It galled me that John Quinn taunted Apple in his closing argument for Samsung by wondering why Apple hasn't innovated lately. He wanted to know why Apple, if it was such an innovation powerhouse, hadn't trotted out the iWatch or the Apple TV.
Here's a clue, Mr. Quinn: Apple's going to make sure Samsung has great difficulty copying its next breakthroughs. The judicial system has shown no appetite for protecting Apple, so it has to find other means. One thing's for sure: Seoul is going to shat itself when it realizes Apple has completely cut it out of the future of consumer technology.
What about it is junk? Android is a stolen product that Steve Jobs promised to crush. And now you are advocating censorship simply because you disagree with it? Fabulous.
Instead of trying to flag this post, why not explain the many benefits that would be provided to the consumer and the market if Apple was the only commercially viable smartphone and tablet maker. Can't afford it because you are a secretary, LPN or janitor having to make ends meet on $30,000 a year? Well it stinks to be you! How dare evil Google create a way for Sony, LG, HTC, Lenovo etc. to sell decent functional devices for half as much!
But hey, don't bother trying to come up with your own point of view. Just flag me and be done with it.
It galled me that John Quinn taunted Apple in his closing argument for Samsung by wondering why Apple hasn't innovated lately. He wanted to know why Apple, if it was such an innovation powerhouse, hadn't trotted out the iWatch or the Apple TV.
Here's a clue, Mr. Quinn: Apple's going to make sure Samsung has great difficulty copying its next breakthroughs. The judicial system has shown no appetite for protecting Apple, so it has to find other means. One thing's for sure: Seoul is going to shat itself when it realizes Apple has completely cut it out of the future of consumer technology.
I really would like to see Apple be the first to market with some kind of nanoscale or optical computing device that would be impossible for Samsung to duplicate.
Linuxfanatic: I read your long-winded defense of copying and cheapness. It sounds like you see patent holders as greedy and evil, and that you wish for a world where Richard Stallman liberates these inventions so that copyists can profit off the labor and risk-taking of others because either (1) no one company should have such power, or (2) the patents aren't worth that much to begin with, or (3) everyone steals from everyone, or (4) all of the above I'm not sure which will win so I'll argue all of them before the jury.
The patent system protects patent holders from letting others profit without sharing the cost burden (via licensing fees). For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a new heart drug, takes it through clinical trials and gets it FDA approved, and along comes some unscrupulous copyist who steals (or reverse engineers) the formula and makes it cheaper in some lab in China. It's cheap precisely because they didn't incur the cost and risk of research and development.
Not only is this unfair to the company that did the work up front and brought it to market, the patent holder must now compete against the copyist(s), and they can't on price without taking a net loss. I'm sure in the short term, rampant copying would give you the cheaper products you crave. But in the long run, it does not sustain economic investment in that kind of innovation work.
Stallman's canned response to this economic challenge is that the best programmers (and by extension, chemists, or other knowledge workers) would work for free (or donations) because they love what they do. And that is incredibly idealistic, naive, or both.
What about it is junk? Android is a stolen product that Steve Jobs promised to crush. And now you are advocating censorship simply because you disagree with it? Fabulous.
Instead of trying to flag this post, why not explain the many benefits that would be provided to the consumer and the market if Apple was the only commercially viable smartphone and tablet maker. Can't afford it because you are a secretary, LPN or janitor having to make ends meet on $30,000 a year? Well it stinks to be you! How dare evil Google create a way for Sony, LG, HTC, Lenovo etc. to sell decent functional devices for half as much!
The really ridiculous part is that folks do not realize that Android helps Apple in the long run. People buy a cheap Android device to get them into smartphones, then they upgrade to Apple when they find out that they are much better. What do you think is driving the huge growth in Apple products in developing nations where the vast majority of the population has never owned a PC or have Internet access? Android phones and tablets. Android devices are having the same effect in developing markets right now as cheap computers running DOS and Windows did in the 1980s and 1990s. And in the long run that helped Apple, who was able to get all those Windows users to buy I-Pods first and now replace Windows with I-Pads later.
But hey, don't bother trying to come up with your own point of view. Just flag me and be done with it.
But nah. You guys are right. Increasing the number of computer users to create a much bigger market of people who might one day purchase an Apple device is bad. DOS, Windows and Android massively increasing the market of potential buyers for Apple products hurts Apple. It would have been better had Windows and Android never come along and allowed the computer/tech market remain a little niche market.
Right?
I love your writing. Good points backed up with sensible facts, without the melodramatic tone used in the original article. You should be a writer! Not for this site ofcourse, where a pro apple distortion field is mandatory.. Reading this site and the mindless commentators is always good for a laugh though.
I love your writing. Good points backed up with sensible facts, without the melodramatic tone used in the original article. You should be a writer! Not for this site ofcourse, where a pro apple distortion field is mandatory.. Reading this site and the mindless commentators is always good for a laugh though.
Linuxfanatic: I read your long-winded defense of copying and cheapness. It sounds like you see patent holders as greedy and evil, and that you wish for a world where Richard Stallman liberates these inventions so that copyists can profit off the labor and risk-taking of others because either (1) no one company should have such power, or (2) the patents aren't worth that much to begin with, or (3) everyone steals from everyone, or (4) all of the above I'm not sure which will win so I'll argue all of them before the jury.
The patent system protects patent holders from letting others profit without sharing the cost burden (via licensing fees). For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a new heart drug, takes it through clinical trials and gets it FDA approved, and along comes some unscrupulous copyist who steals (or reverse engineers) the formula and makes it cheaper in some lab in China. It's cheap precisely because they didn't incur the cost and risk of research and development.
Not only is this unfair to the company that did the work up front and brought it to market, the patent holder must now compete against the copyist(s), and they can't on price without taking a net loss. I'm sure in the short term, rampant copying would give you the cheaper products you crave. But in the long run, it does not sustain economic investment in that kind of innovation work.
Stallman's canned response to this economic challenge is that the best programmers (and by extension, chemists, or other knowledge workers) would work for free (or donations) because they love what they do. And that is incredibly idealistic, naive, or both.
That's true, but I think it's pretty obvious that patents are being abused in the software industry. I'd say there are three main issues:
Use of patents as an offensive measure instead of a defensive protection against copying. A good example would be Samsung's FRAND lawsuits brought against Apple, purely as a legal irritant. In the words of L. Ron Hubbard, the ~esteemed founder~ of the Church of Scientology:
Quote:
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
Excessively broad patents, patents that are interpreted to cover an idea rather than a specific implementation of that idea, and patents that take something obvious and add 'on a computer' / 'on the internet' / 'on a mobile device'. You only have to look at the sort of patents brought up in trolling cases to see this - all too often, these are patents that purport to cover basic things like SSL, online shopping carts, or well-known problem solving techniques with 'on a computer' appended.
Entities that exist purely to sue. They manufacture nothing, they produce nothing, and all their income is derived from a pile of patents which they use to sue anyone and everyone within reach. Even Apple is fed up with it.
So, yeah. I think software patents are necessary, and they're important, but the system as it currently stands needs a lot of work. Patents need examining more closely before they're approved to prevent obvious or excessively broad stuff getting through, there needs to be a crackdown on patent trolls, and steps should be taken to discourage aggressive use of patents (this is a good example).
i hope something happens. it was totally proven that the phone industry was changed by apple's device- and if you can copy and only get a slap on the wrist- then what the hell is the point of trying to innovate?
I'm sure Apple would decide that they wouldn't innovate at all if they lose this battle... I mean it's not like they haven't made a few hundred billion off iphone sales so far . . .
Option 4 Samsung even copied Apples earphone layout by the phone. All neatly wrapped around. They even copy the style of advertising. Even the s5 the way it layed out is iPhone style. It's ridiculous
Haha.. DED.. of all people, you at least should have access to the IP Address of posters, being admin on this site.. knowing it's a different IP address and posting this comment, is a bold faced lie no?
I'm sure Apple would decide that they wouldn't innovate at all if they lose this battle... I mean it's not like they haven't made a few hundred billion off iphone sales so far . . .
Phil
Yes, Apple is going to choose to shutter it's doors after the verdict result today... no, they are (hopefully) just going to get aggressive in the market place and compete tougher, rather than rely on the courts to make profit.
Yes, Apple is going to choose to shutter it's doors after the verdict result today... no, they are (hopefully) just going to get aggressive in the market place and compete tougher, rather than rely on the courts to make profit.
Comments
Here's a clue, Mr. Quinn: Apple's going to make sure Samsung has great difficulty copying its next breakthroughs. The judicial system has shown no appetite for protecting Apple, so it has to find other means. One thing's for sure: Seoul is going to shat itself when it realizes Apple has completely cut it out of the future of consumer technology.
What about it is junk? Android is a stolen product that Steve Jobs promised to crush. And now you are advocating censorship simply because you disagree with it? Fabulous.
Instead of trying to flag this post, why not explain the many benefits that would be provided to the consumer and the market if Apple was the only commercially viable smartphone and tablet maker. Can't afford it because you are a secretary, LPN or janitor having to make ends meet on $30,000 a year? Well it stinks to be you! How dare evil Google create a way for Sony, LG, HTC, Lenovo etc. to sell decent functional devices for half as much!
But hey, don't bother trying to come up with your own point of view. Just flag me and be done with it.
Forget it, Jake; it's Chinatown.
It galled me that John Quinn taunted Apple in his closing argument for Samsung by wondering why Apple hasn't innovated lately. He wanted to know why Apple, if it was such an innovation powerhouse, hadn't trotted out the iWatch or the Apple TV.
Here's a clue, Mr. Quinn: Apple's going to make sure Samsung has great difficulty copying its next breakthroughs. The judicial system has shown no appetite for protecting Apple, so it has to find other means. One thing's for sure: Seoul is going to shat itself when it realizes Apple has completely cut it out of the future of consumer technology.
I really would like to see Apple be the first to market with some kind of nanoscale or optical computing device that would be impossible for Samsung to duplicate.
The patent system protects patent holders from letting others profit without sharing the cost burden (via licensing fees). For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a new heart drug, takes it through clinical trials and gets it FDA approved, and along comes some unscrupulous copyist who steals (or reverse engineers) the formula and makes it cheaper in some lab in China. It's cheap precisely because they didn't incur the cost and risk of research and development.
Not only is this unfair to the company that did the work up front and brought it to market, the patent holder must now compete against the copyist(s), and they can't on price without taking a net loss. I'm sure in the short term, rampant copying would give you the cheaper products you crave. But in the long run, it does not sustain economic investment in that kind of innovation work.
Stallman's canned response to this economic challenge is that the best programmers (and by extension, chemists, or other knowledge workers) would work for free (or donations) because they love what they do. And that is incredibly idealistic, naive, or both.
I love your writing. Good points backed up with sensible facts, without the melodramatic tone used in the original article. You should be a writer! Not for this site ofcourse, where a pro apple distortion field is mandatory.. Reading this site and the mindless commentators is always good for a laugh though.
I love your writing. Good points backed up with sensible facts, without the melodramatic tone used in the original article. You should be a writer! Not for this site ofcourse, where a pro apple distortion field is mandatory.. Reading this site and the mindless commentators is always good for a laugh though.
Of course you do Bryan, it's your other account.
Linuxfanatic: I read your long-winded defense of copying and cheapness. It sounds like you see patent holders as greedy and evil, and that you wish for a world where Richard Stallman liberates these inventions so that copyists can profit off the labor and risk-taking of others because either (1) no one company should have such power, or (2) the patents aren't worth that much to begin with, or (3) everyone steals from everyone, or (4) all of the above I'm not sure which will win so I'll argue all of them before the jury.
The patent system protects patent holders from letting others profit without sharing the cost burden (via licensing fees). For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a new heart drug, takes it through clinical trials and gets it FDA approved, and along comes some unscrupulous copyist who steals (or reverse engineers) the formula and makes it cheaper in some lab in China. It's cheap precisely because they didn't incur the cost and risk of research and development.
Not only is this unfair to the company that did the work up front and brought it to market, the patent holder must now compete against the copyist(s), and they can't on price without taking a net loss. I'm sure in the short term, rampant copying would give you the cheaper products you crave. But in the long run, it does not sustain economic investment in that kind of innovation work.
Stallman's canned response to this economic challenge is that the best programmers (and by extension, chemists, or other knowledge workers) would work for free (or donations) because they love what they do. And that is incredibly idealistic, naive, or both.
That's true, but I think it's pretty obvious that patents are being abused in the software industry. I'd say there are three main issues:
Quote:
So, yeah. I think software patents are necessary, and they're important, but the system as it currently stands needs a lot of work. Patents need examining more closely before they're approved to prevent obvious or excessively broad stuff getting through, there needs to be a crackdown on patent trolls, and steps should be taken to discourage aggressive use of patents (this is a good example).
i hope something happens. it was totally proven that the phone industry was changed by apple's device- and if you can copy and only get a slap on the wrist- then what the hell is the point of trying to innovate?
I'm sure Apple would decide that they wouldn't innovate at all if they lose this battle... I mean it's not like they haven't made a few hundred billion off iphone sales so far . . .
Phil
I've got a bad feeling about this.
[VIDEO]
Someone has to say that in the new Star Wars movie or JJ Abrams will get so much hate.
I'd like to hear it but you know he'll get hate no matter what. He did for Star Trek.
Samsung even copied Apples earphone layout by the phone. All neatly wrapped around. They even copy the style of advertising. Even the s5 the way it layed out is iPhone style. It's ridiculous
Of course you do Bryan, it's your other account.
Haha.. DED.. of all people, you at least should have access to the IP Address of posters, being admin on this site.. knowing it's a different IP address and posting this comment, is a bold faced lie no?
I'm sure Apple would decide that they wouldn't innovate at all if they lose this battle... I mean it's not like they haven't made a few hundred billion off iphone sales so far . . .
Phil
Yes, Apple is going to choose to shutter it's doors after the verdict result today... no, they are (hopefully) just going to get aggressive in the market place and compete tougher, rather than rely on the courts to make profit.
After that verdict and that award- this article is nonsense.
Shut up and go away, troll.
Well that deserved a good percentage of the hate.
I loved the first one and liked the second.