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 511913
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Mon 26th Mar 2012 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

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[5]: Comment by shmerl
by kragil on Mon 26th Mar 2012 14:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
kragil Member since:

Sorry, but I hate it when people tell me that doing a few good things is not worth it because you can't do good things all the time. That is just utterly stupid.
Why does it always have to be black and white?
As I said nearly all consumers can live very happy lifes without products from patent agressors like Apple, MS or Oracle. You can still buy plenty of hardware from other companies. The only thing I say is that you shouldn't support companies that use patents on math (software patents), biology or ideas agressively.

Same thing with eating, driving etc. Just because you don't want to give up on eating meat, eating less is still a good thing (for your health and the environment)

And I am not against all patents. It is just that general or trivial patents on basic sciences are really bad and patents should be granted for much shorter time spans. Under current laws defensive patents are totally OK IMO. Laws need to be changed though.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Tuishimi on Mon 26th Mar 2012 17:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Tuishimi Member since:

It is just that general or trivial patents on basic sciences are really bad and patents should be granted for much shorter time spans. Under current laws defensive patents are totally OK IMO. Laws need to be changed though.

This makes sense. You should have just said this the first time around, but [apparently] your tone and wording suggested otherwise. I guess that is passion at work. But passion doesn't often translate well over forum media.


Typos... man, my typing seems to get worse every day.

Edited 2012-03-26 17:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Gullible Jones on Mon 26th Mar 2012 17:44 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Gullible Jones Member since:

I'm not telling you it's not worth it, I'm telling you it's a social privilege. Don't put words in my mouth.

Reply Parent Score: 2