the rules will not help. Someone will just figure out how to maximize them, and we will be right back where we are now. 

Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #57 of 271

F Google! They're thieves.

post #58 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post

This is an interesting, if desperate legal theory.  If I'm Apple's legal team, I'm framing this letter to the Senate in their offices and trotting it out for any further legal jousting with Google.  Some people have said that in order for Google to enjoy iPhone patents, they will need to cede something important like their search patents.  It's more than that....they'd have to hand over Adsense and a bunch of other related IP.  And even all of that is still smaller than the overall business of the iPhone.

 

This also might be a better argument if Google was a bit player trying to survive in the Phone market.  But with Android phones outselling iPhone 2:1 worldwide because they used this IP and basically gave it away to whomever wanted it, it's not just a bad argument, it's hilariously bad.

 

The beauty of the whole thing is that Google could offer Apple free access to everything Google has until hell freezes over thrice and Apple can still legally refuse to patent even one non essential patent. And I suspect that that is exactly what has happened which is why Google wants this whole 'de facto standard' thing so then the courts will force Apple to license their stuff

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #59 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

I guess we know where you stand. (...with two you get eyeroll...)

 

I suspect you'd be similarly annoyed if someone sprinkled this forum with pro-Leninist references. No need to bring ridiculous, outdated and failed political philosophies into a tech forum.
 
 
post #60 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post

I don't think Google is making this as an argument in the current litigation, clearly the law as currently stands has no such concept as "commercially essential". In theory, they're asking the laws be changed to create that standard.

 

In reality, this is about trying to head off investigations by the ITC and others about Motorola's (thus Google's) abuse of FRAND licensing for standards-essential patents. They're going for a classic defense, "Mooooom! But he does toooooo!" Since Apple, in fact, does have standards-essential patents (for H.264 and I believe some other standards) and does in fact license them under FRAND, Google has to redefine the bad behavior to include Apple.

 

Guess what.

 

As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.

 

Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #61 of 271

You all know the story of the little red hen, right?  The rRonald Reagan version is amusing as it seems to finish off in a way that clearly fits what is going on here:

 

The Little Red Hen


Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.  "Not I," said the duck.  "Not I," said the pig.  "Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did.

 

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

 

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

 

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow. "Capitalist leech," screamed the duck. "I demand equal rights," yelled the goose. And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

 

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

 

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #62 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

With that said, I think Apple's approach here is wrong, but is within its right to pursue the approach it has taken. It can't easily win this battle because it is far outnumbered. It would have been better off forcing companies like Samsung and Google to take a license like Microsoft has done. Apple could make more money off Android than Google. This would eventually have the same effect as seeking injunctions. 

 

Apple's approach has always been that the experience that Apple has created, with its blood and tears, should only come from Apple. That's why they stopped OEM licensing of Mac OS, that's why they don't license iOS etc. 

 

It is their legal right to not license their patents outside of those that fall under FRAND. Period. So they don't.

 

Now if Google wants to argue that Apple has a patent on the notion of a screen that can detect multiple points of contact etc and that that is wrong, that's a valid argument. Just like the one against Apple's patent on the notion of a swipe being used to 'unlock' a touch based device. But this seems to be more like they are arguing that Apple shouldn't have the right to their own implementation of said notion and that Apple should be forced to license it to everyone and that is wrong. Such a de facto standard would be saying that one could spend a lifetime developing something and it will become public domain on the grounds that you don't want to share it or someone doesn't like your price. So why would folks bother to invent at all

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #63 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?

 

Snooped around in my street, looking for open wifi networks so they could steal logins and passwords.

 

How's that for a reason, good enough for you?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #64 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Wow you are very passionate with something that doesn't really effect you directly. I imagine you have a long list of other things you hate too.

 

 

The years I had to put up with PCs and Windows didn't affect me?

The years I had to put up with Internet Explorer  and other inferior and stagnant software because MS put the innovative competitors out of business through abuse of their monopoly?

 

The prospect of having a less innovative and lower quality selection of consumer electronics because a non-innovative company could force the most innovative to surrender the competitive advantage that makes them profitable?

 

I'd say these and many other things I'm passionate about affect me directly.

 
post #65 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I remember at the time, people were mocking multi-touch, and damning it to failure, kind of the way they are doing with Siri. How long before Siri becomes an essential technology? 

 

Hahaha… remember when Rubin said, "I don't believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone." 

post #66 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by erio View Post

 

Hahaha… remember when Rubin said, "I don't believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone." 

 

First mock, then steal. Google has learned much from Microsoft.
 
post #67 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Snooped around in my street, looking for open wifi networks so they could steal logins and passwords.

 

How's that for a reason, good enough for you?

It's not reason at all, how did that personally effect you directly?

post #68 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

 

The years I had to put up with PCs and Windows didn't affect me?

The years I had to put up with Internet Explorer  and other inferior and stagnant software because MS put the innovative competitors out of business through abuse of their monopoly?

 

The prospect of having a less innovative and lower quality selection of consumer electronics because a non-innovative company could force the most innovative to surrender the competitive advantage that makes them profitable?

 

I'd say these and many other things I'm passionate about affect me directly.

 

You were forced against your will to use any of these items? 

post #69 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

It's not reason at all, how did that personally effect you directly?

 

I think I'll sneak in your house some day and go through your things. No big deal, you won't even know I was there.
 
BTW, here's a short list of shitty things Google has done that don't affect anyone:
 
 
 
post #70 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

I think I'll sneak in your house some day and go through your things. No big deal, you won't even know I was there.
 
BTW, here's a short list of shitty things Google has done that don't affect anyone:
 
 
 

See that would effect me directly and if I caught you then I would obviously take action.

 

You and Hill60 really have nothing which is hardly a surprise....

post #71 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

See that would effect me directly and if I caught you then I would obviously take action.

You and Hill60 really have nothing which is hardly a surprise....
Wait a moment. If Google snooped your wireless and gained your logins and passwords, how does that not affect you directly exactly?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #72 of 271
Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.
post #73 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Wait a moment. If Google snooped your wireless and gained your logins and passwords, how does that not affect you directly exactly?

Yes but it didn't happen to me...just like I'm sure it didn't happen to Hill60.

post #74 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Touche! Ayn Rand, the heroine of free-market, anti-goverment nutjobs, died of cancer while on social security and medicare. Perished while suckling on the teat she so despised. What a hypocrite.

 

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 
post #75 of 271
If Apple had tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock that's what Googke would want to use.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #76 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Guess what.

As a member of MPEG LA, Google may not be able to use it's affiliate/subsidiary to enforce an agreement outside the scope of the terms of their existing membership agreement.

Oops, I think I heard the sound of a twelve and a half billion dollar bullet entering a foot.
This is a serious issue that hasn't been getting nearly the coverage it should. For the people who don't know.....

Google is a member of MPEG-LA. They are allowed to use their IP. However there's a "it goes both ways" clause which states anyone licensing from MPEG-LA has to also offer their related patents for a similar rate. Google didn't have anything to license back in terms of H.264 so they probably never thought much about it.

Now that Motorola is owned by Google, Microsoft is arguing that Motorola must also abide by the agreement Google has with MPEG-LA. In other words, that whole 2.25% license Motorola is asking is now going to be reduced to pennies.

If Microsoft convinces the court of this it will be one of the biggest IP blunders ever made by a company (Google).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #77 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I remember at the time, people were mocking multi-touch, and damning it to failure, kind of the way they are doing with Siri. How long before Siri becomes an essential technology? 

People still mock Siri even if it is useful...and who mocked multitouch?

Point is Apple didn't invent multitouch and without the other companies actually advancing the technology it couldn't even exist. Capacitive screens allow for multitouch, not Apple.
post #78 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

I suspect you'd be similarly annoyed if someone sprinkled this forum with pro-Leninist references. No need to bring ridiculous, outdated and failed political philosophies into a tech forum.
 
 

 

Ayn Rand's philosophy dovetails nicely into free market capitalism, quite different from Leninism and it perfectly illustrated the point being made.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 


You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.

 

 

I don't believe in "patent trolls". I believe in IP as property, and thus the property may be used in any form it's owner wishes.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #80 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Google:

"We aren't first movers. We're asking for something (free ride) in compensation for our slowness."

OR

"We had this kind of tech, too. We were just too friggin stupid to think of patenting it."

OR

"We just randomly steal shit without thinking of the repercussions, and then raise all hell when people start catching on."

You be the judge. 

This isn't new for Google. Think back to Google Books. They felt like it was OK to simply copy every printed work they could find and publish it on the Internet without the copyright holder's permission. After enough authors complained, they asked Congress to change the laws to allow them to do it without the copyright holder's permission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

so multitouch should belong to one company?
morons.

The morons would be the people who don't understand patents and act like they do. No one said Apple should own multitouch. They said that Apple should own the rights TO THEIR OWN IMPLEMENTATION of multitouch. Google is free to come up with their own, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.
 

How is something that doesn't exist a sign of a failed patent system?

The problem is that all the people whining about 'patent trolls' don't understand the concept of intellectual property. A patent is property that you can buy, sell, license, use, not use, etc as you wish - just like any other property.

Think of a patent as a factory. If you own a factory, you have the right to leave it empty (unused) if you wish. You can use it yourself to product product. You can rent it out to someone else to produce product. You can wait until the rents increase to a higher level before renting it own. But no one else has the right to take over the factory simply because they don't like what the factory owner is doing with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

You were forced against your will to use any of these items? 

Yes. I have a family to feed and using Windows was necessary. Next question.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential