I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
But then if you use the drug companies as an example....The pantent on those drugs runs out after 5 years and then other companies can make GENERIC VERSIONS of those drugs. So that example is saying Apple's IP will run out after 5 years. So are you sure you want to use that example?
Interestingly Microsoft and Samsung have just announced a cross-licensing agreement for each other's IP, a per-device payment for Android-based products, and a statement that Microsoft looks forward to working with Samsung on developement of new mobile phones and tablets with them.
But then if you use the drug companies as an example....The pantent on those drugs runs out after 5 years and then other companies can make GENERIC VERSIONS of those drugs. So that example is saying Apple's IP will run out after 5 years. So are you sure you want to use that example?
As of June 8, 1995 patents last 20 years from the date they were filed.
If a company spends time and money to develop an idea I believe they should have an exclusive period of time to profit from it. Without a period of exclusivity why bother inventing something? It would be much easier to just wait for another company to do all the work and then immediately cash in on the other company's idea.
I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.
Does anyone think that Apple's attempt to ignore hard earned and inventive intellectual property that belongs to someone else should be permitted? Shouldn't they just find a way to "innovate around" a validly issued patent rather than steal it for themselves?
Yeah except the iPad is not an "electronic book", if that's the case then a laptop, which can also be used to read books, will fall under the same category. This patent should work against Nook or the Kindle.
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party's submission of amicus briefs in district courts," Apple's filing read.
Verizon's motion "would have been untimely by several weeks" if submitted in an appellate court, Apple argued.
Sounds like they are grasping at straws. They are using rules from a different court to argue against something that is not prohibited in the court hearing the case.
I predict that the judge will allow the brief, and will also allow Apple to file a response. More information is better for a decision maker like a judge.
And then Apple will use the allowance as a point of appeal.
Yeah except the iPad is not an "electronic book", if that's the case then a laptop, which can also be used to read books, will fall under the same category. This patent should work against Nook or the Kindle.
... and, that case was settled. Gatorguy is trolling.
There ain't no such thing as "the asian culture". You are talking about billions of different individual people from hundreds (thousands?) of individual ancient cultures.
You might as well talk about you, an Inuit and someone who grew up in Barbados sharing a "north american culture".
... and, that case was settled. Gatorguy is trolling.
There's plenty of other examples of very broad/undefined patents that Apple and others have either been granted or charged with infringing. My points are perfectly valid as examples, and there were no personal attacks that I'm aware of, so the trolling claim is a little odd.
Comments
I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
But then if you use the drug companies as an example....The pantent on those drugs runs out after 5 years and then other companies can make GENERIC VERSIONS of those drugs. So that example is saying Apple's IP will run out after 5 years. So are you sure you want to use that example?
definitely limit the time...especially software patents considering the pace of evolution in software....
Imagine ONE company being allowed to use any form of multitouch in their devices for 25 years? that's crazy.
Why is it crazy to protect something that you invent or spend millions of dollars on R&D???
So if you create something and I come along and want to copy it. That's ok with you???
Why is it crazy to protect something that you invent or spend millions of dollars on R&D???
So if you create something and I come along and want to copy it. That's ok with you???
See post 17. Follow the links. Do you still think it's as cut and dried as you seem to think?
But then if you use the drug companies as an example....The pantent on those drugs runs out after 5 years and then other companies can make GENERIC VERSIONS of those drugs. So that example is saying Apple's IP will run out after 5 years. So are you sure you want to use that example?
As of June 8, 1995 patents last 20 years from the date they were filed.
If a company spends time and money to develop an idea I believe they should have an exclusive period of time to profit from it. Without a period of exclusivity why bother inventing something? It would be much easier to just wait for another company to do all the work and then immediately cash in on the other company's idea.
I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.
The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.
Had Apple been with Verizon (as well as AT&T) from the beginning, Samsung and Android's foothold might not have been so strong.
So denying Verizon now would just double that problem.
jmho
Does anyone think that Apple's attempt to ignore hard earned and inventive intellectual property that belongs to someone else should be permitted? Shouldn't they just find a way to "innovate around" a validly issued patent rather than steal it for themselves?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ok_reader.html
Yeah except the iPad is not an "electronic book", if that's the case then a laptop, which can also be used to read books, will fall under the same category. This patent should work against Nook or the Kindle.
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party's submission of amicus briefs in district courts," Apple's filing read.
Verizon's motion "would have been untimely by several weeks" if submitted in an appellate court, Apple argued.
Sounds like they are grasping at straws. They are using rules from a different court to argue against something that is not prohibited in the court hearing the case.
I predict that the judge will allow the brief, and will also allow Apple to file a response. More information is better for a decision maker like a judge.
And then Apple will use the allowance as a point of appeal.
The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.
That would lower Apple's profits. Don't count on it.
Yeah except the iPad is not an "electronic book", if that's the case then a laptop, which can also be used to read books, will fall under the same category. This patent should work against Nook or the Kindle.
... and, that case was settled. Gatorguy is trolling.
OK, 4 monts later tha AT&T? No?
That too would reduce Apple's profits.
here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.
Here's what you don't seem to get: There's no "Asian" culture and you're wrong anyway.
in the asian culture
There ain't no such thing as "the asian culture". You are talking about billions of different individual people from hundreds (thousands?) of individual ancient cultures.
You might as well talk about you, an Inuit and someone who grew up in Barbados sharing a "north american culture".
here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.
That's really racist.
Here's what you don't seem to get: There's no "asian" culture and you're wrong anyway.
Oh I see what you did there
That's really racist.
Continentist. PLENTY of races in Asia.
... and, that case was settled. Gatorguy is trolling.
There's plenty of other examples of very broad/undefined patents that Apple and others have either been granted or charged with infringing. My points are perfectly valid as examples, and there were no personal attacks that I'm aware of, so the trolling claim is a little odd.
Continentist. PLENTY of races in Asia.
Incontinence. Plenty of those races everywhere.
... and now... back to Verizon...