Of course. I just wish Apple never started with this lawsuit fever.
In the interest of consumers and technology progress all software patents should be abolished, for they only benefit a few good-for-nothing CEOs (who stash all their money overseas anyway) and lawyers.
No patents equals no protection against theft equals no incentive to innovate as there is no money in it. Patent law may be in need of some reform but not abolished.
Nevertheless, Apple's recent strategy of "competing by lawsuits" leaves an increasingly sour taste in my mouth.
Especially, when viewed in light of their unwillingness to pay their fair share on taxes.
I sure wish the Apple of old back.
Claiming to be a longtime Apple fan or being a fanatical Apple hater makes no difference when it comes down to facts. Neither is an excuse for ignorance. I don't care if you own 100 Macs and have three iPads in your bathroom.
Apple does not compete by lawsuits. Apple has an obligation to sue thieves that steal Apple's IP and design. Only a fool would not protect their property. Get real. Your naive and unrealistic view might work in some sort of fantasy world created in your head, but doesn't cut it in the real world.
And Apple does pay their fair share of taxes, every cent that they're obligated to pay as required by law, so you're wrong about that too.
Any company that abuses its FRAND patent obligations and seeks damages in court as is being alleged should permanently be permanently enjoined from ever asserting those same patent rights against the wronged party ever again. Additionally, the wronged party, in this case – Apple, should be granted use rights for said patent.
That would ensure that no company ever again abuse the FRAND patent system in the manner alleged of Samsung.
You must be joking. When you say "pay their fair share on taxes", how much is that? They have paid what is required by law. IRS agents are permanently stationed at Apple and as Tim Cook told Congress, Apple is under a perpetual on-site IRS audit and everything they do gets IRS approval. So you are saying their "fair share" is more than the law requires? When was the last time you "paid your fair share" by paying the IRS more than the law required? Did you send them a tip, a bonus, or a "here you go just for the heck of it" check?
Get real and stop living in an alternate reality. You're also saying that a corporation has no right to defend its intellectual property? If not sue, how are they supposed to do it? In your world, Apple invents stuff that others steal, shouldn't hold anyone accountable, and should pay the IRS more than it is legally required. I can imagine that any business you run would be OUT of business within 6 months.
No one seems to be able to quantify this mythical "fair share" as the term itself is subjective. Politicians use this buzz phrase because it riles up class warfare taking the focus away from their incompetence. If some one tries to support an argument against their position, the cut them off because they don't want to be shown as the arrogant blowhards the really are. This goes for both parties as this week's hearings demonstrated.
No patents equals no protection against theft equals no incentive to innovate as there is no money in it.
Demonstrably false.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Quote:
Patent law may be in need of some reform but not abolished.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
Only thing demonstrably false is your post.
Software patents were around a lot longer than the "early to mid 1990's" as you state. In fact, decisions and court cases regarding them were taking place back in the early 80's. What you should have said was that by the mid 1990's software patents were commonplace.
Then you go and contradict yourself. How can software patents only benefit large corporations when by your own admission there are hundreds of thousands of Apps that exist without patent protection? How are all these small developers being harmed by software patents? How can they even survive with all these large corporations patenting everything is sight?
Limiting patents to two years is an idea that only an idiot (or infringer like Google or Samsung) would like. Samsung is already abusing the court system by copying Apple knowing it takes years to get to a decision, at which time the penalty is less than the gains made by copying.
Here's a better idea: if software patents are limited to two years, then court cases are heard within 30 days from filing, infringers have to pay 3X the awarded amount and owners of IP can get an injunction granted immediately after the court decision. And anyone found guilty would be banned from using the IP for another 2 years after the patent expires. That'll stop infringement pretty damn fast.
Well as it was shown in the hearing the other day on capital hill, Samsung as whole makes more revenue than Apple paid less total taxes worldwide than Apple did and Apple can not being the money home for the simple reason they would pay far more taxes than all their competitors.
Well, yesterday's hearing on capital hill didn't say much.
You pay taxes on profit, not on revenue. In 2012, Samsung paid $4B in gov't taxes & dues on $16 profit (or about 25% -- slightly below South Korean national average of 30%). See Samsung's 2012 financial statement or 2012 sustainability report.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
Yep. I believe it was Bruce Lehman, Bill Clinton's USPTO appointee and a former corporate lobbyist, who expanded the scope of software patents throughout the 90's.
Longtime Apple fan here.
Nevertheless, Apple's recent strategy of "competing by lawsuits" leaves an increasingly sour taste in my mouth.
Especially, when viewed in light of their unwillingness to pay their fair share on taxes.
I sure wish the Apple of old back.
Then you should know that they are sued as much as they sue and do very happily pay their legal share, which can't be said about some of the competition
What's with your rude and bully-like attitude? I have as much right as you to voice my opinion.
Well everybody has their own opinion and I respect that, but stating an opinion as fact when it's not is a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWins
Longtime Apple fan here.
Nevertheless, Apple's recent strategy of "competing by lawsuits" leaves an increasingly sour taste in my mouth.
Especially, when viewed in light of their unwillingness to pay their fair share on taxes.
I sure wish the Apple of old back.
Mr. pretender, where did Apple's unwillingness to pay fair taxes came from? Do you understand the issue, or just making an opinion?
Since it looks you despise bad corporate practices, I wonder your views regarding Google's tax practices and Samsung's corrupt practices and Samsung's unethical practices like paying bloggers/forums to damage their competition.
You should be standing first in line to support a domestic, American success story protect its intellectual property from theft by a Korean company. I guess you have no allegiance.
You're assuming AppleWins is American. It is likely AppleWins is an employee of, or being paid by, Samsung.
I can't tell if that makes you insanely unintelligent or if you're just trolling.
Who was he, returning, Jeff? I'd take care of all this crap, but…
I don't recognize the user names, but lots of banned IDs. AppleWill being just one of them. LGprada being another, in 2012, no less, nothing like referencing a long past dud, I guess.
I don't recognize the user names, but lots of banned IDs. AppleWill being just one of them. LGprada being another, in 2012, no less, nothing like referencing a long past dud, I guess.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
I agree with your post, by and large. But I don't believe it's true that US software patent history began in the 1990s. What is true, I believe, is that the legality of software patents was established around that time (or perhaps late 80s?).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWins
Longtime Apple fan here.
Nevertheless, Apple's recent strategy of "competing by lawsuits" leaves an increasingly sour taste in my mouth.
Especially, when viewed in light of their unwillingness to pay their fair share on taxes.
I sure wish the Apple of old back.
Oh, you mean the really old Apple of 1980 that was assembling computers in Ireland because of the tax breaks even then?
No patents equals no protection against theft equals no incentive to innovate as there is no money in it. Patent law may be in need of some reform but not abolished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWins
Longtime Apple fan here.
Nevertheless, Apple's recent strategy of "competing by lawsuits" leaves an increasingly sour taste in my mouth.
Especially, when viewed in light of their unwillingness to pay their fair share on taxes.
I sure wish the Apple of old back.
Claiming to be a longtime Apple fan or being a fanatical Apple hater makes no difference when it comes down to facts. Neither is an excuse for ignorance. I don't care if you own 100 Macs and have three iPads in your bathroom.
Apple does not compete by lawsuits. Apple has an obligation to sue thieves that steal Apple's IP and design. Only a fool would not protect their property. Get real. Your naive and unrealistic view might work in some sort of fantasy world created in your head, but doesn't cut it in the real world.
And Apple does pay their fair share of taxes, every cent that they're obligated to pay as required by law, so you're wrong about that too.
That would ensure that no company ever again abuse the FRAND patent system in the manner alleged of Samsung.
No one seems to be able to quantify this mythical "fair share" as the term itself is subjective. Politicians use this buzz phrase because it riles up class warfare taking the focus away from their incompetence. If some one tries to support an argument against their position, the cut them off because they don't want to be shown as the arrogant blowhards the really are. This goes for both parties as this week's hearings demonstrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
No patents equals no protection against theft equals no incentive to innovate as there is no money in it.
Demonstrably false.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Quote:
Patent law may be in need of some reform but not abolished.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Demonstrably false.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
Only thing demonstrably false is your post.
Software patents were around a lot longer than the "early to mid 1990's" as you state. In fact, decisions and court cases regarding them were taking place back in the early 80's. What you should have said was that by the mid 1990's software patents were commonplace.
Then you go and contradict yourself. How can software patents only benefit large corporations when by your own admission there are hundreds of thousands of Apps that exist without patent protection? How are all these small developers being harmed by software patents? How can they even survive with all these large corporations patenting everything is sight?
Limiting patents to two years is an idea that only an idiot (or infringer like Google or Samsung) would like. Samsung is already abusing the court system by copying Apple knowing it takes years to get to a decision, at which time the penalty is less than the gains made by copying.
Here's a better idea: if software patents are limited to two years, then court cases are heard within 30 days from filing, infringers have to pay 3X the awarded amount and owners of IP can get an injunction granted immediately after the court decision. And anyone found guilty would be banned from using the IP for another 2 years after the patent expires. That'll stop infringement pretty damn fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Well as it was shown in the hearing the other day on capital hill, Samsung as whole makes more revenue than Apple paid less total taxes worldwide than Apple did and Apple can not being the money home for the simple reason they would pay far more taxes than all their competitors.
Well, yesterday's hearing on capital hill didn't say much.
You pay taxes on profit, not on revenue. In 2012, Samsung paid $4B in gov't taxes & dues on $16 profit (or about 25% -- slightly below South Korean national average of 30%). See Samsung's 2012 financial statement or 2012 sustainability report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Demonstrably false.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
Yep. I believe it was Bruce Lehman, Bill Clinton's USPTO appointee and a former corporate lobbyist, who expanded the scope of software patents throughout the 90's.
Then you should know that they are sued as much as they sue and do very happily pay their legal share, which can't be said about some of the competition
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWins
What's with your rude and bully-like attitude? I have as much right as you to voice my opinion.
Well everybody has their own opinion and I respect that, but stating an opinion as fact when it's not is a different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWins
Longtime Apple fan here.
Nevertheless, Apple's recent strategy of "competing by lawsuits" leaves an increasingly sour taste in my mouth.
Especially, when viewed in light of their unwillingness to pay their fair share on taxes.
I sure wish the Apple of old back.
Mr. pretender, where did Apple's unwillingness to pay fair taxes came from? Do you understand the issue, or just making an opinion?
Since it looks you despise bad corporate practices, I wonder your views regarding Google's tax practices and Samsung's corrupt practices and Samsung's unethical practices like paying bloggers/forums to damage their competition.
You mean long time anti-Apple troll? Bye!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
You should be standing first in line to support a domestic, American success story protect its intellectual property from theft by a Korean company. I guess you have no allegiance.
You're assuming AppleWins is American. It is likely AppleWins is an employee of, or being paid by, Samsung.
Or Google. It's sometimes hard to tell the shills apart.
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston
I couldn't agree more. Software Patents are unenforcable and just pure poppy-cock. (This coming from a software developer.)
I can't tell if that makes you insanely unintelligent or if you're just trolling.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
You mean long time anti-Apple troll? Bye!
Who was he, returning, Jeff? I'd take care of all this crap, but…
I don't recognize the user names, but lots of banned IDs. AppleWill being just one of them. LGprada being another, in 2012, no less, nothing like referencing a long past dud, I guess.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't recognize the user names, but lots of banned IDs. AppleWill being just one of them. LGprada being another, in 2012, no less, nothing like referencing a long past dud, I guess.
Ah, that one. Good times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Remember, though: Apple ALWAYS sues everyone. Nobody ever sues Apple.
Apple is always wrong--work backwards from there to justify anything
No one says that. Why exaggerate/lie to emphasize Apple's underdog status? The woe be Apple days are gone. Evolve!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Demonstrably false.
The US didn't really have software patents until the early to mid 1990s. There was plenty of innovation before then, and plenty since then that has not been patented.
There are hundreds of thousands of apps available, and I'd bet almost none have patent protection, yet there they are.
Apple has made incredible piles of money even without getting injunctions.
Trade dress and copyright used to be the only way that software was protected in the US. The good thing about those is that they really are unique manifestations and implementations of ideas, unlike the generalized ideas we see getting patents.
Software patents favor huge corporations who have the time and money to seek such patents, which is why they want them to continue to exist.
There are groups who suggest a middle ground: allow software patents, but limit them to two years.
I agree with your post, by and large. But I don't believe it's true that US software patent history began in the 1990s. What is true, I believe, is that the legality of software patents was established around that time (or perhaps late 80s?).