Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DRM Software Development Company Intertrust Files Lawsuit Against Apple for Patent Infringement

drblank said:
Not to be weird, but HOW are patents inherently stupid? Let me present why I don't think they are stupid.

Let's say you come up with a unique idea and it turns out that it is something successful. You spent money, time and energy creating this idea and then even more money, time, energy in marketing it and then some bigger company comes around that blatantly copies it, but because they just copied it, they didn't spend the time, money and energy but because they have the ability to cut mfg costs, etc. they can sell their version of the same product and put you out of business. What are you supposed to do? Go out of business, even though it was YOUR idea and YOU spent money and time creating it, but someone else just swoops in and puts you out of business because they are a bigger company? Yeah, I know, some patents are very trivial to begin with, but this is how companies have a differentiation between them and the competition. If we did away with patent laws altogether, then what would happen? Ever think about the consequences if there were no patent laws?
Click to expand...

Because ideas can't be patented. No matter how much money you spent on it. Patents are (or were) for physical objects. When they enter the realm of ideas, software implementations or even DNA it becomes absurd.

If there was no patent law, the world would probably be a better an more innovative place. At least in software and most likely all other fields as well.

In the end, patents only serve wealthy corporations who can actually spend the dollars defending said patents. It is absurd. Even more so when said wealthy corporations are arguing about "patented" ideas (even ideas they could or didn't bother to implement themselves) :rolleyes:
 
I am so amazed at how many of the members here are lawyers...

As well as discouraged at how many assume guilt by Apple merely because another suit has been named.
 
Marge: What exactly is it your company does again?
Homer: This industry moves so fast it's really hard to tell. That's why I need a name that's cutting-edge, like CutCo, EdgeCom, Interslice. Come on, Marge, you're good at these! Help me out!
 
dejo said:
Mod Note: "bitch" is not on the forum's profanity filter.
Click to expand...
Well it should be. It is clearly profanity.

[edit] This makes me think, if I am bored enough one day maybe I should choose all the profanities I know and see what ones are censored and what ones are not censored. So I can inform the mods here so they can update forum's profanity filter for the common profanities out there.

I don't blame the profanity filter here for this. It's not at fault. Neither it's not being up to date bad. That can be fixed. The issue is the mods need to accept the fact that the profanity filter needs to be updated. Only then can it be updated.
 
Last edited:
the8thark said:
Well it should be. It is clearly profanity.

[edit] This makes me think, if I am bored enough one day maybe I should choose all the profanities I know and see what ones are censored and what ones are not censored. So I can inform the mods here so they can update forum's profanity filter for the common profanities out there.

I don't blame the profanity filter here for this. It's not at fault. Neither it's not being up to date bad. That can be fixed. The issue is the mods need to accept the fact that the profanity filter needs to be updated. Only then can it be updated.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. The filter should only apply to words that are exclusively used in a vulgar manor. Bitch isn't one of those, as it is still a common and proper way of referring to a female dog.
 
Software patents are dreadful. You can't patent the idea of drm only the specific code. It's not a unique idea in fact it's the first idea they needed before even compressing music!

I'm not defending apple but it seems stupid to be able to patent any software ideas if you go about coding them in different ways. It's not like apple
stole the code from their internal tests.

There should be a 1year limit on software patents
 
H2SO4 said:
Another 'Karma' post. More proof that I need to unsubscribe from this thread.
Click to expand...

I am not going to lie... I do a lot of reading, less typing on here. But when I do type, its generally when apple is getting sued. I dont subscribe, I dont read through the other comments of people defending apple or the other company. I just post my feelings and move on. as should you.
 
iamPro said:
Yes it sure is a pain in the rear.
But, it's like necessary evil. (I don't think its evil personally)
In the end, the system does have its checks and balances (we all are human after all!) That's why we have the court taking a closer look at the matter whenever infringement claims are made.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the checks and balances are failing. Badly. At his point, I think the patent system (at least with respect to software) is doing MORE damage than the lack of a patent system would do. It is now an impediment to innovation.

Smaller companies don't have the money and resources to file defensive patents, to search the various national patent systems for potential violations, or to defend lawsuits in court.

Take a look at patent cases such as the scanner & email patent suits. People are being used for scanning documents and emailing them. So, because of the existing system, everyone should/must check the patent system every time they pay for a device / service to ensure they won't be violating any patents. That's hundreds of thousands of vaguely, obscurely worded patents to sift through. That's simply unworkable.

The thing that amazes me, is that Wall Street hasn't been spooked by all this. There probably isn't a company on the planet that knows its exposure to patent lawsuits. And if there's one thing the market hates, it's uncertainty. Companies like Apple, Samsung are big enough to lose a few big lawsuits, but most small companies could go bust with just one.
 
Can I sue Intertrust for DRM? After all, DRM violates my rights to use what I purchase as I see fit (as long as I am not pirating it, I should be able to do so).
 
mmcc said:
It makes just as much sense as software patents.
Click to expand...

Only if [you don't] understand why software patents exist, or infact WHY people patent things in the first place. Those 2 logos are as different as the British, French and American Flag are, infact, more different because in the flags example at least all 3 of them use the same primary colours. The logos are a poor example of the point you're failing to understand.

If someone has created a product with specific features, be they software or hardware based, they have every right to either exclusivity of the patented concepts they created or to licence them ligitimately to other companies who want to use them. Stealing is stealing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple shouldnt infringe patents. It's worth than jailbreaking. It's piracy and stealing.
 
IMG_0797.jpg


What about this Lightning cable? Is it genuine? I've bought 2 and won't be using them again until I get clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back