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."
Thread beginning with comment 480912
To view parent comment, click here.
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

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

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.


My point is, that software patents are a terrible idea. Finally, you seem to have grasped why. I am relieved. If you go back and read that single part, that sums it up nicely. But if you have difficulties comprehending the implications of what you wrote, I'm going to spell it out for you.

The software patent system has existed for a while. One segment of the software industry made full use of this system (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc.) In fact they used it "so well" that now there is no software that is not encumbered. Software that they did not write. You can bet that KDE is encumbered by patents owned by MS & co. Microsoft itself tells us that Linux is encumbered. All software of some complexity is encumbered - just as you say. Interestingly, you felt compelled to argue when I made the same point earlier ;)

Fact is, a fairly large segment of software development was done by people or organizations that opted out of the patent system, partly because software patents are a US only thing (and Japan perhaps?). KDE iteself is larger than the Office division at Microsoft. All software produced by any single company will be much smaller than the GPL covered software out there. Which brings me to Red Hat - yes, Red Hat has patents, but they are largely irrelevant to their contribution to software development. The GPL explicitly prohibits any additional restrictions, so they can't use their patents offensively (ie they can't go after users of their GPL licensed software).

So you see, there is simply no reason software patents should exist in the first place. It does not help innovation, it does not help develop new concepts or technologies. It does, however, pose a significant threat to those who don't have the financial clout to gamble the patent system. Loosely organized free software projects, for example. Non-profits, like KDE, or corporate sponsored development (Linux comes to mind, which is partly corporate sponsored). Even individual closed source developers have suffered from this threat (the patent troll, Lodsys's harassment of iOS app developers).

Thanks for finally coming around and agreeing to my point. I consider the issue closed, but boy, did it take while! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"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.


My point is, that software patents are a terrible idea. Finally, you seem to have grasped why. I am relieved. If you go back and read that single part, that sums it up nicely. But if you have difficulties comprehending the implications of what you wrote, I'm going to spell it out for you.
"

Well, I'm glad that we can finally agree that what I'm saying is reasonable.

The software patent system has existed for a while. One segment of the software industry made full use of this system (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc.) In fact they used it "so well" that now there is no software that is not encumbered. Software that they did not write. You can bet that KDE is encumbered by patents owned by MS & co. Microsoft itself tells us that Linux is encumbered. All software of some complexity is encumbered - just as you say. Interestingly, you felt compelled to argue when I made the same point earlier ;)


I don't believe that I argued that point since it's a pretty basic point. Are you confusing me for someone else?

Fact is, a fairly large segment of software development was done by people or organizations that opted out of the patent system, partly because software patents are a US only thing (and Japan perhaps?). KDE iteself is larger than the Office division at Microsoft. All software produced by any single company will be much smaller than the GPL covered software out there. Which brings me to Red Hat - yes, Red Hat has patents, but they are largely irrelevant to their contribution to software development. The GPL explicitly prohibits any additional restrictions, so they can't use their patents offensively (ie they can't go after users of their GPL licensed software).

So you see, there is simply no reason software patents should exist in the first place. It does not help innovation, it does not help develop new concepts or technologies. It does, however, pose a significant threat to those who don't have the financial clout to gamble the patent system. Loosely organized free software projects, for example. Non-profits, like KDE, or corporate sponsored development (Linux comes to mind, which is partly corporate sponsored). Even individual closed source developers have suffered from this threat (the patent troll, Lodsys's harassment of iOS app developers).


I don't disagree that patents are misused. However, I do disagree that there is any evidence that the software industry, or any other industry for that matter, would exist as it does today without patents. First, as I said previously, much free/open source software is a reimplementation of some closed source system (it was specifically started to re-implement closed source software, that was it's mission). Most of the open source software software that isn't a reimplementation of a closed source thing (the internet, world wide web, email, etc) was built either directly by a government or through direct government funding. Where do you find large scale new development of anything, software or otherwise, by a private organization that isn't being protected by as much intellectual property as possible?

Reply Parent Score: 2