Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Aug 2013 09:36 UTC
Legal Recently, the ITC ruled in favour of Samsung, issuing an exclusion order against certain Apple products, barring them from being sold in the US. Several people have called upon president Obama to step in and overrule the decision (e.g. this guy) - however, not only would this set a very bad precedent for non-US companies, it would also simply be incredibly unfair if you actually look at the ITC ruling itself. Because of this, it is quite unlikely that Obama will step in.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 49 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 568569
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Nelson
by gilboa on Thu 1st Aug 2013 11:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

A full throated defense of the patent system when Samsung is the one granted exclusion orders. Why am I not surprised.

No, the patent system is completely broken and there not much anyone can do to fix it.
I doubt that many here disagrees with this statement.

However, given the fact that Apple more-or-less tried to bully Samsung out of the mobile market by using stupid design and utility patents - throwing the first punch (or 1,000 of them), I can't say that I'll shed a single tear if/when Samsung (somehow) manages to pummel Apple into the ground.

As the saying goes, does who live by the sword, die by the sword.

- Gilboa

Edited 2013-08-01 11:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

v RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Liza on Thu 1st Aug 2013 13:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by gilboa on Thu 1st Aug 2013 15:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
gilboa Member since:

The thing that's broken about the patent system is that it doesn't effectively protect innovators.

No, the system is completely broken because:
(Long breath)
1. It lacks any method to truly validate patents.
2. It has zero standards on what can be considered trivial patent.
3. Patent offices are either completely incompetent or severely under-budget (usually both).
4. The system favors huge cooperation over small players.
5. There's no requirement on having a *working* implementation.
... and I can continue.

And then there's this document [1].

The discussion of patents, however is completely broken because people represent gunuine innovation as if it were trivial.

Sure, because "bounce notification" and "home button" design patents are as complex and as innovative as micro-processors and LTE wave modulation.

Just because Google copied it, doesn't make the original innovation obvious.

See above.

- Gilboa

Edited 2013-08-01 15:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8