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 529798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by zima
by zima on Sun 5th Aug 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "US -- courts over free competition"
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

That's probably not even the biggest myth - likely surpassed by "American Dream" and "land of opportunity" being one of the cornerstones of national identity ...while the US is at the bottom of developed countries in actual measure of this stuff, social mobility (popularly disparaged in the US so called "nanny states" are at the top BTW)

Still, about that "how our society is more competitive" that you point out - meanwhile, it's kinda fascinating how it basically consciously limits itself (by the choice of electoral systems promoting and maintaining the situation) to almost-false binary choice in politics; just like that downplays debate / viewpoints / options.

Edited 2012-08-06 00:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2