Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by adder7712, May 2, 2012.
This is an...interesting development.
Wow. Germany have a lot of tech banned now. Feel sorry for them. Guess it will just be filled with Mac and Android users.
Wow just wow...glad I live in the US
I hope you don't love google bc they approve every one of these lawsuits since they agreed to buy Moto last year. I'm not sure if this specific suit started before then but google could stop it.
The decision is being appealed and the MSFT products have not been banned from stores in Germany.
These lawsuits do nothing but harm innovation and choice for consumers.
Patents do nothing but harm innovation and choice for consumers.
The trouble is the system is abused by companies and individuals wanting to make some money quick rather than helping to drive things forward like they were supposed to when they were first introduced.
Android is going after Microsoft
Microsoft is going after Android
Apple is going after Android.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I look forward to Apple + Microsoft collaboration in the near future
This has been a topic of much discussion in the Apple/Samsung patent war threads.
Basically what is at issue is the use of so-called FRAND, or "Standard Essential" patents by companies like Samsung and Motorola. An increasing number of Jurists are beginning to recognize that Standard-Essential patents need to be treated very differently in legal proceedings than do other, non-standard, patents. The use of Standard-Essential patents has also aroused the interest of anti-trust agencies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Germany, in particular, has been a favored venue for patent litigation due to the peculiar weight it gives to rights-holders in patent disputes. In (very) brief terms, the legal bar is much lower to allow a patent holder to get a potentially infringing competitor's product banned there. And Germany being a large market, it tends force the hand of the alleged infringer.
Its worth reading Microsoft's Deputy General Counsel, Dave Heiner, on this issue:
MY thoughts: Google paid way too much money for Motorola and is basically resorting to extortion of every tech consumer in the world to pay for their mistake.
Fixed that for you.
Motorola Mobility is trying to extort $4 billion/year from Microsoft since they have no other way of making profits.
What a funny thing to say on an Apple forum. I feel that the current system is messed up and need to be changed, but I also believe that there has to be some sort of system in play in in order for companies to have the opportunity to regain their R&D costs...
Apple put down X million dollars into the creation of the iPhone. If people would be able to copy it freely, there would be more or less exact copies of them on the market, with the same components, they might even be built by the same companies, but to a far lesser price since they don't have the same costs as Apple.
At first they came for the xboxes but I did not speak up because I had a wii
Then they came for windows but I did not speak up because I had a Mac
Then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak...
You can make the argument that once a company makes X amount of profit off a patent, that the patent becomes public domain. I don't see why a company has the right to make infinite profit off a patent.
Because Patent enforcement is the only thing stopping the iPhone clones from being successful. The time of the garage inventor is long gone, The Statute of Monopolies has been long forgotten, Patents are a tool for lawyers and big money. They should go, or go under referendum reform.
Tell that to the woman who created spanx.
Why should anyone, company or not, be limited to how much money they can make?
I think the current patent system is getting abused like hell and its underlying philosophy has been turned on its head, but I putting a cap on earnings is probably the last thing I would do to try and fix it. For one thing for every patent that is profitable I'm sure there are dozens that were market failures and hundreds that never even got out of the lab. The patents that make profit have to not only pay for themselves but also pay for all the ones that didn't make the cut.
Personally I feel royalty during x years plus royalties on any derivates would be a better solution. It removes the monopoly but still generates income for those willing to spend money on R&D without hindering progress.
What do you say to the argument that the iPhone would never have been invented, was it not for its potential to generate massive profits due to protecting certain parts/technique/design?
Companies don't need incentives/encouragement to do R&D to make money. They are a tool to squeeze extra cash revenue and abuse the market.
IP protection is pretty much the only reason someone doesn't rebrand an iPhone and sell it as their own device for 1/2 of what Apple charges. R&D costs way more than manufacturing. On a much simpler scale just look at the bootleg DVD market before torrents really took off. Making a DVD (even a pressed DVD not a burned one) and packaging it nicely is much simpler and cheaper than making the movie (the IP) itself.
I disagree that the time of the garage inventor is long gone. I think the garage inventor is entering a new heyday. I mean, FingerWorks and PrimeSense are small shops responsible for the tech driving some of the most popular devices out there. Look at all the developers making apps for mobile devices. FB started out in a dorm room and Instagram has what, a dozen employees?
I do agree that IP law in general has been co-opted by a powerful minority but throwing the baby out with the bathwater won't hurt them because they already have the money and the power. The IP laws need to go back to what they started as. Namely protection for inventors form those that would steal from them and a way to secure a reasonable time frame in which to earn money from their work. IP laws need to go back to being shields, not swords.
To make money is the incentive to spend money on R&D. Without any kind of protection, they will only have a very, very short time during which they will be able to make money. After that, other manufacturers will have copied the product and by simply offering the same product to a much lower price completely push the original company out of the way.
Do you think that the iPhone would exist, had Apple not been able to protect it?
It all depends on how friendly a judge you can find.