Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Apr 2012 09:11 UTC
Legal "The man who co-founded Apple - the world's most valuable company - in the garage of Steve Jobs' parents, fears the torrent of intellectual property lawsuits being filed by companies such as Apple, Samsung, Google, HTC and Nokia could prevent future entrepreneurs from treading a path to technology fortune." Well, mr Wozniak, you are, technically, still an Apple employee. Shouldn't be too hard for you to get an audience with mr Cook.
Order by: Score:
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 10th Apr 2012 09:36 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

"Well, mr Wozniak, you are, technically, still an Apple employee. Shouldn't be too hard for you to get an audience with mr Cook."

He does mention that Apple are the "good guys", so it doesn't make much sense for him to talk to Tim.

I don't think any company can stop this on its own, it's how the war is fought within the patent rules. These rules need to be changed. Even if all the "normal" companies stop this patent stuff the patent trolls will still continue.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by vaette on Tue 10th Apr 2012 09:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

I also find it extremely annoying that people so quickly leap from "patents are problematic" to picking a side in every patent battle and whining endlessly about the perceived bad guy. There are no winners, there are no good guys. The companies to a great extent have to fight these battles since they have to maximize shareholder value, and they have to attempt to keep a level playing field.

It is a no-brainer that Android is in perfectly legitimate patent trouble under the current system, what we learn from that is that it is the system that is flawed. Giving Google a pass to take over the mobile market without having to face patent challenges would just leave us without a level playing field, unless everyone pledges not to sue another up and comer either. Google is rather unique in that it is the largest company built on the back on what is basically a single patent, US 6,285,999, PageRank, and certainly no one else is getting into the search market by using that technique. That is not to say that Google is a bad guy either, but they, like everyone, are on both sides of the problems with patents.

Apple is not the problem, the system is. If anything the intense activity at the moment will help facilitate the system getting some much needed changes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 10th Apr 2012 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple is not the problem, the system is.


Apple IS part of the problem, more so than other companies, for two very valid reasons.

a) Apple is by far the largest company in this business, and thus, they have the money and power to change it - but they choose not to, and in fact, lobby laws to strengthen their ability to sue the little guys into oblivion (the recent patent "reform").

b) They are one of the most aggressive - if not the most aggressive - abuser of the system, and thus, contribute to its continued existence much more so than others.

Even within a system a company can show good faith, and as far as patents go, Google has demonstrated such faith. They have not gone on the offensive in any way, shape, or form, unlike its competitors, despite the lure to do so being quite high at this point. I'd love for them to do more to change the system, but to make it seem as if Google is just as bad as Apple [re:patents] is ridiculous, at best.

Reply Score: 17

v RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 10th Apr 2012 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by JAlexoid on Tue 10th Apr 2012 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How?

In the undying words of Mitt Romney - "Corporations are people, my friend"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c)
And why should they spend their money to help out competitors?

Because of game theory? Tobacco industry is the prime example of game theory in practice. The ban of cigarette advertisement has only led to higher profits for the tobacco industry.
Their limitation of exposure to aggressive lawsuits from non-competing entities carries more benefits than competitive advantage.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 10th Apr 2012 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think history has shown that industries aren't likely to change themselves. The record companies are still fighter their own customers for example.

A big problem with patents is that they have cost money to aquire and no one (companies and shareholders) wants them to become worthless.

But I think a good first step would be to stop companies getting patents on silly and obvious stuff. The next step would be taking a look at patents on silly stuff already granted.

Also I don't think companies should be able to sue based on patents they have never used or never plan on using in actual products.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by Alfman on Tue 10th Apr 2012 16:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MOS6510,

"I think history has shown that industries aren't likely to change themselves. The record companies are still fighter their own customers for example."

I don't think they're likely to change either, but unlike you I don't believe it's because they cannot, but rather that they choose not to.

Patents obviously favor the long-time established players over newcomers. It doesn't make business sense for an MNC to throw away that leverage even if it's the right thing to do. So I don't expect big businesses to do the right thing.


However the real disappointment comes from the governments who've lost the capacity to serve the public interests. The government lost this ability precisely because those in charge are the very same people running the corporations.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 10th Apr 2012 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

They choose not to, because they can't really choose to do so.

Patents are acquired by innovation, take overs, trading them or just buying them. They are used to defend, attack the competition, prevent competition or to make money. Why would any company that has these patents and thus invested money in them to give that up?

Sure it would make a better world, but companies only look at themselves and their bank account, as do their shareholders.

I don't think it's fair to those companies to outright abolish them, but step by step certain patents can be made less relevant or taken away. There are so many examples of silly and obvious patents that sane people can't understand why these things have been patented.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by JAlexoid on Thu 12th Apr 2012 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A big problem with patents is that they have cost money to aquire and no one (companies and shareholders) wants them to become worthless.

It's a sunk cost. But people should have the initiative.


But I think a good first step would be to stop companies getting patents on silly and obvious stuff.

I think you might have missed the fact that laws already prohibit "patents on silly and obvious stuff". That isn't stopping the patent lawyers from twisting the words in such a way, that even the most obvious stuff is presented and the most genius invention EVAR!!!
What needs to stop, is the practice of gaming the system. It should be heavily penalized(lawyers should just get their licenses revoked for that practice, once and for all).

Also I don't think companies should be able to sue based on patents they have never used or never plan on using in actual products.

With that I highly disagree. The only reason why a patent shouldn't be enforceable is if you hide it, aka submarine patents. The idea behind patents is public disclosure.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by shmerl on Tue 10th Apr 2012 20:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I don't think any company can stop this on its own, it's how the war is fought within the patent rules.


Nonsense. It's like saying that any country can't stop being an aggressor, since everyone engages in war. There is a distinction between aggression and defense.

Any company can start behaving decently, and not to engage in patents aggression and patent protection racket. Apple is one of the worst in that regard, and if anyone should stop this sheer nonsense for the benefit of the society - it's Apple.

Edited 2012-04-10 20:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 10th Apr 2012 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apple is the most sued company.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by shmerl on Tue 10th Apr 2012 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

That may be. It doesn't change the fact that Apple is a notorious aggressor as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 11th Apr 2012 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

They are, but why would they stop suing other companies? It would mean they themselves would continued to get sued and other companies can walk away with their patents and copy their products.

If Apple, and other companies, aren't stopped by law there is no incentive for them to suddenly stop suing each other, because there will always remain companies that will sue over patents and rip off ideas 'n' products.

These are commercial companies, they're out there to get money and grab marketshare. It makes no sense for them to give up money and power to only gain more competition.

If you work 5 days a week, would you give up 4 days (+ 4/5 of your salary) so 4 jobless people can work too? It would make the world as a whole a better place, but not for you personally so my guess is you won't do this voluntarily.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by shmerl on Wed 11th Apr 2012 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You seem to ignore the difference between defense and aggression. On numerous occasions Apple used patents aggressively, on companies/projects who didn't attack them first. So let's make it clear - defense is OK, aggression is not.

If Apple, and other companies, aren't stopped by law there is no incentive for them to suddenly stop suing each other, because there will always remain companies that will sue over patents and rip off ideas 'n' products.

That's a completely flawed logic, which can justify any kind of atrocity, if for some reason (like corrupted power bought by those who benefit from holes in the law?) there are no fitting laws around to forbid it.

Edited 2012-04-11 07:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 11th Apr 2012 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You seem to ignore the difference between defense and aggression. On numerous occasions Apple used patents aggressively, on companies/projects who didn't attack them first. So let's make it clear - defense is OK, aggression is not.


I aim to have a situation where there is no defense or aggression. If you can't patent the obvious you can't attack based on it, nor would any one need to defend themselves.


If Apple, and other companies, aren't stopped by law there is no incentive for them to suddenly stop suing each other, because there will always remain companies that will sue over patents and rip off ideas 'n' products.
That's a completely flawed logic, which can justify any kind of atrocity, if for some reason (like corrupted power bought by those who benefit from holes in the law?) there are no fitting "laws" around to forbid it.


If there are holes they can/need to be plugged. This isn't an unusual practice.

But if you think my idea to change the law won't work, because companies will find holes or use their influence, what makes you think they will behave nicely if you just ask them?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by shmerl on Wed 11th Apr 2012 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

There is a need to improve the law - that's not a question. I don't expect those who act indecent now, to behave nicely if you ask them.

We were talking about that Apple and others who act aggressively and engage in patent protection racket, can't claim that they are blameless just because the legal system is broken or because "everyone does it". They bear their responsibility for abusing the system.

Edited 2012-04-11 08:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

An example of consumer preassure
by Claxus on Tue 10th Apr 2012 19:19 UTC
Claxus
Member since:
2007-07-19

I just read in a Swedish newspaper where a chinese man claimed that in China, people buy Samsung not only because they prefer Samsung over Apple, but because they were upset over all Apples lawsuits.

It's impossible of course to validate this, but I still think it's interesting.
The reason for the consumer pattern can of course also (equally difficult to prove) origin from more political/regional interests.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 10th Apr 2012 19:56 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Where has he been all along? Did he just wake up?

Edited 2012-04-10 20:02 UTC

Reply Score: 4

The Troll Toll
by Kochise on Tue 10th Apr 2012 20:24 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03