Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Thread beginning with comment 528825
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by marcp
by WereCatf on Sun 29th Jul 2012 15:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

With open source they won't, because there is a collective of individuals, no patents


Just because something is F/OSS doesn't make it free from software-patents.

Google profits from your data


So does everyone else these days, that's hardly anything new.

Android is NOT open.


Depends on how you interpret that. The code is all there, freely accessible and you're perfectly free to fork it. The only part that is not open is upstream access.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 29th Jul 2012 16:28 in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I can't understand how can you write such stuff. It would actualy mean you don't know the whole Free Software ecosystem.
Closed source is all about the patents. Free Software is all about anti-patent system. I can't see where your point is actually valid. It *may* be valid in open source projects, which also may be dependent on software patents.
Besides: people who support patent system may have claims to the Free Software community and its projects, but it doesn't mean that those claims are reasonable.


So does everyone else these days, that's hardly anything new.

First of all: no, not everyone. Only the ones who claim they give you something "free", while in fact you are paying for it with your own data. I can't see this paradigm in free software community, while it is perfectly observable in closed source / commercial spectrum of the market.
Secondly: I don't get people like you, who tend to accept the crap as soon as it happens to be widely present. Normally I would ask you if you accept this kind of situation, but I think I can assume what your answer would be. You've actually already answered it indirectly. So right: go ahead, give up all your liberties, because "everyone is invading my privacy these days".
You can always say: "I have nothing to hide, thus you can take [an resell!] my personal data", but that would get you even worse in this whole discussion.

Lastly: Android can be called merely open platform because it is - as somebody else pointed out - closed during development and opened at times, then Google decides to do so. I don't accept that deal. You can accept it if you want. That's your problem.

You can't miss something you've never experienced. And that's true when it comes to freedom, too ... it explains why people say ludicrous things in discussions like this.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by galvanash on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25


"Just because something is F/OSS doesn't make it free from software-patents.

I can't understand how can you write such stuff. It would actualy mean you don't know the whole Free Software ecosystem. Closed source is all about the patents. Free Software is all about anti-patent system.
"

It doesn't matter "what it is about". I don't think you understand what was meant here... I myself am totally against software patents - but I cannot stick my fingers in my ears and chant la-la-la and magically make the patent system disappear.

In the US at least, software patents exist - it is the law of the land. There have been quite a few cases where patented code was found in open source software and the patent holder sued successfully and won. A few of them even involve Linux and other very high profile OSS projects. Happens all the time.

I'm not saying it is right, or that I agree with it... But saying that something being OSS makes it free of patents is completely naive.

Its practically impossible to make a software product that goes beyond trivial functionality and doesn't violate an existing patent - that is the whole damn problem... You can't "intend" to be patent free, you either are or aren't - and unless you hired lawyers and spent many thousands of dollars doing a clearance of the code you have more than likely violated a patent.

Ironically, the only real way to prove your code is free of other peoples patents is to patent it yourself. And thus we all go spinning down the rabbit hole...

Edited 2012-07-29 17:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by Soulbender on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

From your original post:

Google is NOT open. Google profits from your data

One has nothing to do with the other. A company can be open and at the same time profit from data it collects from you.

Closed source is all about the patents

No, it's about keeping your perceived advantages a secret. You don't have to agree with this (I think it's bogus most of the time) but this is the reasoning behind it.

Free Software is all about anti-patent system.

No, it's about free and open access to the source code.

I can't see where your point is actually valid

You can't see that it is possible for OSS to violate patents?

Only the ones who claim they give you something "free", while in fact you are paying for it with your own data

Maybe this "payment" is perfectly acceptable to me.

So right: go ahead, give up all your liberties, because "everyone is invading my privacy these days".

Exactly what of my civil liberties are violated by Google?
Is it not up to the individual to decide how much they value their "privacy"? Maybe I don't give a shit if Google collects this data.

it explains why people say ludicrous things in discussions like this.

Ahum....

Edited 2012-07-30 08:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2