PDA

View Full Version : Tokyo Court Says Samsung Infringed Apple 'Bounce Back' Patent




MacRumors
Jun 21, 2013, 08:46 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/21/tokyo-court-says-samsung-infringed-apple-bounce-back-patent/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/04/apple_rubber_banding_patent_figure.jpgReuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-apple-samsung-idUSBRE95K06620130621) on a decision from a Tokyo court ruling that Samsung has infringed Apple's "bounce back" patent. The report notes that the decision comes months after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that the patent was invalid (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/02/key-claim-of-apples-rubber-banding-patent-once-again-found-invalid-by-u-s-patent-office/), but the agency reversed that decision (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/13/key-claim-of-apples-rubber-banding-patent-used-against-samsung-confirmed/) just last week, reconfirming the validity of the key claim of Apple's patent.Apple*claimed that Samsung had copied the "bounce-back", in which icons on its smartphones and tablets quiver back when users scroll to the end of an electronic document. Samsung has already changed its interface on recent models to show a blue line at the end of documents.In the past couple of months, the "bounce back" ruling has come under heavy scrutiny with a number of claims found invalid in multiple rulings. The invalid declaration allowed Samsung to continue to sell older phone models that used the feature.

But with that key claim being reconfirmed after reexamination last week, Apple has now defended it twice against challenges, giving the patent stronger presumptive validity in its court cases.

The patent was successfully used by Apple in its U.S. lawsuit against Samsung, which yielded a $1 billion judgment (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/). In November, there will be a trial to redetermine the portion of damages that Samsung must pay Apple after the ruling was partly thrown out due to jury error (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/01/judge-voids-nearly-half-of-apples-1-billion-judgment-against-samsung-calls-for-new-trial-to-settle-revised-damages/).

Article Link: Tokyo Court Says Samsung Infringed Apple 'Bounce Back' Patent (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/21/tokyo-court-says-samsung-infringed-apple-bounce-back-patent/)



Bhatu
Jun 21, 2013, 09:10 AM
Apple to Samsung: "One night I'm gonna come to you, inside of your house, wherever you're sleeping, and I'm gonna cut your throat."

jonnysods
Jun 21, 2013, 09:22 AM
SUE EVERYONE.

I filed a patent on breathing. I'm taking everyone in the whole world to court. I want $1 from every person.

GSPice
Jun 21, 2013, 09:40 AM
SUE EVERYONE.

I filed a patent on breathing. I'm taking everyone in the whole world to court. I want $1 from every person.

Sorry, that's not what this is about.

----------



Article Link: Tokyo Court Says Samsung Infringed Apple 'Bounce Back' Patent (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/21/tokyo-court-says-samsung-infringed-apple-bounce-back-patent/)

A Tokyo court! I love it! :p

street.cory
Jun 21, 2013, 09:46 AM
Good. I'm glad that Apple is the winner on this patent dispute.

This is a case where Samsung clearly could have created and implemented their own solution of the "bounce back" feature but blatantly copied it until they were called out on it.

keysofanxiety
Jun 21, 2013, 10:06 AM
A Tokyo court! I love it! :p


At the risk of being pedantic, Samsung are Korean... and the Japanese hatred of Samsung (and Korean business in general) is well documented ...

... but other than that! ;)

nikeislove
Jun 21, 2013, 10:09 AM
I always though that effect was from Palm WebOS. :confused:

SvenSvenson
Jun 21, 2013, 10:22 AM
SUE EVERYONE.

I filed a patent on breathing. I'm taking everyone in the whole world to court. I want $1 from every person.

Did you do it first?

nagromme
Jun 21, 2013, 10:42 AM
Why don't more people want to see what Samsung could do instead of copying Apple?

Every time Samsung copies Apple, we get LESS choice and LESS innovation in the market.

Why do some people seem to want Samsung to be a copycat? Sounds more fun, to me, to see what they come up with on their own. (In this case, a blue stripe--which sounds like it would serve the purpose just fine in a less fun way.) THAT would be competition worth having in the market. I would think Samsung fans would agree--just like Apple fans wouldn't want to see Apple slavishly clone Windows 8.

No, Samsung doesn't copy every little detail from Apple.... but they copy SO many SO slavishly that they're in a league all their own (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/). (They even went white when Apple did!) What would all those iPhone-alike products have been if Samsung acted more like other phone makers and went in their own direction? I'd love to have THAT choice in the market more often, and lazy clones less.

dBeats
Jun 21, 2013, 10:58 AM
Why don't more people want to see what Samsung could do instead of copying Apple?


You're making the large assumption that they could innovate instead of copy. Considering they Stabbed Sony in the back all those years ago and undercut them on TVs that were essentially the same as the one's they were making for Sony, I think the long term strategy has been pretty clear. Take (or become a "partner"), copy, advertise "Why pay more, we have same thing", make 200 variations each with some spec tweaked, crash the price/commoditize, starve the innovator, spend then next 10 years doing nothing but bumping specs until a new innovator shows a new idea, rinse, lather, repeat.

nagromme
Jun 21, 2013, 11:19 AM
You're making the large assumption that they could innovate instead of copy. Considering they Stabbed Sony in the back all those years ago and undercut them on TVs that were essentially the same as the one's they were making for Sony, I think the long term strategy has been pretty clear. Take (or become a "partner"), copy, advertise "Why pay more, we have same thing", make 200 variations each with some spec tweaked, crash the price/commoditize, starve the innovator, spend then next 10 years doing nothing but bumping specs until a new innovator shows a new idea, rinse, lather, repeat.

I also remember the Samsung "BlackJack" clone of BlackBerry. And "bump to share"? iPhone has had that (via a very nice free app) since at LEAST the iPhone 3G. (I'd rather have AirDrop, and have never seen anyone "bump" in real life.) However, Samsung tries SOME new things sometimes, and imagine if they did it more? Android fans should be calling for that, not fighting to keep innovative pressure off of Samsung.

It's just odd :)

Skika
Jun 21, 2013, 11:29 AM
You're making the large assumption that they could innovate instead of copy. Considering they Stabbed Sony in the back all those years ago and undercut them on TVs that were essentially the same as the one's they were making for Sony, I think the long term strategy has been pretty clear. Take (or become a "partner"), copy, advertise "Why pay more, we have same thing", make 200 variations each with some spec tweaked, crash the price/commoditize, starve the innovator, spend then next 10 years doing nothing but bumping specs until a new innovator shows a new idea, rinse, lather, repeat.

Agreed. Samsung is a horrible company in that aspect.

pirg
Jun 21, 2013, 12:21 PM
No surprise here. Samsung is a thief and courts worldwide are proving it

SockRolid
Jun 21, 2013, 12:40 PM
... Samsung had copied the "bounce-back", in which icons on its smartphones and tablets quiver back when users scroll to the end of an electronic document.

Pretty sure the patent has nothing to do with icons quivering or moving in any way.
It's only the document content that bounces back when you scroll past an "edge."
(Emphasis mine.)

This is from an earlier MacRumors story (emphasis mine again):

The patent, which addresses the ability for content displayed on iOS devices to "bounce back" when the user scrolls to the top or bottom of the page.

Full story:

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/02/key-claim-of-apples-rubber-banding-patent-once-again-found-invalid-by-u-s-patent-office/

jonnysods
Jun 21, 2013, 01:13 PM
Did you do it first?

Dang it. Good point.

blackhand1001
Jun 21, 2013, 01:27 PM
Good. I'm glad that Apple is the winner on this patent dispute.

This is a case where Samsung clearly could have created and implemented their own solution of the "bounce back" feature but blatantly copied it until they were called out on it.

They haven't used bounce back on a product in over 2 years and when they did it was part of stock android from before they switched to edge glow. It now uses the stock edge glow and even the original galaxy s switched to edge glow. Second of all there is so much prior art for the bounce back that the patent will likely be invalidated. Its also no secret that Japan has a hate for South Korea, especially in recent years.

macs4nw
Jun 21, 2013, 03:01 PM
Did you do it first?

Or invent it?

Why don't more people want to see what Samsung could do instead of copying Apple?
Every time Samsung copies Apple, we get LESS choice and LESS innovation in the market.
Why do some people seem to want Samsung to be a copycat? Sounds more fun, to me, to see what they come up with on their own. (In this case, a blue stripe--which sounds like it would serve the purpose just fine in a less fun way.) THAT would be competition worth having in the market. I would think Samsung fans would agree--just like Apple fans wouldn't want to see Apple slavishly clone Windows 8.
No, Samsung doesn't copy every little detail from Apple.... but they copy SO many SO slavishly that they're in a league all their own (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/). (They even went white when Apple did!) What would all those iPhone-alike products have been if Samsung acted more like other phone makers and went in their own direction? I'd love to have THAT choice in the market more often, and lazy clones less.

They've taken the (sl)easy way out.....

You're making the large assumption that they could innovate instead of copy.....

They have more than enough money to hire talented people and come up with their own unique ideas a bit more often.

.....Considering they Stabbed Sony in the back all those years ago and undercut them on TVs that were essentially the same as the one's they were making for Sony, I think the long term strategy has been pretty clear. Take (or become a "partner"), copy, advertise "Why pay more, we have same thing", make 200 variations each with some spec tweaked, crash the price/commoditize, starve the innovator, spend then next 10 years doing nothing but bumping specs until a new innovator shows a new idea, rinse, lather, repeat.

Sadly, True.

I also remember the Samsung "BlackJack" clone of BlackBerry. And "bump to share"? iPhone has had that (via a very nice free app) since at LEAST the iPhone 3G. (I'd rather have AirDrop, and have never seen anyone "bump" in real life.) However, Samsung tries SOME new things sometimes, and imagine if they did it more? Android fans should be calling for that, not fighting to keep innovative pressure off of Samsung. It's just odd :)

Agreed! Encouraging companies to copy good ideas (by purchasing their products), just for the sake of saving a little money, is a short-sighted policy, that in the long run leads to stagnation. When the companies who do stick their neck out, and take risks with bold new ideas, have been 'run out of town' by those, shamelessly copying those new features, and therefore being able to undercut the innovators (no R&D costs), what incentive will there be for another great company to come along, and take big risks with innovation, knowing they will soon enough be undercut by the copycats, and unable maybe, to even recoup their R&D investment.

street.cory
Jun 21, 2013, 03:07 PM
They haven't used bounce back on a product in over 2 years and when they did it was part of stock android from before they switched to edge glow. It now uses the stock edge glow and even the original galaxy s switched to edge glow. Second of all there is so much prior art for the bounce back that the patent will likely be invalidated. Its also no secret that Japan has a hate for South Korea, especially in recent years.

Okay. I really don't understand why you're responding to me. I didn't say or imply recent Samsung devices infringed on the patent or that Samsung hasn't implemented their own feature.

I said they copied it until they were called out on it.

Which means, they used to use it, now they don't.

As far as previous art, that's all good and dandy but they didn't patent it did they? Is the patent system abused in some cases? Yes. Does it protect people who own the patent? Yes.

Also, if you think Japan's hate for South Korea is the reason Apple won I'll direct you to this patent case (http://www.zdnet.com/apple-loses-patent-lawsuit-in-japan-7000003548/).

bchery21
Jun 21, 2013, 03:35 PM
Did you do it first?

Got 'em!

GenesisST
Jun 21, 2013, 08:47 PM
SUE EVERYONE.

I filed a patent on breathing. I'm taking everyone in the whole world to court. I want $1 from every person.

Bill Gates would still be richer than you... :D

inscrewtable
Jun 21, 2013, 10:10 PM
I find the 'sosumi' apple sound to be rather irritating but with the current rate of litigation, it looks like this 'in' joke will be with us for a long time yet.

Yamcha
Jun 21, 2013, 11:38 PM
Ridiculous! iOS6 & 7 clearly borrows so much from Android 4+ yet as far as I know Apple hasn't been sued yet, maybe the difference is it wasn't patented? Well in my view copying is copying, so I really find it appalling when Apple is "Borrowing" ideas from Android and they don't seem to have an issue with it.

But when another company like Samsung in this case uses the bounce back effect, it becomes the end of all things.

How about let's stop having double standards and start being fair and objective?

thepowerofnone
Jun 22, 2013, 04:12 AM
SUE EVERYONE.

I filed a patent on breathing. I'm taking everyone in the whole world to court. I want $1 from every person.

A patent on breathing you say? I would like to license that under FRAND please - since it is truly essential to life, and $1 is a hugely inflated price. Also, I will see you in court to challenge whether I actually infringed on your "breathing" patent, since my way of breathing is just a little bit different, and I will be filling with the Patent Office to have your patent invalidated on grounds that I don't believe you can prove that you invented it. Welcome to the world of patents - even if you had legitimately invented breathing I would have so many ways to try to dodge your patent and cost you money defending it, it begs the question why would you invent at all when you can just replicate. Why indeed...

When I win, don't deliver my legal expenses to me in $0.05 coins: a bank transfer is necessary.

thepowerofnone
Jun 22, 2013, 04:27 AM
Ridiculous! iOS6 & 7 clearly borrows so much from Android 4+ yet as far as I know Apple hasn't been sued yet, maybe the difference is it wasn't patented? Well in my view copying is copying, so I really find it appalling when Apple is "Borrowing" ideas from Android and they don't seem to have an issue with it.

But when another company like Samsung in this case uses the bounce back effect, it becomes the end of all things.

How about let's stop having double standards and start being fair and objective?

Maybe its because iOS 6 was publicly previewed before Jelly Bean was and most of the similarities didn't come in until JB? So surely Apple should be suing Google for that to? Or maybe because the similarities between the early iOS's (which was the first to be developed/released/previewed/any other word you like) and the original Android are so staggeringly obvious that of Google to go into court and say "iOS is a copy of Android" would have the whole room in hysterics? IF Android were to introduce a piece of software or a phone developer introduced a piece of hardware which was legitimately patentable then Apple ought to have to pay for it. However, you can't patent "4G on a mobile device" or "a home screen with icons arranged in a grid pattern" and if you could Samsung got there first on the 4G and Apple beat Android to the grid pattern so everyone owes everyone else lots of money. You can patent software quirks which improve the interface without really adding functionality however since Samsung can't turn around and say "we introduced bounce back because it solved this major issue our customers have been having"; they introduced it because they saw it on iOS and realised that it improved the user experience. I can't think of any user experience items which Apple has copied.

FYI I use a Nexus 4 and think that its an amazing, great value product that blows the iPhone out of the water when it comes to value for money, but it just really annoys me when people accuse Apple of not innovating when its one of very few companies to truly alter traditional technology markets in the past 10 years and its done it three times. The only other one which springs to mind is Sony with the RX100 camera - that little thing has changed the digital camera market significantly by raising the bar a long, long way for its competitors.

szw-mapple fan
Jun 22, 2013, 07:56 AM
At the risk of being pedantic, Samsung are Korean... and the Japanese hatred of Samsung (and Korean business in general) is well documented ...

... but other than that! ;)

Correct, but then all the Japanese phone makers used and still uses Android. If they awarded Apple this case it might open the doors for Apple to sue other Japanese makers who have also 'borrowed' this feature.

I'm glad Apple won this. The bounce back feature is much more than a 'rounded rectangle'.

blitzer09x87
Jun 22, 2013, 01:09 PM
finally, samsung is getting what it deserves, justice has been served.
apple knows how to make a great UI.

beaniemyman
Jun 22, 2013, 02:26 PM
apple is just a little cry baby, who doesn't want to share his toys with other guys.
PATENTLY APPLE

roadbloc
Jun 22, 2013, 02:45 PM
What a dumb patent.

inaneframe
Jun 22, 2013, 06:57 PM
apple is just a little cry baby, who doesn't want to share his toys with other guys.
PATENTLY APPLE

What a dumb patent.

I can't believe I had to get to the bottom of these comments to find the two most intelligent posts.

The most ridiculous comment so far, from what I can see, is the idea that this patent could force Samsung to "innovate" on a better way to deal with "page ends" or "edges." Besides the point that patents are anti-competitive and detrimental to innovation, where "anti-commons" are compiled, in the first place, how much innovation is really necessary in "page ends" anyway? Does it really benefit anyone to have a dozen different proprietary ways to execute "page ends" in interfaces? That's a bit like saying that we need a dozen different proprietary ways to stop a car, different basic braking mechanisms. Also, where is the consumer choice in a world where, if I want 4x4 on a vehicle, I can only get it from one manufacturer?

"Page ends" aren't nearly as important as other aspects of a phone but patents do not increase consumer choice, they stifle innovation by locking concepts away into anti-commons so they cannot be recycled and reformed into other newer interface systems. They also block out other smaller companies from getting into the market. I couldn't give two ***** about Samsung, personally, as they too utilize patents and lock out concepts and ideas. But patents do not increase innovation, they only allow massive corporations an environment through which they can sit back on their laurels, a disincentive to innovation if there ever was one. Apple is but the fantastic exception that proves the rule, they are that rare larger corporation still capable of innovation but they are far from an excuse for the current system.

All of that said, it's not Apple or Samsung who are broken, it is the system at large. Apple acts defensively, if they did not patent, others would and they would lock them up in expensive court battles regardless of who actually won (based on prior art etc). They exercise their patents as not doing so can have somewhat of the same effect. I get this all but most of the commenters here are acting as though Samsung is this terrible entity for "stealing" the work of others. As if a "concept" (a non-existent fictional representation of a mental entity) could be stolen.

:D You wouldn't download a car. You would snatch a thought. :D

:rolleyes:

vvswarup
Jun 22, 2013, 08:28 PM
"Page ends" aren't nearly as important as other aspects of a phone but patents do not increase consumer choice, they stifle innovation by locking concepts away into anti-commons so they cannot be recycled and reformed into other newer interface systems. They also block out other smaller companies from getting into the market. I couldn't give two ***** about Samsung, personally, as they too utilize patents and lock out concepts and ideas. But patents do not increase innovation, they only allow massive corporations an environment through which they can sit back on their laurels, a disincentive to innovation if there ever was one. Apple is but the fantastic exception that proves the rule, they are that rare larger corporation still capable of innovation but they are far from an excuse for the current system.


Why can't other companies innovate around patented technologies? By doing so, they'll be able to make a product that's potentially better than the existing product that uses the patented technology. If others can simply copy the patented technology with impunity, it would, in my opinion, result in nothing more than an unhealthy obsession with making a product cheaper. If other companies innovate around a patented technology, they can say that they're bringing something new to the table.

And if it weren't for patents, there would be no incentive to innovate. Why would anyone invest time and money into developing an idea only to watch others rip it off with impunity?

inaneframe
Jun 22, 2013, 11:18 PM
Why can't other companies innovate around patented technologies? By doing so, they'll be able to make a product that's potentially better than the existing product that uses the patented technology. If others can simply copy the patented technology with impunity, it would, in my opinion, result in nothing more than an unhealthy obsession with making a product cheaper. If other companies innovate around a patented technology, they can say that they're bringing something new to the table.

If the market calls for cheaper products, there will be incentive for companies to do so but there will still be a market for innovative high end products. That is how markets work.

And if it weren't for patents, there would be no incentive to innovate. Why would anyone invest time and money into developing an idea only to watch others rip it off with impunity?

By that logic there was no innovation before the advent of government enforced patents. Yup, profits and the higher end of markets provide 0 incentive, you're so smart! Why hadn't I ever thought of that before?!

Let me leave you with the key part you are missing: patents increase the cost of research and development because companies have more incentive to keep any findings to themselves instead of creating research agreements and commons organizations.

jonnysods
Jun 23, 2013, 08:58 AM
A patent on breathing you say? I would like to license that under FRAND please - since it is truly essential to life, and $1 is a hugely inflated price. Also, I will see you in court to challenge whether I actually infringed on your "breathing" patent, since my way of breathing is just a little bit different, and I will be filling with the Patent Office to have your patent invalidated on grounds that I don't believe you can prove that you invented it. Welcome to the world of patents - even if you had legitimately invented breathing I would have so many ways to try to dodge your patent and cost you money defending it, it begs the question why would you invent at all when you can just replicate. Why indeed...

When I win, don't deliver my legal expenses to me in $0.05 coins: a bank transfer is necessary.

Love it! Solid argument.

vvswarup
Jun 23, 2013, 10:34 AM
If the market calls for cheaper products, there will be incentive for companies to do so but there will still be a market for innovative high end products. That is how markets work.


But what good does it do if everyone's making the same thing with the only difference being price?


By that logic there was no innovation before the advent of government enforced patents. Yup, profits and the higher end of markets provide 0 incentive, you're so smart! Why hadn't I ever thought of that before?!

Let me leave you with the key part you are missing: patents increase the cost of research and development because companies have more incentive to keep any findings to themselves instead of creating research agreements and commons organizations.

Why wouldn't any company want to keep their R&D to themselves? If a company spends millions of dollars on R&D for a product, why should it give it away to other companies? Why should it subsidize other companies' R&D?

inaneframe
Jun 23, 2013, 11:51 AM
But what good does it do if everyone's making the same thing with the only difference being price?

That is not what would happen though! Without patents there would be more competitors in the market, which means many of them would work to service niche markets, that means more differences and variety actually.




Why wouldn't any company want to keep their R&D to themselves? If a company spends millions of dollars on R&D for a product, why should it give it away to other companies? Why should it subsidize other companies' R&D?

You're putting the cart before the horse here, the only reason a company needs to put that much money into research and development instead of building off the research of others is because nobody else shares their own information. Patents encourage pockets of anti-commons and a lack of technological commons. If there were no patents, it would be a lot more expensive to keep research secret and that cost would become progressively more expensive the larger the company became. So companies would take up a dual strategy of A) keeping some more innovative things secret for as long as possible and B) joining joint research initiatives. A great example of such an initiative would be the "AIM" project that Apple took up with IBM and Motorola to create the PowerPC processors.

To argue that sharing research in technology limits innovation would be a bit like arguing that the sharing of research done by scientists in other fields of study is harmful to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, when a massive corporation "creates" a new innovation, what it actually entails is the composite energies of many people within that organization, which is no argument as to why the corporation (a fictional representative organization) should own it.

Let me give an example, take the "freer" POSIX world (GPL isn't really free, I know, but the BSD license is), BSD and Linux etc, they all share research and advancements but do all of the desktops on those systems look and act the same? In fact, I would argue that Windows desktops have far more in common with Mac desktops than Linux desktops have with each other. :eek: But I thought that sharing information would lead to everything being the same! Nope, the exact opposite is in fact true. Monopolist proprietary systems will always try to service the lowest common denominator, meaning they will be more similar than the interfaces available in a truly competitive diversified market where research can, variously and to different degrees, be shared without fear of legal and patent disputes.

jaredrou
Jun 23, 2013, 05:43 PM
This lawsuit is blasphemy to God for an inappropriate use of consciousness.

TMay
Jun 24, 2013, 04:42 PM
That is not what would happen though! Without patents there would be more competitors in the market, which means many of them would work to service niche markets, that means more differences and variety actually.






You're putting the cart before the horse here, the only reason a company needs to put that much money into research and development instead of building off the research of others is because nobody else shares their own information. Patents encourage pockets of anti-commons and a lack of technological commons. If there were no patents, it would be a lot more expensive to keep research secret and that cost would become progressively more expensive the larger the company became. So companies would take up a dual strategy of A) keeping some more innovative things secret for as long as possible and B) joining joint research initiatives. A great example of such an initiative would be the "AIM" project that Apple took up with IBM and Motorola to create the PowerPC processors.

To argue that sharing research in technology limits innovation would be a bit like arguing that the sharing of research done by scientists in other fields of study is harmful to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, when a massive corporation "creates" a new innovation, what it actually entails is the composite energies of many people within that organization, which is no argument as to why the corporation (a fictional representative organization) should own it.

Let me give an example, take the "freer" POSIX world (GPL isn't really free, I know, but the BSD license is), BSD and Linux etc, they all share research and advancements but do all of the desktops on those systems look and act the same? In fact, I would argue that Windows desktops have far more in common with Mac desktops than Linux desktops have with each other. :eek: But I thought that sharing information would lead to everything being the same! Nope, the exact opposite is in fact true. Monopolist proprietary systems will always try to service the lowest common denominator, meaning they will be more similar than the interfaces available in a truly competitive diversified market where research can, variously and to different degrees, be shared without fear of legal and patent disputes.

Here's another way of looking at it; kind of like you signing up only to comment on this thread:

Microsoft signed up in 1975. Brought BASIC and developed DOS for the IBM PC
Apple signed up in 1976. Commercial personal computer, GUI
NEXT signed up in 1985. Brought rich developer environment to PC's
Linux signed up in 1991. Brought an open operating system.

Certainly, Linux is valued in the server environment. But it was late to the game, is still late to the game for desktops and while it is the basis of Android OS, which is somewhat more open, still has to play in an environment where IP rules play out.

Businesses create IP as they develop products for the market. It assures them a fair playing field where the benefits of their IP create financial rewards for them. The barrier to entry for small players is they have to license much of that IP to play, and it is expensive.

If Linux had been dominate in 1975, maybe things would have worked out differently, but that wasn't the case. More to the point, Linux has not been successful on tablets either, certainly pointing out that the free and open business model may not be well suited for creating disruptions in the consumer market.

vvswarup
Jun 24, 2013, 08:28 PM
That is not what would happen though! Without patents there would be more competitors in the market, which means many of them would work to service niche markets, that means more differences and variety actually.






[QUOTE]You're putting the cart before the horse here, the only reason a company needs to put that much money into research and development instead of building off the research of others is because nobody else shares their own information. Patents encourage pockets of anti-commons and a lack of technological commons. If there were no patents, it would be a lot more expensive to keep research secret and that cost would become progressively more expensive the larger the company became. So companies would take up a dual strategy of A) keeping some more innovative things secret for as long as possible and B) joining joint research initiatives. A great example of such an initiative would be the "AIM" project that Apple took up with IBM and Motorola to create the PowerPC processors.

To argue that sharing research in technology limits innovation would be a bit like arguing that the sharing of research done by scientists in other fields of study is harmful to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, when a massive corporation "creates" a new innovation, what it actually entails is the composite energies of many people within that organization, which is no argument as to why the corporation (a fictional representative organization) should own it.

Research done by scientists in a university setting is academic research. At the end of the day, their goal is to get a paper published in Nature or some other prestigious publication. They're not in it to make money. Therefore, it's in their best interests to publicize and share their work. And even in academia, there are standards of ethical conduct. Just because scientists share work doesn't mean that they don't have to give credit to the original author. That way, one who uses another's work in a publication does not undeservedly get the accolades for it.

A corporation, on the other hand, is in it to make money. At a fundamental level, a corporation's activities are directed towards maximizing economic benefits to its owners. Sharing work amounts to subsidizing costs for other companies. Why should one corporation be expected to pay for R&D for everybody else? It's like the top student in a class being forced to allow others to copy his/her answers during an exam.

In a way, the requirement to give credit to the author when their work is cited is analogous to intellectual property protection (e.g. patents). In the former case, giving credit helps ensure that someone can't claim another's work as their own. Patents are designed to ensure that the fruits of one's labors in developing an innovative concept/idea flow to the person who expended those resources so that other can't simply use that concept without expending a fraction of the resources that the inventor has expended.



Let me give an example, take the "freer" POSIX world (GPL isn't really free, I know, but the BSD license is), BSD and Linux etc, they all share research and advancements but do all of the desktops on those systems look and act the same? In fact, I would argue that Windows desktops have far more in common with Mac desktops than Linux desktops have with each other. :eek: But I thought that sharing information would lead to everything being the same! Nope, the exact opposite is in fact true. Monopolist proprietary systems will always try to service the lowest common denominator, meaning they will be more similar than the interfaces available in a truly competitive diversified market where research can, variously and to different degrees, be shared without fear of legal and patent disputes.

But no one is trying to make billions of dollars on BSD and Linux OS versions.

Here's how I would look at it. Let's say Company A comes out with a product, known as Product X, which helps customers accomplish a particular task. Product X goes on to sell like hotcakes and Company A makes billions of dollars.

Say there are no patents. Company A's competitors, seeing how successful Product X was, will come out with competing products and try to make the case that they're better than Product X. I think that without patents, those products will be similar to Company A. While there will be some variations, on a fundamental level, they're pretty much the same as Company A.

Let's say there were patents, and there was a patent that was vital to Product X. Competitors would not be able to make a competing product to Product X. But chances are that there is some competitor in there who would try to help customers accomplish the same task that Product X helps them accomplish, but in a way much better than Product X.

Take Windows PCs as an example. OEMs have been robbed of a way to differentiate their product from competitors. And I don't count a larger screen size or faster processor as differentiation. As a result, they have been reduced to competing on price. They're essentially spending their time coming up with ways of making cheaper PCs so they can sell them at a lower price and make a profit.