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 493166
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"intellectual" property
by Nth_Man on Sat 15th Oct 2011 18:33 UTC
Nth_Man
Member since:
2010-05-16

idiotic intellectual property rights have become.

The use of term "intellectual property" confuses people, it mixes legitimate things to defence, like:
- "trademark" (for example: apart from Samsung, nobody should make electronic products called "Samsung")
with things like
- "sofware patents", used to get money through legal protection rackets, "patenting a way to do something" where no other way is possible, menacing people without presenting facts and with impunity.

Edited 2011-10-15 18:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: "intellectual" property
by Nth_Man on Sat 15th Oct 2011 18:39 in reply to ""intellectual" property"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

More explicitly, in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html it was written:

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests.

and
It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

Reply Parent Score: 3