Apple Seeks Patent on Fused Glass Enclosures for Use on iPhones, iPads, iPods, Displays, and Televisions

[Daze & Confuse]

.... Are you seriously going to assert that they do, or can we just move on? .... Your hypothetical is worthless.

I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

How? There are plenty of companies making new inventions every day.

Yes, but there's no empirical evidence that patent law increases productivity or inventions: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.1.3

All it does is increase the number of patents, and their associated costs and litigation.

Setting the bar higher for usefulness means that someone subjectively gets to decide what is useful and what is not.

That's exactly how the system currently works. You yourself said approval was based on whether an application was 'novel, useful, and non-obvious' - there is no empirical measure of these, they are entirely subjective. Changing the bar's height does not alter that.

First, we have international obligations to comply with when it comes to patent length.

Yes, but I am talking about international reform, not solely Europe or the USA (I don't know which 'we' you are.) The system is currently synced internationally, so there is no reason why that synchronisation could not be maintained.

Secondly, other areas of IP do not make the distinctions you just stated. Trademarks don't have terms at all, and copyright may have exceptions as to what is fair use, but not as to term lengths.

Yes, but there's much more to IP than just patents, copyright and trademarks, as I'm sure you know! They vary for industrial designs, integrated circuits layout designs (10 years instead of 20), etc.

I'd be ok with this as it would reduce litigation. But the likely result is that most people will still litigate. Every day that a company doesn't bring a product to market because of a patent that they feel is invalid is money lost.

That applies just as much to companies delaying a product because they don't have a patent. The fact that the USA system costs 15 times to apply for as much as the European one is a major problem.

Why wait for an administrative solution when they can just bring the product out, and then litigate?

Cost. Small companies cannot afford to produce an product and litigate, especially if their patent is stolen by a much larger company with much deeper pockets.

In 2008 companies made $4 billion from their patents, and lost $14 billion to litigation. Small companies increasingly cannot afford to take risks when the financial odds are so stacked against them.

Willful infringement is not easy to determine. If you think a patent is invalid, and then you consult with an attorney and he agrees, that is typically a defense to willful infringement. If you were an attorney would you be willing to tell your client that a patent is likely invalid if it meant they could receive jail time? Would you be willing to be sued for malpractice for getting it wrong? Criminal penalties for patent infringement would be disastrous and would not promote innovation at all. It would scare people.

How would the police officers know if the patent was infringed? They have no knowledge of patent law, or the necessary abilities to determine infringement. Without a court determining whether or not there was even infringement, arresting someone for alleged patent infringement is ridiculous.

Tax law is incredibly complicated, and backed up by extremely harsh criminal law. Attorneys are more than willing to advise clients on the legalities of their actions, police arrest tax evaders, and courts enforce it. And people continue to legally move their money around to reduce their tax burden.

Are you aware of the DMCA? Could you imagine being sent a takedown notice, because someone thought that you were infringing their copyright, but instead of just having the option of taking it down you got arrested? That's essentially what you're proposing for patents.

The civil and criminal law systems are separate, and of course would remain that way. You could not send a civil take-down notice and back it up with criminal law. They are entirely independent - there would be no change. A civil takedown notice could only lead to civil action, just as now. Any criminal warnings would come from come from the criminal justice system. And as with any criminal matter you would be innocent until proven guilty. Unlike the civil system where currently Texas judges are taking products off the market while they sort out the truth of the claim company A makes about company B.

Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree.

I think the system is flawed, and Europe is moving in the right direction, by making the system faster, simpler, cheaper, and better enforced, and seeing a corresponding upturn in innovation. I think that's the way to go. You think otherwise, and that's your opinion, which is fine.

I have to go now. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Nightarchaon]

Confused what this would be used for.

Its to make all i-Products from iMacs down to iPods utterly un-upgradable and un-serviceable, yet pretty things, into disposable items you need to purchase a new one of every other year, thus cementing apples revenue stream for the foreseeable future.

 

[Solomani]

The Unibody iBong. Coming to an Apple Store near you.

 

[iLilana]

um

ok..i put my device in this enclosure... now what good is it?

 

[Mystic386]

I can imagine this being the housing for the watch if they produce it.