Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2012 19:34 UTC
Yesterday, we were treated to another preliminary injunction on a product due to patent trolling. Over the past few years, some companies have resorted to patent trolling instead of competing on merit, using frivolous and obvious software and design patents to block competitors - even though this obviously shouldn't be legal. The fact that this is, in fact, legal, is baffling, and up until a few months ago, a regular topic here on OSNews. At some point - I stopped reporting on the matter. The reason for this is simple: I realised that intellectual property law exists outside of regular democratic processes and is, in fact, wholly and utterly totalitarian. What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?
Thread beginning with comment 524701
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: copying is anti innovation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 1st Jul 2012 20:19
in reply to "copying is anti innovation"
Member since:2005-06-29
hmmm so lets see if I got this right. If I invent something really popular and different by spending millions on research and development, it should be ok for any cheap imitation to come to market without any penalties?
I have never said anything even remotely like that in any article I have ever written - this one or earlier ones. Don't make stuff up. Just because I criticise current IP laws does not mean I advocate having no IP laws at all. Your reasoning is exactly the same as that of extremist religious folk who claim that people who are pro-gay marriage are also in favour of marriage with animals or children.
Intellectual property is a good thing. Our current IP regime, however, is not. This isn't rocket science.
RE[2]: copying is anti innovation
by Netfun81 on Sun 1st Jul 2012 20:37
in reply to "RE: copying is anti innovation"
Member since:2008-03-25
RE[2]: copying is anti innovation
by Tony Swash on Sun 1st Jul 2012 23:22
in reply to "RE: copying is anti innovation"
Member since:2009-08-22
Intellectual property is a good thing. Our current IP regime, however, is not. This isn't rocket science.
What is not clear is what you think the limits of the law on IP should be. The devil is in the detail. It's all very well saying current IP is broken or dysfunctional - OK - what should a working IP legal structure look like?
I get the impression that you don't like software patents at all, why? What in principal is different about owning the legal rights to a piece of code or software design compared to say owning the rights to a novel or a piece of music?
What about hardware patents? Are some OK but some not? In which case what are the dividing lines? Suppose someone sets up a company and makes shoes that look just like the latest Nike shoes and has a logo on them that looks very similar to a Nike logo and uses a product name similar to the Nike shoes? Should Nike have the opportunity to claim in court that their designs are being infringed? And if you can seek legal protection for the design of a pair of shoes why not for a phone or tablet?
It seems to me that product bans freak people out and Apple winning products bans really freak people out, including you Thom, and provoke generalised statements that sound plausible and principled but which obscure the fact that in the real world these issues are immensely complex and difficult. Generally the further away from the practical reality of a problem one is the easier it is to believe that there are simple solutions or that the issues are clear cut.
I personally think the current system of arguing the details out on a case by case basis through exhaustive legal actions in multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions is probably as a good a way to sort this sort of stuff out as one could find, tiresome though it is to watch. I think it is incumbent on those who say the current system is rotten to suggest what should be in it's place. How much of what sort of stuff should companies be allowed to copy and how and who should make the judgment of when thy have crossed the line?
RE[2]: copying is anti innovation
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 10:13
in reply to "RE: copying is anti innovation"
Member since:2005-07-06
marriage with animals
Seems it's not unheard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage
Overall, humans are a bit silly with this - zoophilia is supposedly taboo, but a) mass slaughter of animals is apparently fine, as is causing what will be one of the most rapid extinction events in geological record b) a typical caressing of pet animals, if done on another human, would generally be perceived as quite sexual in nature (also, if my cat is in what remains - after sterilisation - of its heat, then it quite often displays mating behaviour when caressed by a human...) c) any animal roughly compatible with human is probably large enough to severely damage the human, if it didn't like it...
Then there are silly people, one replying nearby, who at first glance could be understood by somebody as being OK with the above, but have something against two consenting adults.
(and WRT children, wasn't that more or less standard exactly in the more traditional approaches?... at least as far as legal "non adult" definition goes; plus it was all often already arranged much earlier)
Edited 2012-07-04 10:15 UTC
RE: copying is anti innovation
by lemur2 on Sun 1st Jul 2012 23:33
in reply to "copying is anti innovation"
Member since:2007-02-17
hmmm so lets see if I got this right. If I invent something really popular and different by spending millions on research and development, it should be ok for any cheap imitation to come to market without any penalties? That ruins innovation by destroying the companies that do the research and innovation. Apple has every right to sue anyone that steals from them and so does Samsung. Why can't Google and Samsung make something unique and better rather that just stealing the whole iphone and ipad designs. Because they are not innovators and the world is rewarding the cheap copiers not the true innovators. Long live ip law, and protect against these thieves around the world. I am not an Apple fan boi...but on the opposite side of this argument.
An Android phone is not a copy of an iPhone, it is a work-alike. Just as a GM vehicle is not a copy of a Ford, it is a work-alike. Likewise, Airbus aircraft are not copies of Boeing aircraft, they are work-alikes.
There are myriad products on the market which are not copies of competitor products, they are built differently but they look and work in a similar way to produce similar functionality and performance.
It is the whole basis of a capitalist free market economy that there are multiple similar products competing against each other in open competition. Supply and demand. Competition is good.
Are you saying that you do not believe in a free market economy?
Edited 2012-07-01 23:33 UTC
RE[2]: copying is anti innovation
by Netfun81 on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 01:51
in reply to "RE: copying is anti innovation"
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
"In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
"It is good for programmers to understand what goes on inside a processor. The CPU is at the heart of our career. What goes on inside the CPU? How long does it take for one instruction to run? What does it mean when a new CPU has a 12-stage pipeline, or 18-stage pipeline, or even a 'deep' 31-stage pipeline? Programs generally treat the CPU as a black box. Instructions go into the box in order, instructions come out of the box in order, and some processing magic happens inside. As a programmer, it is useful to learn what happens inside the box. This is especially true if you will be working on tasks like program optimization. If you don't know what is going on inside the CPU, how can you optimize for it? This article is about what goes on inside the x86 processor's deep pipeline."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Glass is getting some love at Google I/O as well. New applications have been released - Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Elle, Tumblr, and CNN. Perhaps more interesting: the newly announced Google Glass Developer Kit will allow offline applications and direct hardware access - great for hacking and expanding Glass' potential. This kit will really allow hackers to put Glass through its paces.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
"But Beck and Merrill decided that simply banning toxic players wasn't an acceptable solution for their game. Riot Games began experimenting with more constructive modes of player management through a formal player behavior initiative that actually conducts controlled experiments on its player base to see what helps reduce bad behavior. The results of that initiative have been shared at a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and on panels at the Penny Arcade Expo East and the Game Developers Conference." Absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm a League of Legends player, and to be honest, the community isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I'm happy Riot games has the guts to employ science to address the issue.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
"Android and iOS, the number one and number two ranked smartphone operating systems worldwide, combined for 92.3% of all smartphone shipments during the first quarter of 2013 as Windows Phone crept past BlackBerry for 3rd place. According to the International Data Corporation Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker, Android smartphone vendors and Apple shipped a total of 199.5 million units worldwide during 1Q13, up 59.1% from the 125.4 million units shipped during 1Q12." Windows Phone doubles from a few to twice few, iOS loser market share as its growth is slower than that of the overall market. BlackBerry continues slide into irrelevance.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
"According to the latest research from our Wireless Smartphone Strategies service, global Android smartphone profits reached US$5 billion in total during the first quarter of 2013. Samsung dominated and captured an impressive 95 percent share of all Android smartphone profits." Wow.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2008-03-25
hmmm so lets see if I got this right. If I invent something really popular and different by spending millions on research and development, it should be ok for any cheap imitation to come to market without any penalties? That ruins innovation by destroying the companies that do the research and innovation. Apple has every right to sue anyone that steals from them and so does Samsung. Why can't Google and Samsung make something unique and better rather that just stealing the whole iphone and ipad designs. Because they are not innovators and the world is rewarding the cheap copiers not the true innovators. Long live ip law, and protect against these thieves around the world. I am not an Apple fan boi...but on the opposite side of this argument.