Because an illegal law passed three days ago that grants them the power to search anything you have at any time for any reason.
You and I don’t get to decide or declare whether a law is ‘illegal’ or not. The Constitution gives that power expressly to the Supreme Court. It also gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret what the 4th amendment, or any other amendment, means. You and SpamSandwich sound like Posse Comitatas or Sovereign Citizen supporters in that you apparently think your interpretation is the last word. It isn’t according to the Constitution.
What is the actual purpose of a patent? Let's check with the U.S. Patents & Trademarks Office:
"A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted."
Aha! So a patent may be granted to "exclude" competitors. That's quite different from your misunderstanding.
I think you're reading the text and not appreciating the spirit. The purpose is to exclude competitors from ripping off a product, not to exclude them from developing products by closing down ideas. If Apple were to litigate based on this patent (no evidence that they will, but you're bringing up the prospect) with the purpose of excluding competitors then they'd be worse than a patent troll, they aren't using the patent, they aren't offering it for license, they're just shitting over the concept of innovation.
My thoughts...you can argue that 'words mean something' and I agree to that. The problem arises when the words are selectively enforced. If you really believe that the rule of law is steadfast and always correct, especially when the 'law' enforcer is armed, then you are a bit naive.
And just for a laugh about your mention of paranoia, which really isn't what Spam is displaying...unless you are a licensed therapist and have actually spent time with him...he is not displaying anything but words and opinions; no behavior or anything that would lead one to conclude one way or another that he may have a disorder....
And despite you inane comments, I don't think you are, or are not nuts either.
I think you're reading the text and not appreciating the spirit. The purpose is to exclude competitors from ripping off a product, not to exclude them from developing products by closing down ideas. If Apple were to litigate based on this patent (no evidence that they will, but you're bringing up the prospect) with the purpose of excluding competitors then they'd be worse than a patent troll, they aren't using the patent, they aren't offering it for license, they're just shitting over the concept of innovation.
Ideas are free and are not patentable. The implementation/expression of an idea is patentable. You have some fundamental misunderstandings about patents. As I said...patents are not ideas!
Ideas are free and are not patentable. The implementation/expression of an idea is patentable. You have some fundamental misunderstandings about patents. As I said...patents are not ideas!
If I've been inarticulate, I apologise. Regardless, my previous post. Apply it to implementations/expressions of ideas.
Besides, an implementation/expression of an idea that is not put into practice either for production or as a licensable property is little more than an idea itself anyway, and I don't see why it deserves protection.
Explain to me why a company, not necessarily Apple, should be allowed and legally enabled to file patents for products/processes that they have no intention of using or licensing, but solely as an obstacle for others because of the associated legal protections? How does that further society's collective economic or social interests?
And the reason patents help innovation is precisely because it promotes reward for ones efforts because it guarantees a certain level of profit. Without patents there would be less incentive to build new things because others could steal ones work and profit from it , which is precisely what Google did.
Legal sure, but how can you stand by "constraining competitors" (just because Apple patented it first) as valid? The point of patents is to protect innovation, not to stifle it.
And the reason patents help innovation is precisely because it promotes reward for ones efforts because it guarantees a certain level of profit. Without patents there would be less incentive to build new things because others could steal ones work and profit from it , which is precisely what Google did.
Quite agree. But innovation is useless and not profitable if it's sat in a filing cupboard, except as a cynical rent-seeking measure for the company that has it locked in there and legally protected.
Not sure there's any need to bring Google up, they're irrelevant to this line of discussion. To my knowledge Google don't sit on patents without using them.
A company has personnel whose job is to research and develop ideas that may or may not have a current use. That research and investment is protected by patent. The patent exposes the idea and research to the public. If some person gets an idea from the patent then an application to license could follow. The license need not be granted for reasons known only to the patent holder. There is no requirement for divulging the reason. This is as it should be.
Why? What benefit does that bring to society? If a company doesn't want to use or license a patent then don't get a patent. Don't disclose. Don't spitefully withhold an invention from the world. Move on and do other things that you do plan on using or licensing.
Not sure what defence of this kind of behaviour is being suggested here. Why is such behaviour ok and deserving of legal protection? Would you be saying the same if it was Samsung doing it instead of Apple?
Why? What benefit does that bring to society? If a company doesn't want to use or license a patent then don't get a patent. Don't disclose. Don't spitefully withhold an invention from the world. Move on and do other things that you do plan on using or licensing.
Not sure what defence of this kind of behaviour is being suggested here. Why is such behaviour ok and deserving of legal protection? Would you be saying the same if it was Samsung doing it instead of Apple?
I am not sure where spite entered the picture. If I disappoint you how do you determine that I did it from spite? Are you saying that the research should be narrowly focused on current needs rather than possible future needs?
Rereading my post I do not find where I referenced any company. And yes, I would defend any company's right to protect their products. If one spends time and resources developing an idea one should have protection from theft. If one discovers things that could be put to future use those things should be protected. The future is somewhat unknowable so protection from the unknown is desirable. At least that is what insurance companies sell.
Yes, I'd call inventing something with no plans to use or allow anyone else to use it spiteful, at least in the way it was suggested Apple might do with this invention. It's knowledge hoarding and rent seeking on existing products without developing or advancing anything. Bad enough for any company, but a technologist consumer electronics company? That'd be disgustingly self-serving behaviour.
I'm not sure where theft comes into it, but if we are talking about industrial espionage then there are laws against that even when parents aren't invoked. But it could hardly be called a valuable trade secret if it wasn't being used or monetised in any way.
Yes, I'd call inventing something with no plans to use or allow anyone else to use it spiteful, at least in the way it was suggested Apple might do with this invention. It's knowledge hoarding and rent seeking on existing products without developing or advancing anything. Bad enough for any company, but a technologist consumer electronics company? That'd be disgustingly self-serving behaviour.
I'm not sure where theft comes into it, but if we are talking about industrial espionage then there are laws against that even when parents aren't invoked. But it could hardly be called a valuable trade secret if it wasn't being used or monetised in any way.
I don't know of any company that has access to a working crystal ball to tell them what ideas could be incorporated into an existing or future product. So, plans to use something newly invented must be protected awaiting future developments.
The suggestions of the author of the article are speculative at best and I am loath to deny the author the right to write.
I don't know of any company that has access to a working crystal ball to tell them what ideas could be incorporated into an existing or future product. So, plans to use something newly invented must be protected awaiting future developments.
So parking things indefinitely should be allowed? I don't agree with that either.
I think (and I know this isn't the law, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking it should be) that patents should only be awarded with an intent to use them, either actively in products, or through licensing, or at the very, very least, a commitment to doing one or the other in a reasonable time period. If that time period lapses (and that should be set far shorter than the usual term of a patent) then the patent should be released as free to use.
I can't be had with companies whining about protecting their investment only to sit on it like a goose forever waiting on that golden egg. Use it or lose it.
Many companies defensively patent. With the sole intention of never implementing the invention. It's there to stop other companies working in that area or make it more difficult.
Sigh. I get that they do it. I'm saying that the patent system should be changed so it isn't allowed. "Making thins more difficult" for another company is not a legitimate business tactic in my eyes. Not fair play.
So parking things indefinitely should be allowed? I don't agree with that either.
I think (and I know this isn't the law, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking it should be) that patents should only be awarded with an intent to use them, either actively in products, or through licensing, or at the very, very least, a commitment to doing one or the other in a reasonable time period. If that time period lapses (and that should be set far shorter than the usual term of a patent) then the patent should be released as free to use.
I can't be had with companies whining about protecting their investment only to sit on it like a goose forever waiting on that golden egg. Use it or lose it.
Patents have a built-in time limitation, which means after they are expired they are freely available for any individual or company to use.
Please learn something about what you are blindly criticizing.
Comments
Because an illegal law passed three days ago that grants them the power to search anything you have at any time for any reason.
You and I don’t get to decide or declare whether a law is ‘illegal’ or not. The Constitution gives that power expressly to the Supreme Court. It also gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret what the 4th amendment, or any other amendment, means. You and SpamSandwich sound like Posse Comitatas or Sovereign Citizen supporters in that you apparently think your interpretation is the last word. It isn’t according to the Constitution.
What is the actual purpose of a patent? Let's check with the U.S. Patents & Trademarks Office:
"A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted."
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/index.jsp
Aha! So a patent may be granted to "exclude" competitors. That's quite different from your misunderstanding.
I think you're reading the text and not appreciating the spirit. The purpose is to exclude competitors from ripping off a product, not to exclude them from developing products by closing down ideas. If Apple were to litigate based on this patent (no evidence that they will, but you're bringing up the prospect) with the purpose of excluding competitors then they'd be worse than a patent troll, they aren't using the patent, they aren't offering it for license, they're just shitting over the concept of innovation.
Of course we do. We’re literate and sane. That’s all that is needed.
And I defy you to justify the interpretation of “warrantless search” as meaning “warranted search”. Enjoy.
I have to agree with Spam...
My thoughts...you can argue that 'words mean something' and I agree to that. The problem arises when the words are selectively enforced. If you really believe that the rule of law is steadfast and always correct, especially when the 'law' enforcer is armed, then you are a bit naive.
And just for a laugh about your mention of paranoia, which really isn't what Spam is displaying...unless you are a licensed therapist and have actually spent time with him...he is not displaying anything but words and opinions; no behavior or anything that would lead one to conclude one way or another that he may have a disorder....
And despite you inane comments, I don't think you are, or are not nuts either.
I think you're reading the text and not appreciating the spirit. The purpose is to exclude competitors from ripping off a product, not to exclude them from developing products by closing down ideas. If Apple were to litigate based on this patent (no evidence that they will, but you're bringing up the prospect) with the purpose of excluding competitors then they'd be worse than a patent troll, they aren't using the patent, they aren't offering it for license, they're just shitting over the concept of innovation.
Ideas are free and are not patentable. The implementation/expression of an idea is patentable. You have some fundamental misunderstandings about patents. As I said...patents are not ideas!
Ideas are free and are not patentable. The implementation/expression of an idea is patentable. You have some fundamental misunderstandings about patents. As I said...patents are not ideas!
If I've been inarticulate, I apologise. Regardless, my previous post. Apply it to implementations/expressions of ideas.
Besides, an implementation/expression of an idea that is not put into practice either for production or as a licensable property is little more than an idea itself anyway, and I don't see why it deserves protection.
Explain to me why a company, not necessarily Apple, should be allowed and legally enabled to file patents for products/processes that they have no intention of using or licensing, but solely as an obstacle for others because of the associated legal protections? How does that further society's collective economic or social interests?
Not sure there's any need to bring Google up, they're irrelevant to this line of discussion. To my knowledge Google don't sit on patents without using them.
A company has personnel whose job is to research and develop ideas that may or may not have a current use. That research and investment is protected by patent. The patent exposes the idea and research to the public. If some person gets an idea from the patent then an application to license could follow. The license need not be granted for reasons known only to the patent holder. There is no requirement for divulging the reason. This is as it should be.
Not sure what defence of this kind of behaviour is being suggested here. Why is such behaviour ok and deserving of legal protection? Would you be saying the same if it was Samsung doing it instead of Apple?
Why? What benefit does that bring to society? If a company doesn't want to use or license a patent then don't get a patent. Don't disclose. Don't spitefully withhold an invention from the world. Move on and do other things that you do plan on using or licensing.
Not sure what defence of this kind of behaviour is being suggested here. Why is such behaviour ok and deserving of legal protection? Would you be saying the same if it was Samsung doing it instead of Apple?
I am not sure where spite entered the picture. If I disappoint you how do you determine that I did it from spite? Are you saying that the research should be narrowly focused on current needs rather than possible future needs?
Rereading my post I do not find where I referenced any company. And yes, I would defend any company's right to protect their products. If one spends time and resources developing an idea one should have protection from theft. If one discovers things that could be put to future use those things should be protected. The future is somewhat unknowable so protection from the unknown is desirable. At least that is what insurance companies sell.
I'm not sure where theft comes into it, but if we are talking about industrial espionage then there are laws against that even when parents aren't invoked. But it could hardly be called a valuable trade secret if it wasn't being used or monetised in any way.
Yes, I'd call inventing something with no plans to use or allow anyone else to use it spiteful, at least in the way it was suggested Apple might do with this invention. It's knowledge hoarding and rent seeking on existing products without developing or advancing anything. Bad enough for any company, but a technologist consumer electronics company? That'd be disgustingly self-serving behaviour.
I'm not sure where theft comes into it, but if we are talking about industrial espionage then there are laws against that even when parents aren't invoked. But it could hardly be called a valuable trade secret if it wasn't being used or monetised in any way.
I don't know of any company that has access to a working crystal ball to tell them what ideas could be incorporated into an existing or future product. So, plans to use something newly invented must be protected awaiting future developments.
The suggestions of the author of the article are speculative at best and I am loath to deny the author the right to write.
I don't know of any company that has access to a working crystal ball to tell them what ideas could be incorporated into an existing or future product. So, plans to use something newly invented must be protected awaiting future developments.
So parking things indefinitely should be allowed? I don't agree with that either.
I think (and I know this isn't the law, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking it should be) that patents should only be awarded with an intent to use them, either actively in products, or through licensing, or at the very, very least, a commitment to doing one or the other in a reasonable time period. If that time period lapses (and that should be set far shorter than the usual term of a patent) then the patent should be released as free to use.
I can't be had with companies whining about protecting their investment only to sit on it like a goose forever waiting on that golden egg. Use it or lose it.
Patents have a built-in time limitation, which means after they are expired they are freely available for any individual or company to use.
Please learn something about what you are blindly criticizing.
Except you can’t interpret “searches must have a warrant” to mean “searches do not need a warrant”.