Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 19:05 UTC
Legal Yes, I'm hearing you guys - time to tone down a bit on the patent news. Hence, a summary here of recent developments concerning the various legal cases between Samsung and Apple. Today in The Netherlands, the judge ruled [Dutch] that Samsung will not be able to block the iPhone/iPad from the Dutch market. In the meantime, the Australian courts upheld the preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, while the American courts ruled that while the Tab indeed infringes upon Apple's design patents, Apple has not yet convinced the judge that that actually matters. Tying this all together with earlier rulings we already covered - it seems like judges across the world are really, really willy-nilly. Update: DailyTech has some detailed visual comparisons between Samsung's and Apple's devices, as well with the various design patents. Huh. You don't say.
Thread beginning with comment 493081
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The real loser...
by Hiev on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The real loser..."
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, is not that they don't want anybody else to use their desings, is just that they want to be compesated for it.

Edited 2011-10-14 20:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Neolander on Fri 14th Oct 2011 20:57 in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The OP was saying "People should not copy others' designs". This I strongly disagree with, and I hope you too. Now, what you say is different, and it brings a much more complicated debate on the table, about the validity of a patent system.

Patents exist not to grant companies a full-blown artificial monopoly on stuff (as the OP is advocating), but to allow them to get some financial benefit when other people use their design (so that there is an incentive to be first to innovate, etc).

The main problem is that today's patents, in my opinion, go too far. A company should not be allowed to ban the product of another company from a whole country, no matter the reason. Patents on high tech products with a fast development cycle should not last 20 years. Financial reward asked by the patent owner should always be reasonable and proportional to the wealth of the actor using the patent. Etc etc etc...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: The real loser...
by Alfman on Fri 14th Oct 2011 21:33 in reply to "RE[4]: The real loser..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

One should never forget that patent royalties to patent holders are required even on our own independent implementations of the invention. Legally patents don't care if there was actual copying or not.

I see no reason software developers like myself should have to pay royalties on something we are willing and able to develop ourselves. Doubly so when when we never received any working code from, and had no knowledge of, the patent holder.

This kills off opportunities for independent developers. Of course, none of this matters in the US where the laws are written in favor of those with the largest wallets. Hopefully enough ridiculous lawsuits will stagnate the overall corporate market enough to force politicians to fix it for the better, although I remain skeptical that they'll ever consider the needs of independent developers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: The real loser...
by Laurence on Sun 16th Oct 2011 09:41 in reply to "RE[3]: The real loser..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Well, is not that they don't want anybody else to use their desings, is just that they want to be compesated for it.

That's not entirely true.
Apple /don't/ want other people using their idea. Not because they're revolutionary, but because they're obvious.

If people can't implement pretty standard features then they are forced to build inferior devices. So this isn't about innovation in the slightest - it's about forcing your opponent to build intentionally crippled products.

Reply Parent Score: 3