They don't say they disagree. Read this line carefully and absorb what it says:
"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the [SIZE=14px]Progress[/SIZE] of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
What is that saying? I gave you a hint.
EDIT: That quote is from the Constitution in case you don't recognize it.
That's right. And since you are apparently unable to comprehend even the quote you provided, let me highlight the important part:
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
When Posner argues that patent holders should not have an exclusive right to their invention and should therefore be forced to license it, he is in stark contrast to the Constitution.
They don't say they disagree. Read this line carefully and absorb what it says:
"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
What is that saying? I gave you a hint.
EDIT: That quote is from the Constitution in case you don't recognize it.
When that was written the typical "limited times" were 14 years, plus the option for a 14 year renewal. That changed to 28-14, 28-28, and then 75 years or life + 50 years; but it didn't stop there, now it's 95/120 or life + 70 years. By the time that "limited" time comes to pass, who knows what further extensions will have transpired.
Edit: My point? The "progress of science and art" no longer matters, what matters is the progress of one person's wallet and it seems clear the limited terms are expandable into perpetuity.
That's right. And since you are apparently unable to comprehend even the quote you provided, let me highlight the important part:
When Posner argues that patent holders should not have an exclusive right to their invention and should therefore be forced to license it, he is in stark contrast to the Constitution.
I knew you'd miss it even tho I put in bold and a larger point-type. No sense in helping you understand since you don't want to listen. Mocking is more your style I guess. For someone who has been wrong as often as you the past 72 hours I'd consider being a bit more humble.
"Samsung's modified Galaxy Tab for the German market—the 10.1N—seems to be sufficiently different than the iPad in design and likely won't face an injunction" Is that English plain enough for you? You can read more here
The redesigned version was allowed to be sold in Germany. I believe they had the new model ready since they it one week later. Now what's your definition?
At the hearing, Judge Posner reportedly said that it would be mistaken to think that "just because someone has a patent, he has a deep moral right to exclude everyone else [from practicing the claimed invention]".
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.
That's what I was going to attempt to do, but obviously wasting time to try and do so for the good Dr. Someone else may think you'll try to understand and explain it to you. Good luck to them.
LOL, you are grasping at straws. First Palm's grid of icons, now Dieter Rams. "Quick, lemme find examples of Apple copying design. Google search later...Oooo...gold mine! Dieter Rams! Let me post that on AppleInsider... I win!!!"
To say that Apple "ripped off" Dieter Rams is like saying Mozart "ripped off" Classical Music. Rams is the father of an industrial design movement that Jonathan Ive (and Dieter Rams) acknowledge that Apple follows today. You don't "rip off" a design movement; you belong to it. And for the record, Rams loves that Apple is following his design philosophy.
Samsung hasn't done what Apple has done. They haven't embraced Dieter Rams' functionalist industrial design principles. They aren't inspired by Braun products of the 60s. It's very obvious: they saw the iPhone and iPad selling like kimchi and decided their future phones and tablets should look like that, to the point that Samsung's own lawyers couldn't tell them apart from Apple's. This is common sense. Stop fighting it with nonsense posts.
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.
Wow you are really stretching here aren't you? Surely you understand the distinction between owning something and using something? Only I have the deed to my car, but I can let you drive it for a fee if you like. Similarly, the constitution says authors/creators own the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries, but it never says that others can't make use of those patents/copyrights/trademarks under certain conditions, like the Fair Use Clause, or subject to royalties.
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.
He said that there is no "deep moral right". "At the hearing, Judge Posner reportedly said that it would be mistaken to think that "just because someone has a patent, he has a deep moral right to exclude everyone else [from practicing the claimed invention]".
He did not say that they have no right of any sort, as you seem to believe. He said instead that they have no deep moral right.
The distinction is between a malum in se violation of law and a malum prohibitum violation. That is a major distinction in the law that you don't understand.
Malum in se means that the act is wrong morally, in and of itself, such as murder. Malum prohibitum means that the act is wrong because there is a statute in place. Patent and copyright violations, for example, are classic malum prohibitum violations.
I suspected that that was the root of your understanding. Does that help, Dr. Scientist?
Wow you are really stretching here aren't you? Surely you understand the distinction between owning something and using something? Only I have the deed to my car, but I can let you drive it for a fee if you like. Similarly, the constitution says authors/creators own the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries, but it never says that others can't make use of those patents/copyrights/trademarks under certain conditions, like the Fair Use Clause, or subject to royalties.
The fair use doctrine (not clause, btw) is a good example showing that while authors and inventors have many exclusive rights, the right to exclude is not absolute. Similar distinctions exist in the area of mandatory licensing, the first sale doctrine, and the distinction between the rights of authors in published as opposed to unpublished works.
The fair use doctrine (not clause, btw) is a good example showing that while authors and inventors have many exclusive rights, the right to exclude is not absolute. Similar distinctions exist in the area of mandatory licensing, the first sale doctrine, and the distinction between the rights of authors in published as opposed to unpublished works.
Please show me a case where fair use applies to patents. Hint: it doesn't. It applies to copyrights.
He said that there is no "deep moral right". "<span style="background-color:rgb(198,204,208);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">At the hearing, Judge Posner reportedly said that it would be mistaken to think that "just because someone has a patent, he has a deep moral right to exclude everyone else [from practicing the claimed invention]".</span>
He did not say that they have no right of any sort, as you seem to believe. He said instead that they have no deep moral right.
The distinction is between a malum in se violation of law and a malum prohibitum violation. That is a major distinction in the law that you don't understand.
Malum in se means that the act is wrong morally, in and of itself, such as murder. Malum prohibitum means that the act is wrong because there is a statute in place. Patent and copyright violations, for example, are classic malum prohibitum violations.
I suspected that that was the root of your understanding. Does that help, Dr. Scientist?
None of which changes anything. Simply:
1. The Constitution is very clear. An individual is supposed to have exclusive rights to their inventions for a period of time.
2. Posner says that a person should NOT have exclusive rights to their inventions.
3. Ergo, Posner is disagreeing with the Constitution.
You say this all the time, and every time we tell you that Samsung's own lawyers must be idiots.
You simply don't want to understand what I'm saying. There are lots of tablets that look like the iPad, including the Samsung tablets.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
The point is would a reasonable person be confused into buying a Samsung tablet when they wanted to buy an iPad.
I maintain that you would have to be a complete moron to do that given that every tablet I've seen is clearly branded on the front and/or back of the product.
I don't care if the Samsung looks like the iPad. I really don't care. I hope Apple lose this case and all the other cases because I don't want to see an iPad monopoly. Competition breads innovation and keeps prices down.
I don't expect to have an objective discussion as there are just too many blinkered people on here.
Please show me a case where fair use applies to patents. Hint: it doesn't. It applies to copyrights.
None of which changes anything. Simply:
1. The Constitution is very clear. An individual is supposed to have exclusive rights to their inventions for a period of time.
2. Posner says that a person should NOT have exclusive rights to their inventions.
3. Ergo, Posner is disagreeing with the Constitution.
Again you misunderstand. I never claimed that fair use is any part of patent law.
2. No, Posner didn't say that. He said that they have no deep moral right to exclusivity. Certain exclusive rights are conferred by statutes, but none by morality per se. And he wasn't even talking about what they "should" have,. but rather, what they DO have, under the law as it currently exists.
Do you need to hear it a third time? do you think that the adjectives he chose where superfluous? Is it possible that he chose his words carefullly, and that you are ignoring limitations inherent in his sentence?
Think about this: If Posner had said "Dr. Science does not own a blue Chevrolet", would you take that to mean that he owns no Chevrolet of any color? Seemingly, that is the interpretation you take from his statement that Apple has no deep moral right - you believe him to mean that they have no right whatsoever. But that is NOT what he said.
Comments
That's right. And since you are apparently unable to comprehend even the quote you provided, let me highlight the important part:
When Posner argues that patent holders should not have an exclusive right to their invention and should therefore be forced to license it, he is in stark contrast to the Constitution.
Depends on your definition. ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They don't say they disagree. Read this line carefully and absorb what it says:
"The Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
What is that saying? I gave you a hint.
EDIT: That quote is from the Constitution in case you don't recognize it.
When that was written the typical "limited times" were 14 years, plus the option for a 14 year renewal. That changed to 28-14, 28-28, and then 75 years or life + 50 years; but it didn't stop there, now it's 95/120 or life + 70 years. By the time that "limited" time comes to pass, who knows what further extensions will have transpired.
Edit: My point? The "progress of science and art" no longer matters, what matters is the progress of one person's wallet and it seems clear the limited terms are expandable into perpetuity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's right. And since you are apparently unable to comprehend even the quote you provided, let me highlight the important part:
When Posner argues that patent holders should not have an exclusive right to their invention and should therefore be forced to license it, he is in stark contrast to the Constitution.
I knew you'd miss it even tho I put in bold and a larger point-type. No sense in helping you understand since you don't want to listen. Mocking is more your style I guess. For someone who has been wrong as often as you the past 72 hours I'd consider being a bit more humble.
"Samsung's modified Galaxy Tab for the German market—the 10.1N—seems to be sufficiently different than the iPad in design and likely won't face an injunction" Is that English plain enough for you? You can read more here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Nothing is ever truly original. Inspiration comes in my ways. Palm OS versus Apple iOS. Interesting.
And that supposed to prove what? That all of Apple's patents are invalid?
Apple isn't suing anyone over a grid of icons.
Depends on your definition. ????
The redesigned version was allowed to be sold in Germany. I believe they had the new model ready since they it one week later. Now what's your definition?
Wonder what that says, you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Posner's position that patent exclusivity shouldn't be enforceable.
That is NOT Posner's position. You misunderstood his point.
Quote what he said that geve you the mistaken impression, and I'll explain it to you.
That they were ready for the worst case scenario.
Sure:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/judge-posners-dismissal-of-two-way.html
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.
That's what I was going to attempt to do, but obviously wasting time to try and do so for the good Dr. Someone else may think you'll try to understand and explain it to you. Good luck to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
That's my point, to a greater or lesser extent most products are copies of something else. Nothing is truly original.
If you're going to get personal then maybe I should mention how Apple has copied the designs of DIETER RAMS over many years.
Rip off or inspiration?
I can't be bothered to copy the pics across so you can look at the similarities for yourself at http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
LOL, you are grasping at straws. First Palm's grid of icons, now Dieter Rams. "Quick, lemme find examples of Apple copying design. Google search later...Oooo...gold mine! Dieter Rams! Let me post that on AppleInsider... I win!!!"
To say that Apple "ripped off" Dieter Rams is like saying Mozart "ripped off" Classical Music. Rams is the father of an industrial design movement that Jonathan Ive (and Dieter Rams) acknowledge that Apple follows today. You don't "rip off" a design movement; you belong to it. And for the record, Rams loves that Apple is following his design philosophy.
Samsung hasn't done what Apple has done. They haven't embraced Dieter Rams' functionalist industrial design principles. They aren't inspired by Braun products of the 60s. It's very obvious: they saw the iPhone and iPad selling like kimchi and decided their future phones and tablets should look like that, to the point that Samsung's own lawyers couldn't tell them apart from Apple's. This is common sense. Stop fighting it with nonsense posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/judge-posners-dismissal-of-two-way.html
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.
Wow you are really stretching here aren't you? Surely you understand the distinction between owning something and using something? Only I have the deed to my car, but I can let you drive it for a fee if you like. Similarly, the constitution says authors/creators own the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries, but it never says that others can't make use of those patents/copyrights/trademarks under certain conditions, like the Fair Use Clause, or subject to royalties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/judge-posners-dismissal-of-two-way.html
Now, you explain to me how that says anything other than that Posner doesn't think patents should give exclusivity. And explain how that position can be reconciled with a very clear statement in the Constitution that patents DO give exclusivity.
He said that there is no "deep moral right". "At the hearing, Judge Posner reportedly said that it would be mistaken to think that "just because someone has a patent, he has a deep moral right to exclude everyone else [from practicing the claimed invention]".
He did not say that they have no right of any sort, as you seem to believe. He said instead that they have no deep moral right.
The distinction is between a malum in se violation of law and a malum prohibitum violation. That is a major distinction in the law that you don't understand.
Malum in se means that the act is wrong morally, in and of itself, such as murder. Malum prohibitum means that the act is wrong because there is a statute in place. Patent and copyright violations, for example, are classic malum prohibitum violations.
I suspected that that was the root of your understanding. Does that help, Dr. Scientist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Wow you are really stretching here aren't you? Surely you understand the distinction between owning something and using something? Only I have the deed to my car, but I can let you drive it for a fee if you like. Similarly, the constitution says authors/creators own the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries, but it never says that others can't make use of those patents/copyrights/trademarks under certain conditions, like the Fair Use Clause, or subject to royalties.
The fair use doctrine (not clause, btw) is a good example showing that while authors and inventors have many exclusive rights, the right to exclude is not absolute. Similar distinctions exist in the area of mandatory licensing, the first sale doctrine, and the distinction between the rights of authors in published as opposed to unpublished works.
Please show me a case where fair use applies to patents. Hint: it doesn't. It applies to copyrights.
None of which changes anything. Simply:
1. The Constitution is very clear. An individual is supposed to have exclusive rights to their inventions for a period of time.
2. Posner says that a person should NOT have exclusive rights to their inventions.
3. Ergo, Posner is disagreeing with the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You say this all the time, and every time we tell you that Samsung's own lawyers must be idiots.
You simply don't want to understand what I'm saying. There are lots of tablets that look like the iPad, including the Samsung tablets.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
The point is would a reasonable person be confused into buying a Samsung tablet when they wanted to buy an iPad.
I maintain that you would have to be a complete moron to do that given that every tablet I've seen is clearly branded on the front and/or back of the product.
I don't care if the Samsung looks like the iPad. I really don't care. I hope Apple lose this case and all the other cases because I don't want to see an iPad monopoly. Competition breads innovation and keeps prices down.
I don't expect to have an objective discussion as there are just too many blinkered people on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please show me a case where fair use applies to patents. Hint: it doesn't. It applies to copyrights.
None of which changes anything. Simply:
1. The Constitution is very clear. An individual is supposed to have exclusive rights to their inventions for a period of time.
2. Posner says that a person should NOT have exclusive rights to their inventions.
3. Ergo, Posner is disagreeing with the Constitution.
Again you misunderstand. I never claimed that fair use is any part of patent law.
2. No, Posner didn't say that. He said that they have no deep moral right to exclusivity. Certain exclusive rights are conferred by statutes, but none by morality per se. And he wasn't even talking about what they "should" have,. but rather, what they DO have, under the law as it currently exists.
Do you need to hear it a third time? do you think that the adjectives he chose where superfluous? Is it possible that he chose his words carefullly, and that you are ignoring limitations inherent in his sentence?
Think about this: If Posner had said "Dr. Science does not own a blue Chevrolet", would you take that to mean that he owns no Chevrolet of any color? Seemingly, that is the interpretation you take from his statement that Apple has no deep moral right - you believe him to mean that they have no right whatsoever. But that is NOT what he said.