The problem for Htc is Apple has patents that were granted long before Htc even existed.
No new company can enter the smartphone market and even attempt to innovate because companies like Microsoft, Apple and IBM own patents fundamental to all operating systems. The only way is to have your own portfolio of patents and cross license which rules out most new companies. The patent system is broken and it stops innovation.
It is virtually impossible to create a new OS from scratch with infringing on existing patents. There are just to many patents involved. If Apple was a new company without years worth of patents to cross license, in all likelihood it could not have created iOS without having to pay a fortune to Microsoft.
Who has the best product is irrelevant, the system favors which company is the oldest and has the largest patent portfolio.
Again, why can't Google innovate around the patented technologies? Look at the Facial Recognition unlock with ICS. If they can get that working in all of their phones, Apple's slide to unlock patent isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.
snip... It is possible that the system may need some fine tuning given some of the silly OPINIONS BASED ON patent ABSTRACTS, that ARE NOT THE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS THAT have been granted, that should have fallen under the definition of "obvious", AMONG THOSE WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE FULL PATENT... /snip
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
The real question is why should I innovate anything with the current system? If I come up with some new and brilliant product a big competitor with a huge arsenal of patents or worse a pure patent troll is going to come along with their hand out.
Orlando, You have to exercise your due diligence when thinking about introducing a "new and brilliant" product since you might be stepping in somebody else's toes who already had the specs patented. Ignoring these patents is not innovation but copying and you should know that already.
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
You're deluded. Do you really think the little guy with a big idea would be able to compete with a big company with enormous manufacturing resources if they could copy without fear? You really think it's that easy to "keep innovating"? How many innovations have you brought to market? I'm guessing none, otherwise you would know that it's far easier to copy and keep copying than it is to invent.
Quote:
The real question is why should I innovate anything with the current system? If I come up with some new and brilliant product a big competitor with a huge arsenal of patents or worse a pure patent troll is going to come along with their hand out.
You seem to be completely missing the point of the article. S3 has some patents. S3 sued Apple for supposed infringement of those patents. They lost. If anything, they're the patent trolls in this story. But while you wanted them to win, at the same time, you want to do away with the system that they were hoping to take advantage of. It has nothing to do with what patents a big bad company like Apple had or didn't have. Apple didn't infringe, says the commission.
So just because you start a new company, you shouldn't have to worry about existing patents? That would make penalty-free infringement awfully easy. All I'd need to do to steal somebody's idea is start a new business and they wouldn't be able to touch me.
If the patent system didn't exist, why should I innovate anything? Without protection, any new and brilliant idea I come up with could be copied by others with impunity. There'd be nothing in it for me.
The answer is very simple. Truly innovative people cannot help themselves. They are unhappy if they don't invent something new. Most of the time, innovation does not come from someone sitting at a desk trying to invent for the sake of generating revenue or profit. It comes from people who have a predilection for looking at something at something and automatically thinking about how to do it differently, better, faster, ... I wouldn't go as as far as to say it happens by accident or without trying, but innovative people cannot be stifled by the absence of profit.
If you have to ask "why should I innovate", then you're absolutely not an innovative person.
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
Problem is that the speed at which you can be copied is faster than your ability to recoup your initial investment.
Think about drug companies for instance. They can easily spend $500m on a new drug - but what's the point if the moment it's released it can be copied for next to nothing. Who is paying for the next drug if the drug company got wiped out?
The answer is very simple. Truly innovative people cannot help themselves. They are unhappy if they don't invent something new. Most of the time, innovation does not come from someone sitting at a desk trying to invent for the sake of generating revenue or profit. It comes from people who have a predilection for looking at something at something and automatically thinking about how to do it differently, better, faster, ... I wouldn't go as as far as to say it happens by accident or without trying, but innovative people cannot be stifled by the absence of profit.
If you have to ask "why should I innovate", then you're absolutely not an innovative person.
So we should steal good ideas from people, because they are motivated for making an invention for free? We should reap what someone else sows?
And if someone wants recompense for their invention - they aren't worthy to hold a patent?
So we should steal good ideas from people, because they are motivated for making an invention for free? We should reap what someone else sows?
And if someone wants recompense for their invention - they aren't worthy to hold a patent?
What an odd train of thought.
That's not what I wrote at all. To reinterpret someone else's words into something entirely different so that you can characterize their rationale as odd is ... very odd behavior. Why? What can you possibly achieve by doing that?
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
The real question is why should I innovate anything with the current system? If I come up with some new and brilliant product a big competitor with a huge arsenal of patents or worse a pure patent troll is going to come along with their hand out.
Yep you are right. Facebook never came about as it is in our imagination.
Your view boils down to blah blah blah blah patents kill innovation. If you come up with a unique method for solving an existing competition, you would be very happy to have a patent on it.
As the article stated, "HTC had decided to acquire S3 Graphics based on the strong belief that evidences of patent infringement from Apple were clear and ITC ruled in its initial determination that Apple had infringed two patents from S3"
This has nothing to do with HTC defending themselves from Apple.
The answer is very simple. Truly innovative people cannot help themselves. They are unhappy if they don't invent something new. Most of the time, innovation does not come from someone sitting at a desk trying to invent for the sake of generating revenue or profit. It comes from people who have a predilection for looking at something at something and automatically thinking about how to do it differently, better, faster, ... I wouldn't go as as far as to say it happens by accident or without trying, but innovative people cannot be stifled by the absence of profit.
If you have to ask "why should I innovate", then you're absolutely not an innovative person.
These "truly innovative people" would die penniless if the patent system was abolished. Nobody is going to pay you for your ideas if they can copy them for free. That's business. Go ahead. Come up with a world-changing idea and release it without a patent as public domain. See how far that gets you.
These "truly innovative people" would die penniless if the patent system was abolished. Nobody is going to pay you for your ideas if they can copy them for free. That's business. Go ahead. Come up with a world-changing idea and release it without a patent as public domain. See how far that gets you.
I did not write anything about abolition of the patent system. But, increasingly, I understand that, when given intellectual limits, twisting other people's words is an easy means to apparent victory in debate.
As for releasing world changing ideas without patents, you might not have heard of the university system where academic researchers come up with most of the truly ground-breaking ideas and publish most of them without patents. We can also bring the open source system into the fray of this discussion, but let's keep it simple for you.
Think about drug companies for instance. They can easily spend $500m on a new drug - but what's the point if the moment it's released it can be copied for next to nothing. Who is paying for the next drug if the drug company got wiped out?
The big difference between software and drugs is a drug is protected by a single patent, whilst software often has hundreds of patents to deal with. It makes it almost impossible to write a major piece of software without it infringing on at least one patent. The current system is broken.
The big difference between software and drugs is a drug is protected by a single patent, whilst software often has hundreds of patents to deal with. It makes it almost impossible to write a major piece of software without it infringing on at least one patent. The current system is broken.
You also can't make the iPhone HW with a single patent. Apple has to buy components from some, license from others and build from scratch (and the protect) in other areas. The only difference I see betweeen HW as a product and code as a product is tht one is easier to discern.
The big difference between software and drugs is a drug is protected by a single patent, whilst software often has hundreds of patents to deal with. It makes it almost impossible to write a major piece of software without it infringing on at least one patent. The current system is broken.
The current system is far from perfect granted, but there is no reason to destroy a system that does protect a large amount of ip because of the dumb stuff (eg Amazon's One Click to buy rubbish).
But you also have to appreciate that things like phones are the results of lots and lots of people and companies doing an awful lot of research. So yes, everyone has a small stake in the results of others.
What I do find odd is that the patent license is not tied up in the purchase of a component, eg you buy a CDMA chip from Qualcomm, then it should be Qualcomm who become the agent for the patent holders of CDMA technology.
I did not write anything about abolition of the patent system. But, increasingly, I understand that, when given intellectual limits, twisting other people's words is an easy means to apparent victory in debate.
As for releasing world changing ideas without patents, you might not have heard of the university system where academic researchers come up with most of the truly ground-breaking ideas and publish most of them without patents. We can also bring the open source system into the fray of this discussion, but let's keep it simple for you.
Something like search algorithms coming out of Stanford in the early nineties?
As for releasing world changing ideas without patents, you might not have heard of the university system where academic researchers come up with most of the truly ground-breaking ideas and publish most of them without patents.
Riiight. I'm sure universities give out their innovations out of the goodness of their hearts all the time. These untold thousands of patents from universities listed are just aberrations.
Quote:
We can also bring the open source system into the fray of this discussion, but let's keep it simple for you.
Still waiting for that massive sea change that Linux was supposed to bring.
Comments
The problem for Htc is Apple has patents that were granted long before Htc even existed.
No new company can enter the smartphone market and even attempt to innovate because companies like Microsoft, Apple and IBM own patents fundamental to all operating systems. The only way is to have your own portfolio of patents and cross license which rules out most new companies. The patent system is broken and it stops innovation.
Why can't HTC innovate around Apple's patents?
It is virtually impossible to create a new OS from scratch with infringing on existing patents. There are just to many patents involved. If Apple was a new company without years worth of patents to cross license, in all likelihood it could not have created iOS without having to pay a fortune to Microsoft.
Who has the best product is irrelevant, the system favors which company is the oldest and has the largest patent portfolio.
Again, why can't Google innovate around the patented technologies? Look at the Facial Recognition unlock with ICS. If they can get that working in all of their phones, Apple's slide to unlock patent isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.
snip... It is possible that the system may need some fine tuning given some of the silly OPINIONS BASED ON patent ABSTRACTS, that ARE NOT THE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS THAT have been granted, that should have fallen under the definition of "obvious", AMONG THOSE WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE FULL PATENT... /snip
/fixed
Which is why courts exist.
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
The real question is why should I innovate anything with the current system? If I come up with some new and brilliant product a big competitor with a huge arsenal of patents or worse a pure patent troll is going to come along with their hand out.
Orlando, You have to exercise your due diligence when thinking about introducing a "new and brilliant" product since you might be stepping in somebody else's toes who already had the specs patented. Ignoring these patents is not innovation but copying and you should know that already.
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
You're deluded. Do you really think the little guy with a big idea would be able to compete with a big company with enormous manufacturing resources if they could copy without fear? You really think it's that easy to "keep innovating"? How many innovations have you brought to market? I'm guessing none, otherwise you would know that it's far easier to copy and keep copying than it is to invent.
The real question is why should I innovate anything with the current system? If I come up with some new and brilliant product a big competitor with a huge arsenal of patents or worse a pure patent troll is going to come along with their hand out.
You seem to be completely missing the point of the article. S3 has some patents. S3 sued Apple for supposed infringement of those patents. They lost. If anything, they're the patent trolls in this story. But while you wanted them to win, at the same time, you want to do away with the system that they were hoping to take advantage of. It has nothing to do with what patents a big bad company like Apple had or didn't have. Apple didn't infringe, says the commission.
So just because you start a new company, you shouldn't have to worry about existing patents? That would make penalty-free infringement awfully easy. All I'd need to do to steal somebody's idea is start a new business and they wouldn't be able to touch me.
If the patent system didn't exist, why should I innovate anything? Without protection, any new and brilliant idea I come up with could be copied by others with impunity. There'd be nothing in it for me.
The answer is very simple. Truly innovative people cannot help themselves. They are unhappy if they don't invent something new. Most of the time, innovation does not come from someone sitting at a desk trying to invent for the sake of generating revenue or profit. It comes from people who have a predilection for looking at something at something and automatically thinking about how to do it differently, better, faster, ... I wouldn't go as as far as to say it happens by accident or without trying, but innovative people cannot be stifled by the absence of profit.
If you have to ask "why should I innovate", then you're absolutely not an innovative person.
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
Problem is that the speed at which you can be copied is faster than your ability to recoup your initial investment.
Think about drug companies for instance. They can easily spend $500m on a new drug - but what's the point if the moment it's released it can be copied for next to nothing. Who is paying for the next drug if the drug company got wiped out?
The answer is very simple. Truly innovative people cannot help themselves. They are unhappy if they don't invent something new. Most of the time, innovation does not come from someone sitting at a desk trying to invent for the sake of generating revenue or profit. It comes from people who have a predilection for looking at something at something and automatically thinking about how to do it differently, better, faster, ... I wouldn't go as as far as to say it happens by accident or without trying, but innovative people cannot be stifled by the absence of profit.
If you have to ask "why should I innovate", then you're absolutely not an innovative person.
So we should steal good ideas from people, because they are motivated for making an invention for free? We should reap what someone else sows?
And if someone wants recompense for their invention - they aren't worthy to hold a patent?
What an odd train of thought.
So we should steal good ideas from people, because they are motivated for making an invention for free? We should reap what someone else sows?
And if someone wants recompense for their invention - they aren't worthy to hold a patent?
What an odd train of thought.
That's not what I wrote at all. To reinterpret someone else's words into something entirely different so that you can characterize their rationale as odd is ... very odd behavior. Why? What can you possibly achieve by doing that?
Because the best way to sell more items is to continually create new and better products. Keep innovating and you stay ahead of the competition.
The real question is why should I innovate anything with the current system? If I come up with some new and brilliant product a big competitor with a huge arsenal of patents or worse a pure patent troll is going to come along with their hand out.
Yep you are right. Facebook never came about as it is in our imagination.
Your view boils down to blah blah blah blah patents kill innovation. If you come up with a unique method for solving an existing competition, you would be very happy to have a patent on it.
Fixed that for you.
Uh, it wasn't broken.
As the article stated, "HTC had decided to acquire S3 Graphics based on the strong belief that evidences of patent infringement from Apple were clear and ITC ruled in its initial determination that Apple had infringed two patents from S3"
This has nothing to do with HTC defending themselves from Apple.
The answer is very simple. Truly innovative people cannot help themselves. They are unhappy if they don't invent something new. Most of the time, innovation does not come from someone sitting at a desk trying to invent for the sake of generating revenue or profit. It comes from people who have a predilection for looking at something at something and automatically thinking about how to do it differently, better, faster, ... I wouldn't go as as far as to say it happens by accident or without trying, but innovative people cannot be stifled by the absence of profit.
If you have to ask "why should I innovate", then you're absolutely not an innovative person.
These "truly innovative people" would die penniless if the patent system was abolished. Nobody is going to pay you for your ideas if they can copy them for free. That's business. Go ahead. Come up with a world-changing idea and release it without a patent as public domain. See how far that gets you.
These "truly innovative people" would die penniless if the patent system was abolished. Nobody is going to pay you for your ideas if they can copy them for free. That's business. Go ahead. Come up with a world-changing idea and release it without a patent as public domain. See how far that gets you.
I did not write anything about abolition of the patent system. But, increasingly, I understand that, when given intellectual limits, twisting other people's words is an easy means to apparent victory in debate.
As for releasing world changing ideas without patents, you might not have heard of the university system where academic researchers come up with most of the truly ground-breaking ideas and publish most of them without patents. We can also bring the open source system into the fray of this discussion, but let's keep it simple for you.
Think about drug companies for instance. They can easily spend $500m on a new drug - but what's the point if the moment it's released it can be copied for next to nothing. Who is paying for the next drug if the drug company got wiped out?
The big difference between software and drugs is a drug is protected by a single patent, whilst software often has hundreds of patents to deal with. It makes it almost impossible to write a major piece of software without it infringing on at least one patent. The current system is broken.
The big difference between software and drugs is a drug is protected by a single patent, whilst software often has hundreds of patents to deal with. It makes it almost impossible to write a major piece of software without it infringing on at least one patent. The current system is broken.
You also can't make the iPhone HW with a single patent. Apple has to buy components from some, license from others and build from scratch (and the protect) in other areas. The only difference I see betweeen HW as a product and code as a product is tht one is easier to discern.
The big difference between software and drugs is a drug is protected by a single patent, whilst software often has hundreds of patents to deal with. It makes it almost impossible to write a major piece of software without it infringing on at least one patent. The current system is broken.
The current system is far from perfect granted, but there is no reason to destroy a system that does protect a large amount of ip because of the dumb stuff (eg Amazon's One Click to buy rubbish).
But you also have to appreciate that things like phones are the results of lots and lots of people and companies doing an awful lot of research. So yes, everyone has a small stake in the results of others.
What I do find odd is that the patent license is not tied up in the purchase of a component, eg you buy a CDMA chip from Qualcomm, then it should be Qualcomm who become the agent for the patent holders of CDMA technology.
I did not write anything about abolition of the patent system. But, increasingly, I understand that, when given intellectual limits, twisting other people's words is an easy means to apparent victory in debate.
As for releasing world changing ideas without patents, you might not have heard of the university system where academic researchers come up with most of the truly ground-breaking ideas and publish most of them without patents. We can also bring the open source system into the fray of this discussion, but let's keep it simple for you.
Something like search algorithms coming out of Stanford in the early nineties?
Google was formed based on patenting those.
As for releasing world changing ideas without patents, you might not have heard of the university system where academic researchers come up with most of the truly ground-breaking ideas and publish most of them without patents.
Riiight. I'm sure universities give out their innovations out of the goodness of their hearts all the time. These untold thousands of patents from universities listed are just aberrations.
We can also bring the open source system into the fray of this discussion, but let's keep it simple for you.
Still waiting for that massive sea change that Linux was supposed to bring.