Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Permalink for comment 528921
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 30th Jul 2012 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Member since:

One has nothing to do with the other. A company can be open and at the same time profit from data it collects from you.

Companies are not open. Foundations can be open. Source code can be open. Open does not imply "free". Free [libre] does imply open by its nature.
No, it's about keeping your perceived advantages a secret. You don't have to agree with this (I think it's bogus most of the time) but this is the reasoning behind it.

Closed source is all about the patents AND "keeping your perceived advantages a secret".
"Free Software is all about anti-patent system.

No, it's about free and open access to the source code.
You cannot be further from the truth. Free [Libre] software is about right to access, share, modify the code. It's about independence, liberty, collective work and transparency. There's much more to FREE [libre] software, than to open source software.
You can't see that it is possible for OSS to violate patents?

It violates patents from the point of view of the people who created and misuse patent system. Good people disobey bad laws. Bad laws must be changed, NOT accepted. Bad laws are a direct suggestion for people to change it.
Maybe this "payment" is perfectly acceptable to me.

Exactly what of my civil liberties are violated by Google?
Is it not up to the individual to decide how much they value their "privacy"? Maybe I don't give a shit if Google collects this data.

Ok then. You may be a submissive conformist willing to give almost all of his rights and liberties away [or - to be more precise - being taken away from you, because you are not even realizing the fact that you are being silently robbed, I presume]. I accept it and I have nothing against you. It's your choice.

Reply Parent Score: 1