Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Apr 2011 21:29 UTC
Legal Well. Raise your hands if you didn't see this one coming. Nobody is safe from Apple's and Microsoft's legal crusade against Android, not even Samsung, which supplies a lot of chips to Apple. Apple has sued Samsung for copying Cupertino's look and feel in various Samsung devices. This is about as surprising as the tides rolling in. Update: And Samsung's going to strike back. Hit 'm hard, Samsung. I don't like you anymore than any of these other patent trolls, but maybe we'll finally see it all crash and burn.
Thread beginning with comment 470728
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

While it's true that the current patent system is completely broken and is often abused, and the same is true for copyright, this doesn't mean that all patents and every copyright are useless or even harmful.

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

When a pharmaceutical company has invested millions of dollars in testing many different combinations of agents, and finally they find a combination that can cure some illness, we cannot immediately allow everyone to just analyze their product and sell a copy. That wouldn't be fair at all and would mean that in the future, only foundations and maybe universities could create new drugs.

So there's clearly a need for *some* kind of patent system, even if it should be very different from the one we have now.


Look up 'patent evergreening':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening

Pharmaceutical are not only protected as to make a profit but they too are abusing the system as well. Lets remember that the majority of the heavy lifting isn't done by pharmaceutical companies but by university and crown research entities funded by tax payers money. These entities do all the background work that pharmaceutical companies need to then understand how their chemicals react with each other and the body. Then there is the education of said employees where 75% of the cost is once again covered by the tax payer - without said subsidised education there would be fewer people being able to go to university and obtain a degree in the relevant particular areas.

Edited 2011-04-20 22:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3