Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Mar 2012 19:44 UTC
Legal "Last week a large, profitable company sued a small start-up business for patent infringement. As a non-legal person, I can only guess that this sort of thing must happen fairly often. I would also guess that the large companies, which have the means to hire crackerjack legal teams and drag cases out, must often win. And while I guess I feel bad for the small businesses, I've never really cared before now. Because this time, the stakes are high. This time, it's my daughter's voice on the line. Literally." Infuriating. Maybe these are the kinds of stories we need to get normal people to care enough to force lawmakers to change. Sadly, the big bags of money from Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are probably far more important to them than this sad story.
Thread beginning with comment 511859
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Gullible Jones on Sun 25th Mar 2012 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

Some people depend on drugs that happen to be patented. And like it or not, there are cases where the only drugs that work... are patented.

What do you expect people to do when they're tied into the system like that?

(And if you're just talking software, surely you realize that certain irreplaceable special-purpose software is covered by patents, right? Some people's jobs and/or educations depend on using this "shit.")

There is plenty of room for hypocrisy; but please recognize that being able to "put your money where your mouth is" is, simply put, a privilege of those who have money. (Or good health, or certain job-related skills, etc.)

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by bhtooefr on Mon 26th Mar 2012 01:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Well, there's always blatantly violating the patent, by either following its directions to make whatever it is yourself, or buying from a Chinese company that doesn't care about the patent.

(But, then, you get lead or antifreeze in your knockoff patented medicine...)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by kragil on Mon 26th Mar 2012 07:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

BS. I was talking about software and the number of people who really need their Xbox or Iphone or whatever to survive or make a living is a lot lot smaller than you make it seem. Nearly all people can live without products from patent aggressors MS, Apple or Oracle. The few people in IT that really need them now could switch to alternative in most cases. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Mon 26th Mar 2012 12:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

BS. I was talking about software and the number of people who really need their Xbox or Iphone or whatever to survive or make a living is a lot lot smaller than you make it seem. Nearly all people can live without products from patent aggressors MS, Apple or Oracle. The few people in IT that really need them now could switch to alternative in most cases. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

There was no need for such an aggressive tone. Particularly when you're both right - albeit arguing from different via points.

While you are right that many patent encumbered luxuries can easily be lived without, Gullible Jones is also correct in stating that it's pretty hard to extend those principles to all patented goods.

Where do you draw the line? Would you refuse cancer treatment because the drugs are patented? Would you sell your car because many of the gadgets are patented? What about cleaning your house? My vacuum cleaner has patented components yet I'm not ready to sell that and resort to a broom.

I appreciate your main scoop was software/ computing patents, and I could list of plenty of examples in IT of where using patented technology is unavoidable (GSM on cell phones, various different display technologies, etc). Yet you've clearly not shunned computers entirely as you're here chatting on one.

So Gullible Jones' point was that principles are a great character trait, but sticking to them isn't always practical in a modern day world. It's just where you two disagree on in at which point the line in the sand is drawn - but that's entirely down to the individual anyway so there is no right or wrong answer to that.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Gullible Jones on Mon 26th Mar 2012 12:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

While I agree with not giving money to such companies if you don't have to, I think you seriously underestimate the number of people who have to for job or educational reasons. e.g. try using something other than Excel in a corporate environment. Microsoft and other large companies have tied themselves in really deep with corporate and university culture.

(Also there's the small problem that special-purpose FOSS software is usually not as good. Say what you will, there is no way the GIMP can compete with Photoshop.)

Reply Parent Score: 2