It's an excellent point of Tim's. There's no point having tough IP laws if it takes two years to enforce them, and by then he has a toehold in the market.
Two years is optimistic. Patent litigation often takes longer than two years.
Cook no doubt was referring to Apple's ongoing struggles with a variety of manufacturers making devices running Google's mobile operating system, Android.
More specifically, the Apple head likely referred to South Korea's Samsung, which leveraged close knowledge of Apple's operations to turn itself into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer in terms of units sold.
Some keep repeating this idea, yet it makes no sense.
What "close knowledge of Apple's operations" would Samsung have had, that let it grow into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer?
Samsung is not Foxconn. Samsung didn't manufacture iPhones.
All Samsung would've known about is how many CPU, Flash memory, and displays Apple was contracted to buy from them.
From parts orders, Samsung would've known nothing ahead of time about case designs, the OS or UI features, accessories, packaging, look and feel, etc. In other words, the real "inside info". Instead, such knowledge comes easily to anyone who buys the device after it goes on sale.
The "so-called" patent trolls might, but the actual ones don't. Yes, we know you are a denier, but your position is entirely untenable, and we all know there are companies who hold patents solely for purposes contrary to the purpose for which they are issued, or authorized by our constitution. We've been over this dozens of times here on these forums, and the argument that there are no patent trolls, or that they are actually good, has never held any water.
Nonsense. This has already been explained many times, but apparently some people are too interested in burying their head in the sand to listen.
No one ever said that there were no 'patent trolls'. What I've said (repeatedly) is that using the term 'patent troll' for people who buy and license IP is ridiculous.
An inventor creates something. Under US (and most other countries) law, they have some limited rights to that invention. If it's written, copyright law gives them almost unlimited rights to control how it is used for a period of time. If it's an invention, patent law gives them rights for a limited time.
Unfortunately, the inventor isn't always in a position to commercialize the technology. It's time consuming, expensive, and may not be what the inventor likes to do. Some people are serial inventors but don't have any interest in going through all the painful processes involved in commercialization. They have 3 choices:
1. Do nothing with the invention - which means that they don't benefit and society doesn't benefit.
2. License or sell the technology to someone who will use it. But that means they have to spend the time finding potential licensees. More importantly, they're always at a disadvantage against a multinational company. They risk having the company just take the IP without compensation because the cost of suing is so high.
3. Sell the technology to an IP firm which has the resources to unlock the value. For many people, that's the most profitable, least time consuming, and easiest approach.
In the end, IP rights are property rights. The owner has the right to do whatever they want - sell, keep, or license.
The easiest analogy is to think about a manufacturing plant. Let's say that you inherit a widget manufacturing plant from a relative. You don't want to make widgets, but you would like to get some value for the plant. You decide that the best way to get the value is to sell the plant to a real estate investment firm and you do so. The real estate investment firm thinks that the widget market is depressed right now and they'll make more money if they wait a year to sell, so they don't do anything with it at this point. A widget manufacturer sees the empty plant and moves in and starts making widgets.
According to most of the people using the term 'patent trolls', that should be OK (at least when it comes to IP). Since the real estate investment firm is not using the facility, why shouldn't someone else be able to do so? Their argument is that only people who actually intend to use IP should be entitled to have any ownership rights.
The premise is patently silly when it's applied to a building, but it's just as silly when applied to IP. The owner has rights and can do whatever they want - no matter how many people want to accuse the buyer of being a troll.
Some keep repeating this claim, yet it makes no sense. (It makes it sound like the writer thinks Samsung manufactured iPhones like Foxconn.)
What "close knowledge of Apple's operations" would Samsung have had, that let it grow into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer?
<span style="line-height:1.231;">All Samsung would've known about is how many CPU, Flash and displays Apple was contracted to buy from them.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Samsung would've known nothing ahead of time about case designs, the OS or UI features, accessories, packaging, look and feel, etc. Instead, such info comes easily to anyone who buys the device after it goes on sale.</span>
Ignoring, of course, the additional advantage that Samsung got from Google's theft of Apple's IP via Schmidt on the BOD. Oh, yeah, you deny that, too.
In addition, you're grossly minimizing the advantage Samsung had. For example, just take the screens. Knowing the size and resolution of the screen, it was obvious that Apple was not making a Blackberry-like device. You'd immediately know the general format of the phone and be able to extrapolate that the entire phone would be screen (essentially). You could then look at other phones that used similar size/format screens for guidance rather than continuing to focus on the flip phone that was standard at the time. Having access to Apple's hardware component designs was a HUGE advantage.
As a patent attorney and inventor, I can assure you that the issue Cook raised is a HUGE problem. Patent lawsuits are a horrible game of bury the patent holder with endless filings, depositions, summary judgement motions, expert testimony, etc. etc. etc. Most of the time spent on a patent case has no legitimate purpose other than to waste money and delay. There are rules that are intended to prevent abuse of the legal system, but they are very difficult to enforce.
Exactly. It's extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a small inventor to prevail against a large company which is committed to stealing their IP. If I invented something that had relevance for a large market, I'd almost certainly sell it to an IP firm (i.e., "patent troll") because there's no way I'd want to spend the rest of my life and every penny I own in court rooms trying to defend my property.
Nonsense. This has already been explained many times, but apparently some people are too interested in burying their head in the sand to listen.
No one ever said that there were no 'patent trolls'. What I've said (repeatedly) is that using the term 'patent troll' for people who buy and license IP is ridiculous.
Talk about nonsense Jragosta. You yourself have claimed there was no such thing as a patent troll.Always stick to the truth and it's not all that hard to remember what you probably said.
Geesh!
Edit:
Here's one of your quotes on patent trolls/
"I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand."
Talk about nonsense Jragosta. [SIZE=14px]You yourself have claimed there was no such thing as a patent troll.[/SIZE] Always stick to the truth and it's not all that hard to remember what you probably said.
Geesh!
Edit:
Here's one of your quotes on patent trolls/
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">"[SIZE=16px]I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing.[/SIZE] It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand."</span>
Read the quote in context. See the quotation marks? While I could have chosen my wording better, my position has always been the same. The TERM 'patent troll' is a ridiculous one. Companies which buy and license IP have a very useful purpose.
Read the quote in context. See the quotation marks? While I could have chosen my wording better, my position has always been the same. The TERM 'patent troll' is a ridiculous one. Companies which buy and license IP have a very useful purpose.
Then perhaps you should choose your words more carefully and more often. It's not the only time you've said there's no such thing as a patent troll. Here's two I found in just a couple of minutes.
Arbitration is theoretically possible, but not practical in patent cases.
What makes it that way? I ask due to the number of smaller inventors who as you mention cannot afford to defend their work against the larger companies, thus feeding the need for NPEs.
Ignoring, of course, the additional advantage that Samsung got from Google's theft of Apple's IP via Schmidt on the BOD. Oh, yeah, you deny that, too.
In addition, you're grossly minimizing the advantage Samsung had. For example, just take the screens. Knowing the size and resolution of the screen, it was obvious that Apple was not making a Blackberry-like device. You'd immediately know the general format of the phone and be able to extrapolate that the entire phone would be screen (essentially). You could then look at other phones that used similar size/format screens for guidance rather than continuing to focus on the flip phone that was standard at the time. Having access to Apple's hardware component designs was a HUGE advantage.
Yes but Samsung took it upon itself to make TouchWiz almost identical to iOS even after Google told them not to. Other manufacturers were able to differentiate their phones and Samsung could've done likewise.
Are you certain that Samsung knew what the screens were for? and even if they knew it wasn't a sure bet that it would succeed. Since Samsung really didn't take off until 2012 they were either extremely inept with their 'head start' or it's vastly overplayed.
Yes but Samsung took it upon itself to make TouchWiz almost identical to iOS even after Google told them not to. Other manufacturers were able to differentiate their phones and Samsung could've done likewise.
Which is even further evidence of Samsung's copyist philosophy.
Are you certain that Samsung knew what the screens were for? and even if they knew it wasn't a sure bet that it would succeed. Since Samsung really didn't take off until 2012 they were either extremely inept with their 'head start' or it's vastly overplayed.
Or there's lead time involved in manufacturing electronic devices.
Ignoring, of course, the additional advantage that Samsung got from Google's theft of Apple's IP via Schmidt on the BOD. Oh, yeah, you deny that, too.
In addition, you're grossly minimizing the advantage Samsung had. For example, just take the screens. Knowing the size and resolution of the screen, it was obvious that Apple was not making a Blackberry-like device.
None of the insider conspiracy theories that you keep coming up with make any sense, timewise. Besides the fact that they'd have had to have display orders before the iPhone was shown off, AND realize it was for a phone instead of an iPod...
AFTER JANUARY 2007 EVERYONE ON THE PLANET KNEW WHAT APPLE'S PHONE LOOKED LIKE. NO INSIDE INFO NEEDED.
Manufacturing didn't begin for months after that, and it was done by Foxconn.
Quote:
You'd immediately know the general format of the phone and be able to extrapolate that the entire phone would be screen (essentially). You could then look at other phones that used similar size/format screens for guidance rather than continuing to focus on the flip phone that was standard at the time. Having access to Apple's hardware component designs was a HUGE advantage.
This fantasy also makes no sense, unless someone is so ignorant about smartphone history that they actually think those were all flip phones, or even Blackberry like.
Everyone had done fullscreen phones. Heck, right about the time the iPhone first went on sale, you could buy a Toshiba touchscreen smartphone with a WGA retina density display and fingerprint reader.
The far more critical and revealing info would've been about the use of a capacitive touchscreen, and someone else made that.
The sheer fact is, it didn't take insider info for Samsung to get where it's at. Now, if you want to claim they got there by originally copying the iPhone UI after it was shown off, that's a valid debate.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">None of the insider conspiracy theories that you keep coming up with make any sense, timewise. Besides the fact that they'd have had to have display orders before the iPhone was shown off, AND realize it was for a phone instead of an iPod...</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">AFTER JANUARY 2007 EVERYONE ON THE PLANET KNEW WHAT APPLE'S PHONE LOOKED LIKE. NO INSIDE INFO NEEDED.</span>
Manufacturing didn't begin for months after that, and it was done by Foxconn.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">This fantasy also makes no sense, unless someone is </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">so ignorant about smartphone history that they actually think those were all flip phones, or even Blackberry like.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Everyone had done fullscreen phones. Heck, right about the time the iPhone first went on sale, you could buy a Toshiba touchscreen smartphone with a WGA retina density display and fingerprint reader.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The far more critical and revealing info would've been about the use of a capacitive touchscreen, and someone else made that.</span>
The sheer fact is, it didn't take insider info for Samsung to get where it's at. Now, if you want to claim they got there by originally copying the iPhone UI after it was shown off, that's a valid debate.
No, the sheer fact is that Samsung was proven in court to have stolen Apple's IP - to the tune of over $1 B. You keep forgetting that part.
Nonsense. This has already been explained many times, but apparently some people are too interested in burying their head in the sand to listen.
No one ever said that there were no 'patent trolls'. What I've said (repeatedly) is that using the term 'patent troll' for people who buy and license IP is ridiculous.
An inventor creates something. Under US (and most other countries) law, they have some limited rights to that invention. If it's written, copyright law gives them almost unlimited rights to control how it is used for a period of time. If it's an invention, patent law gives them rights for a limited time.
Unfortunately, the inventor isn't always in a position to commercialize the technology. It's time consuming, expensive, and may not be what the inventor likes to do. Some people are serial inventors but don't have any interest in going through all the painful processes involved in commercialization. They have 3 choices:
1. Do nothing with the invention - which means that they don't benefit and society doesn't benefit.
2. License or sell the technology to someone who will use it. But that means they have to spend the time finding potential licensees. More importantly, they're always at a disadvantage against a multinational company. They risk having the company just take the IP without compensation because the cost of suing is so high.
3. Sell the technology to an IP firm which has the resources to unlock the value. For many people, that's the most profitable, least time consuming, and easiest approach.
In the end, IP rights are property rights. The owner has the right to do whatever they want - sell, keep, or license.
The easiest analogy is to think about a manufacturing plant. Let's say that you inherit a widget manufacturing plant from a relative. You don't want to make widgets, but you would like to get some value for the plant. You decide that the best way to get the value is to sell the plant to a real estate investment firm and you do so. The real estate investment firm thinks that the widget market is depressed right now and they'll make more money if they wait a year to sell, so they don't do anything with it at this point. A widget manufacturer sees the empty plant and moves in and starts making widgets.
According to most of the people using the term 'patent trolls', that should be OK (at least when it comes to IP). Since the real estate investment firm is not using the facility, why shouldn't someone else be able to do so? Their argument is that only people who actually intend to use IP should be entitled to have any ownership rights.
The premise is patently silly when it's applied to a building, but it's just as silly when applied to IP. The owner has rights and can do whatever they want - no matter how many people want to accuse the buyer of being a troll.
Great analogy! I still can't figure out why society is so endearing to copyright holders and baneful of inventors. Everyone is bending over backwards to extend copyright laws to make sure Walt Disney, who has been dead for decades, can keep his copyright on Micky Mouse. The Consitutional basis for granting patent rights for a "limited time" is exactly the same for copyrights. I'm not saying the term should be the same, but sheesh, what's the justification for such disparity.
What makes it that way? I ask due to the number of smaller inventors who as you mention cannot afford to defend their work against the larger companies, thus feeding the need for NPEs.
I see you've adopted the politically correct "NPE". To answer your question, the validity and infringement of a patent depends on what the words of the claim mean and many times it takes expert witnesses and a lot of work to figure it out. Determining damages requires discovery to know what the infringer is selling and the value of the products. These are really hard things for arbitrator to do.
Agreed...which means there is no moral justifcation for it.
I think the pendulum has swung to far against inventors. The argument I always hear for why patents are bad is that they impede companies. Ya right. Apple is broke paying all those licensing fees and lawyers aren't they? I have yet to have anyone explain which of Apple or Google's markets have been hindered. Would we have gotten an iPhone or Android sooner if it weren't for patents?
None of these large companies respect property rights, but I'm not sure that it matters. The patent system is a distribution of wealth to inventors. The distribution is directly related to the value of their contribution (i.e., a royalty on market success). It's a pretty awesome system if you ask me. Sure beats the political and financial scamming that goes on in DC and on Wall Street.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
It's an excellent point of Tim's. There's no point having tough IP laws if it takes two years to enforce them, and by then he has a toehold in the market.
Two years is optimistic. Patent litigation often takes longer than two years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Cook no doubt was referring to Apple's ongoing struggles with a variety of manufacturers making devices running Google's mobile operating system, Android.
More specifically, the Apple head likely referred to South Korea's Samsung, which leveraged close knowledge of Apple's operations to turn itself into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer in terms of units sold.
Some keep repeating this idea, yet it makes no sense.
What "close knowledge of Apple's operations" would Samsung have had, that let it grow into the world's largest smartphone manufacturer?
Samsung is not Foxconn. Samsung didn't manufacture iPhones.
All Samsung would've known about is how many CPU, Flash memory, and displays Apple was contracted to buy from them.
From parts orders, Samsung would've known nothing ahead of time about case designs, the OS or UI features, accessories, packaging, look and feel, etc. In other words, the real "inside info". Instead, such knowledge comes easily to anyone who buys the device after it goes on sale.
Nonsense. This has already been explained many times, but apparently some people are too interested in burying their head in the sand to listen.
No one ever said that there were no 'patent trolls'. What I've said (repeatedly) is that using the term 'patent troll' for people who buy and license IP is ridiculous.
An inventor creates something. Under US (and most other countries) law, they have some limited rights to that invention. If it's written, copyright law gives them almost unlimited rights to control how it is used for a period of time. If it's an invention, patent law gives them rights for a limited time.
Unfortunately, the inventor isn't always in a position to commercialize the technology. It's time consuming, expensive, and may not be what the inventor likes to do. Some people are serial inventors but don't have any interest in going through all the painful processes involved in commercialization. They have 3 choices:
1. Do nothing with the invention - which means that they don't benefit and society doesn't benefit.
2. License or sell the technology to someone who will use it. But that means they have to spend the time finding potential licensees. More importantly, they're always at a disadvantage against a multinational company. They risk having the company just take the IP without compensation because the cost of suing is so high.
3. Sell the technology to an IP firm which has the resources to unlock the value. For many people, that's the most profitable, least time consuming, and easiest approach.
In the end, IP rights are property rights. The owner has the right to do whatever they want - sell, keep, or license.
The easiest analogy is to think about a manufacturing plant. Let's say that you inherit a widget manufacturing plant from a relative. You don't want to make widgets, but you would like to get some value for the plant. You decide that the best way to get the value is to sell the plant to a real estate investment firm and you do so. The real estate investment firm thinks that the widget market is depressed right now and they'll make more money if they wait a year to sell, so they don't do anything with it at this point. A widget manufacturer sees the empty plant and moves in and starts making widgets.
According to most of the people using the term 'patent trolls', that should be OK (at least when it comes to IP). Since the real estate investment firm is not using the facility, why shouldn't someone else be able to do so? Their argument is that only people who actually intend to use IP should be entitled to have any ownership rights.
The premise is patently silly when it's applied to a building, but it's just as silly when applied to IP. The owner has rights and can do whatever they want - no matter how many people want to accuse the buyer of being a troll.
Ignoring, of course, the additional advantage that Samsung got from Google's theft of Apple's IP via Schmidt on the BOD. Oh, yeah, you deny that, too.
In addition, you're grossly minimizing the advantage Samsung had. For example, just take the screens. Knowing the size and resolution of the screen, it was obvious that Apple was not making a Blackberry-like device. You'd immediately know the general format of the phone and be able to extrapolate that the entire phone would be screen (essentially). You could then look at other phones that used similar size/format screens for guidance rather than continuing to focus on the flip phone that was standard at the time. Having access to Apple's hardware component designs was a HUGE advantage.
Exactly. It's extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a small inventor to prevail against a large company which is committed to stealing their IP. If I invented something that had relevance for a large market, I'd almost certainly sell it to an IP firm (i.e., "patent troll") because there's no way I'd want to spend the rest of my life and every penny I own in court rooms trying to defend my property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nonsense. This has already been explained many times, but apparently some people are too interested in burying their head in the sand to listen.
No one ever said that there were no 'patent trolls'. What I've said (repeatedly) is that using the term 'patent troll' for people who buy and license IP is ridiculous.
Talk about nonsense Jragosta. You yourself have claimed there was no such thing as a patent troll. Always stick to the truth and it's not all that hard to remember what you probably said.
Geesh!
Edit:
Here's one of your quotes on patent trolls/
"I really wish that people would get over the 'patent troll' nonsense. There's no such thing. It's a phrase that was made up by people to attack someone that they don't like using a system that they don't understand."
Originally Posted by IQatEdo
Do you know the meaning of the word smarmy? Is that really what you meant?
Yep. Yep. Not in the used car salesman way, but in the Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcomb way.
Read the quote in context. See the quotation marks? While I could have chosen my wording better, my position has always been the same. The TERM 'patent troll' is a ridiculous one. Companies which buy and license IP have a very useful purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Read the quote in context. See the quotation marks? While I could have chosen my wording better, my position has always been the same. The TERM 'patent troll' is a ridiculous one. Companies which buy and license IP have a very useful purpose.
Then perhaps you should choose your words more carefully and more often. It's not the only time you've said there's no such thing as a patent troll. Here's two I found in just a couple of minutes.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/137958/apple-accused-of-feeding-intellectual-property-to-patent-troll/40#post_2005289
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151043/google-comes-to-samsungs-aid-in-patent-battle-with-apple/40#post_2138767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
Arbitration is theoretically possible, but not practical in patent cases.
What makes it that way? I ask due to the number of smaller inventors who as you mention cannot afford to defend their work against the larger companies, thus feeding the need for NPEs.
Yes but Samsung took it upon itself to make TouchWiz almost identical to iOS even after Google told them not to. Other manufacturers were able to differentiate their phones and Samsung could've done likewise.
Are you certain that Samsung knew what the screens were for? and even if they knew it wasn't a sure bet that it would succeed. Since Samsung really didn't take off until 2012 they were either extremely inept with their 'head start' or it's vastly overplayed.
Which is even further evidence of Samsung's copyist philosophy.
Or there's lead time involved in manufacturing electronic devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Ignoring, of course, the additional advantage that Samsung got from Google's theft of Apple's IP via Schmidt on the BOD. Oh, yeah, you deny that, too.
In addition, you're grossly minimizing the advantage Samsung had. For example, just take the screens. Knowing the size and resolution of the screen, it was obvious that Apple was not making a Blackberry-like device.
None of the insider conspiracy theories that you keep coming up with make any sense, timewise. Besides the fact that they'd have had to have display orders before the iPhone was shown off, AND realize it was for a phone instead of an iPod...
AFTER JANUARY 2007 EVERYONE ON THE PLANET KNEW WHAT APPLE'S PHONE LOOKED LIKE. NO INSIDE INFO NEEDED.
Manufacturing didn't begin for months after that, and it was done by Foxconn.
Quote:
You'd immediately know the general format of the phone and be able to extrapolate that the entire phone would be screen (essentially). You could then look at other phones that used similar size/format screens for guidance rather than continuing to focus on the flip phone that was standard at the time. Having access to Apple's hardware component designs was a HUGE advantage.
This fantasy also makes no sense, unless someone is so ignorant about smartphone history that they actually think those were all flip phones, or even Blackberry like.
Everyone had done fullscreen phones. Heck, right about the time the iPhone first went on sale, you could buy a Toshiba touchscreen smartphone with a WGA retina density display and fingerprint reader.
The far more critical and revealing info would've been about the use of a capacitive touchscreen, and someone else made that.
The sheer fact is, it didn't take insider info for Samsung to get where it's at. Now, if you want to claim they got there by originally copying the iPhone UI after it was shown off, that's a valid debate.
No, the sheer fact is that Samsung was proven in court to have stolen Apple's IP - to the tune of over $1 B. You keep forgetting that part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nonsense. This has already been explained many times, but apparently some people are too interested in burying their head in the sand to listen.
No one ever said that there were no 'patent trolls'. What I've said (repeatedly) is that using the term 'patent troll' for people who buy and license IP is ridiculous.
An inventor creates something. Under US (and most other countries) law, they have some limited rights to that invention. If it's written, copyright law gives them almost unlimited rights to control how it is used for a period of time. If it's an invention, patent law gives them rights for a limited time.
Unfortunately, the inventor isn't always in a position to commercialize the technology. It's time consuming, expensive, and may not be what the inventor likes to do. Some people are serial inventors but don't have any interest in going through all the painful processes involved in commercialization. They have 3 choices:
1. Do nothing with the invention - which means that they don't benefit and society doesn't benefit.
2. License or sell the technology to someone who will use it. But that means they have to spend the time finding potential licensees. More importantly, they're always at a disadvantage against a multinational company. They risk having the company just take the IP without compensation because the cost of suing is so high.
3. Sell the technology to an IP firm which has the resources to unlock the value. For many people, that's the most profitable, least time consuming, and easiest approach.
In the end, IP rights are property rights. The owner has the right to do whatever they want - sell, keep, or license.
The easiest analogy is to think about a manufacturing plant. Let's say that you inherit a widget manufacturing plant from a relative. You don't want to make widgets, but you would like to get some value for the plant. You decide that the best way to get the value is to sell the plant to a real estate investment firm and you do so. The real estate investment firm thinks that the widget market is depressed right now and they'll make more money if they wait a year to sell, so they don't do anything with it at this point. A widget manufacturer sees the empty plant and moves in and starts making widgets.
According to most of the people using the term 'patent trolls', that should be OK (at least when it comes to IP). Since the real estate investment firm is not using the facility, why shouldn't someone else be able to do so? Their argument is that only people who actually intend to use IP should be entitled to have any ownership rights.
The premise is patently silly when it's applied to a building, but it's just as silly when applied to IP. The owner has rights and can do whatever they want - no matter how many people want to accuse the buyer of being a troll.
Great analogy! I still can't figure out why society is so endearing to copyright holders and baneful of inventors. Everyone is bending over backwards to extend copyright laws to make sure Walt Disney, who has been dead for decades, can keep his copyright on Micky Mouse. The Consitutional basis for granting patent rights for a "limited time" is exactly the same for copyrights. I'm not saying the term should be the same, but sheesh, what's the justification for such disparity.
Originally Posted by ash471
…what's the justification for such disparity.
Disney lobbying, period. Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
What makes it that way? I ask due to the number of smaller inventors who as you mention cannot afford to defend their work against the larger companies, thus feeding the need for NPEs.
I see you've adopted the politically correct "NPE". To answer your question, the validity and infringement of a patent depends on what the words of the claim mean and many times it takes expert witnesses and a lot of work to figure it out. Determining damages requires discovery to know what the infringer is selling and the value of the products. These are really hard things for arbitrator to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Disney lobbying, period. Nothing more.
Agreed...which means there is no moral justifcation for it.
I think the pendulum has swung to far against inventors. The argument I always hear for why patents are bad is that they impede companies. Ya right. Apple is broke paying all those licensing fees and lawyers aren't they? I have yet to have anyone explain which of Apple or Google's markets have been hindered. Would we have gotten an iPhone or Android sooner if it weren't for patents?
None of these large companies respect property rights, but I'm not sure that it matters. The patent system is a distribution of wealth to inventors. The distribution is directly related to the value of their contribution (i.e., a royalty on market success). It's a pretty awesome system if you ask me. Sure beats the political and financial scamming that goes on in DC and on Wall Street.