Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jul 2011 20:47 UTC
Legal Tell 'm like it is, HTC. "HTC is disappointed at Apple's constant attempts at litigations instead of competing fairly in the market," said HTC general counsel Grace Lei in a statement, "HTC strongly denies all infringement claims raised by Apple in the past and present and reiterates our determination and commitment to protect our intellectual property rights."
Permalink for comment 480912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

"
Where exactly did I claim to be an expert in all industries?


You pose as one, claiming everyone who disagrees with you knows nothing about how patents work.
"

First, I never claimed everyone who disagrees with me knows nothing about the patent system. I did say that, based on comments, the vast majority of people who comment on OSNews know nothing about the patent system. Second, claiming knowledge of the patent system (which I have) does not imply claiming knowledge of other industries. It's terribly painful when people use tortured logic the way you are.

"Also listing a small (and dubious, I'm not sure who made you the spokesperson for all KDE developers and all free software developers) does not disprove my...


small and dubious... I can't really comment on pure nonsense. No, I'm not KDEs or anyone's spokesperson, but you can be fairly certain that not some (as you claim) but the vast majority of free software developers are not exactly thrilled by software patents. I'm not even sure closed software devs are supportive...
"

I said this "Many "geeks" (including Thom) who claim to be against patents say that software patents are bad but hardware patents are ok because one is math and the other is a thing. The "geeks" who makes claims like that simply prove that they know nothing about software or hardware." That is a direct quote. You somehow twisted that into something about "most people against software patents are fanboys who never wrote software in their lives." At this point if you are unable to differentiate between my statement and your characterization of it then nothing will help you.

"
The fact that you ignore funding of development kind of is your problem and it is the point. You are making a pretty big claim: huge companies and universities would have developed the internet with their own money and not attempted to patent any of the resulting technology.

Nice try. I never made that claim. I said, that funding is a separate issue - and we are debating patents, aren't we? Besides, I don't need to claim that companies/universities would have developed the internet w/o relying on patents for revenue. This is history. It happened. In fact, your argument is kinda hilarious for TCP/IP became dominant because it was not encumbered by patents ;) None of the key technologies were.
"

I'm not even sure how to respond to you. Basically you take what I said, ignore it and then respond with some non-sequitor. I'm beginning to think you completely don't understand what I'm saying since your response only makes sense if you ignore the entire substance of my statement. So I'm just going to paste what I said in my previous comment again:

You are making a pretty big claim: huge companies and universities would have developed the internet with their own money and not attempted to patent any of the resulting technology. Furthermore, they would release the source for all this technology for free. Or, do you think it's more likely that it got done this way because the DoD payed for all the development? Unless you can provide some tiny shred of evidence that any development the scale of the internet got done by private enterprise and it wasn't patented and licensed from top to bottom then you might want to think very hard before you reply again about the relationship between funding research and development and with what restrictions it's brought to market down the road.

And again, there's Linux for you, which you completely ignore, and it's actually HUGE. No Linux developer patented any parts of the kernel, while your whole argument is that software development would not happen without patents. Or take APPLE for example. They raked in billions because their product was successful in the market. They already reaped the rewards of their investment, without relying on patent revenues.


RedHat holds patents on aspects of the Linux kernel so you're factually incorrect there. The Linux kernel is insignificant in scope and novelty compared to the internet and the technologies developed under funding of ARPA. Apple has applied for patents and aggressively defended their intellectual property for most of their existence so that seems like a pretty poor example

You completely failed to prove that software development would not happen without patents. It does, and it did, osnews itself is a prime example (ask Thom if he patented any of the design or parts of the engine running his site). Your constant attempt to divert the discussion, your failure to address any of my points made me tired of this. I'm done with this thread.


Since I never claimed software development wouldn't happen without patents I'm not sure why I would have to prove that. I have claimed that no large software development project, hell no large R&D project in any industry, out there that wasn't government funded isn't encumbered. And you simply want to ignore the funding aspect of R&D as though it's not important.

Reply Parent Score: 2