Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jun 2012 22:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 524738
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Google just needs to pay up!
by Fergy on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 06:06
in reply to "RE[2]: Google just needs to pay up!"
Apple spend millions of dollares in R&D to come up wiht the "ideas" in question.
So you are in favor of idea patents?
Please think about what it would mean if idea patents became the norm.
Also I don't believe Apple spend millions of dollars on ideas. They spend it on research, code, hardware etc. It is nice that your product was the first with the bouncy screen but if a competitor makes his own implementation with his own research, code, hardware etc. what makes you think you own his work?
If you really think idea patents should become the norm I am scared for the future because there might be more people that think like you.
RE[3]: Google just needs to pay up!
by Soulbender on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 13:35
in reply to "RE[2]: Google just needs to pay up!"




Member since:
2006-07-04
Apple spend millions of dollares in R&D to come up wiht the "ideas" in question. Those ideas didn't just materialize out of thin air. (Or, if you're in the school of thought that says that all ideas already exist, but they're just waiting to be discovered, then Apple spent millions of dollars in R&D "discovering" those ideas, they didn't just come to light out of thin air). Google spent zero in copying those ideas that Apple created (or "discovered"). Code is different from ideas, but they BOTH have value. It's not the case that only "code" has value (in fact, it's absurd).
As for Google giving their software away for free, yes, that's how they get away with infringing on patents left and right, but too bad they don't indemnify their hardware partners who are selling said code (as part of their hardware device product), and are therefore liable to be sued for Google's malificence. (is that a word? hehe)