Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[Swift]

Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.

That's ridiculous. There are no software patents on soft drinks, just because the word "soft" appears in both. Of course you can make a lemon-lime soda, and it will be clear or whatever. When you're putting a label on it, don't call it "7up" or use the same design on the container and advertising. That's trademarked.

----------

Is Sprite patented?

NO! Oddly enough! There's nothing to patent. You can make another lemon-lime carbonated drink. However, you may have to pay some other companies if you use the same manufacturing methods, though that's so old now I doubt if there are patents left. Let's say you found a way to carbonate the drink and bottle it while saving energy and/or costs or time in production. That method could be patented, and if you wanted to use that method, you might have to pay some licensing. Why do computer kidz not have any idea how the economy works?

----------

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

Actually, Google and Samsung need to. The kid at the school who steals your lunch is not playing well. He's a freeloader.

 

[Psyrecx]

Apple's upset that since the birth of Android, they've been far behind the grade in the cellphone department and people are starting to realize it. It's much like the day when Apple fell behind in the computer hardware department and they started having to use PC parts. They're left to use advertising to trick people into buying their worthless crap and that will only last so long. If everything you say is ********, people will soon start to realize it. Apple should do like Steve Jobbs and die already.

 

[spazzcat]

Well simple Samsung have not copied anything that apple have done, they have copied the same companies and individuals that Apple have copied.

That doesn't answer the question and I don't remember a single phone with an OS like iOS before the iPhone....

 

[Bubba Satori]

I guess this wasn't entered as evidence.

“Picasso had a saying: good artists copy, great artists steal
and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” - Steve Jobs

 

[dotme]

Apple's upset that since the birth of Android, they've been far behind the grade in the cellphone department and people are starting to realize it. It's much like the day when Apple fell behind in the computer hardware department and they started having to use PC parts. They're left to use advertising to trick people into buying their worthless crap and that will only last so long. If everything you say is ********, people will soon start to realize it. Apple should do like Steve Jobbs and die already.

You created an account just for this? Your hatred is showing.

Worthless crap? Really? How much is a 2 year old Android phone worth?

 

[LordVic]

And had Microsoft done the same, you'd have expected some differences. But instead, they clearly took from Apple, took the idea of a menu bar, took movable and overlapping windows, took drag-to-move, and even the same standard menus down to the same keyboard shortcuts.

you make me sad

 

[GadgetDon]

you make me sad

With independent development, you really think they would have come up with "x" for cut? File, Edit, View in that order?

 

[Mark Booth]

Apple's upset that since the birth of Android, they've been far behind the grade in the cellphone department and people are starting to realize it. It's much like the day when Apple fell behind in the computer hardware department and they started having to use PC parts. They're left to use advertising to trick people into buying their worthless crap and that will only last so long. If everything you say is ********, people will soon start to realize it. Apple should do like Steve Jobbs and die already.

I sense a bit of hatred and hostility. I can understand that. If I was a Samsungite I might be unhappy too.

BTW, you do realize that despite Android's reported increasing numbers out there, Apple is still raking in the vast majority of the profit, right?

And, as mentioned in my latest blog posting (link below), Apple's iOS has 65% of the web market share while Android has (wait for it)... 1%.

It all makes you wonder if Android's numbers are seriously overinflated.

Mark

 

[twosee]

Apple's upset that since the birth of Android, they've been far behind the grade in the cellphone department and people are starting to realize it. It's much like the day when Apple fell behind in the computer hardware department and they started having to use PC parts. They're left to use advertising to trick people into buying their worthless crap and that will only last so long. If everything you say is ********, people will soon start to realize it. Apple should do like Steve Jobbs and die already.

Geez, people like you and your delusions never cease to amaze me. Why are you on this website? Seriously? Your rant is complete garbage. iOS in a great operating system. Apple makes great products. If they aren't for you, then don't buy them. I happen to be an Apple user for about 30 years now and their products are anything but garbage. Still have a working apple II c, have a first generation ipod that still works, an iPhone 3GS that my 5 year old son uses (and mostly abuses) around the house to play games, listen to music, watch videos, take photos etc...and still works flawlessly with iOS 5 on it.

 

[69650]

Wow, what a great example of shut-uppery. Outside of an argument of simplicity for subjugating the US legal system (with respect to patents) to an international body, you indicate a lack of desire for honest debate by simply commenting that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot nationalist.

But, I'll ignore that and give you a little food for thought.

First of all, what happens if the international body comes up with standards that are not effective and ultimately damaging? If you've agreed to comply with those standards, how would you go about fixing a system that is broken in your country, but for some reason the international community is unwilling to change? And if you can simply choose to not comply, what value was enforcing those standards in the first place?

Second of all, why is it that the US must change its standards to adapt to Europe/Asia? What the US might feel works and, for the most part, have shown to work with regards to patents is likely not the same as with Europe or Asia. Just because we have a global economy, does it mean that the US has to acquiesce to European/Asian standards all for the goal of simplicity? For as long as the US' market reigns supreme, the US standard is the de facto international standard (with some caveats for other relatively significant markets). Why would the US suddenly take a position from where it leads and comply with standards for which it does not have total control? And for as long as the US is still effectively the leader in invention and entrepreneurship, isn't there something to be said about the US having a better set of laws and a better environment for this? It's far from a perfect system, but I find it hard to believe that others are better and even harder to believe that an international body could even come remotely close.

Thirdly, countries have treaties. The US would be better off negotiating intellectual property treaties with a couple other countries of significance and the rest of the world would have to basically comply. And for as long as the US market reigns supreme, Europeans would not want to prevent its citizens from selling products in the US by not implementing patent standards that are compatible.

Fourthly, if the US believes one of its citizens has proper rights to some IP, why should it necessarily enforce a global patent for a citizen of another country that would hurt its local economy (e.g., instead of producing the product itself, it would be forced to import it instead).

Finally, while a US citizen has the right to have his/her intellectual property protected in the US, why must another country comply? The US should do the best job it can (within reason) to ensure patent protection globally, but other countries are sovereign and if they choose to steal our products, there is little we can do about it. Moreover, those countries uninterested in enforcing US patent rights will be uninterested in complying with an international body anyways.

I realize you might not be a US citizen. My arguments above are simply why the US should seriously consider against a global set of IP standards.

Thanks, I think you proved my point about narrow minded nationalists being a stumbling block to genuine reform. It's clear from your remarks that you didn't bother to read my OPs so I don't really see much point in responding again as you almost certainly wouldn't take any notice anyway.

Do I think it will happen? Hell no. We can't even get the US to put aside their selfish national interests and agree to take some action on climate change and that's only the future of the planet so I very much doubt the narrow minded nationalists like you would ever agree to anything as sensible as patent reform.

 

[Mal]

NO! Oddly enough! There's nothing to patent. You can make another lemon-lime carbonated drink. However, you may have to pay some other companies if you use the same manufacturing methods, though that's so old now I doubt if there are patents left. Let's say you found a way to carbonate the drink and bottle it while saving energy and/or costs or time in production. That method could be patented, and if you wanted to use that method, you might have to pay some licensing. Why do computer kidz not have any idea how the economy works?

Actually, one of the main reasons it's not patented (neither is the Coca-Cola recipe), is that patents are public. Instead, it's considered a trade secret, and there are significant penalties for stealing and using trade secrets. However, that applies to the specific recipe and methods, not to lemon-lime carbonated drinks. Like patents, there's a certain level of specificity required for it to be a valid trade secret.

jW

 

[uberman15]

Thanks, I think you proved my point about narrow minded nationalists being a stumbling block to genuine reform. It's clear from your remarks that you didn't bother to read my OPs so I don't really see much point in responding again as you almost certainly wouldn't take any notice anyway.

Do I think it will happen? Hell no. We can't even get the US to put aside their selfish national interests and agree to take some action on climate change and that's only the future of the planet so I very much doubt the narrow minded nationalists like you would ever agree to anything as sensible as patent reform.

I did read your other posts. Your main point was the simplicity of a single system rather that having to try many patent dispute cases in many different countries around the world, which may be a hinderance to production and development.

Your silly little counter-argument, which is not one by the way, is to simply cast every point I made and view it as nationalism. On the other hand, you went so far as to say that it does not even matter what international standards were implemented, just that there should be something. Oh let me be more clear, you said in another post:

I don't really care what universal system is adopted. Everyone can get together and agree a set of international patent standards.

You don't have a single counter-argument to the probable situation in which a bad set of standards is established internationally, which is far worse than many countries establishing its own set of standards that are best for its own country (what works in the US might not work in Europe and vise versa) with the extra cost of multiple patent disputes. No, you say it's just nationalism. Take off your blinders, seriously.

Back here in the real world, there are legitimate issues with simply establishing a set of international standards. You are not interested in addressing them. Instead, you want to shut-up your opponents by claiming they are idiot nationalists and then making the equally false claim that your previous posts some how addresses these concerns. You have 339 previous posts, I did look at many of your most recent ones, but I'm not going to search through all of yours. If you addressed it, considering I am new to the forum and am interested in an honest debate (which you're clearly not), just point me to those other posts or reproduce them here. I presented my case as a set of reasonable counter-arguments to an international system. I even made the case for establishing treaties that will help simplify the patent standards internationally (which is what you want).

But, you seem to really want to ignore a simple truth. Why would any country (not just the US) want to subjugate its legal system to an international community if the standards established by the international community makes that country worse off? What logic is there to do that? I mean seriously, this is not nationalism. What you're advocating, really, is a form of international equality not brought by strengthening those with weaker systems but instead weakening those with stronger systems so that the misery may be equally spread. After all, if you don't care what the international standards are, how else can you justify enforcing bad standards which could make everyone worse off.

 

[69650]

I did read your other posts. Your main point was the simplicity of a single system rather that having to try many patent dispute cases in many different countries around the world, which may be a hinderance to production and development.

Your silly little counter-argument, which is not one by the way, is to simply cast every point I made and view it as nationalism. On the other hand, you went so far as to say that it does not even matter what international standards were implemented, just that there should be something. Oh let me be more clear, you said in another post:

You don't have a single counter-argument to the probable situation in which a bad set of standards is established internationally, which is far worse than many countries establishing its own set of standards that are best for its own country (what works in the US might not work in Europe and vise versa) with the extra cost of multiple patent disputes. No, you say it's just nationalism. Take off your blinders, seriously.

Back here in the real world, there are legitimate issues with simply establishing a set of international standards. You are not interested in addressing them. Instead, you want to shut-up your opponents by claiming they are idiot nationalists and then making the equally false claim that your previous posts some how addresses these concerns. You have 339 previous posts, I did look at many of your most recent ones, but I'm not going to search through all of yours. If you addressed it, considering I am new to the forum and am interested in an honest debate (which you're clearly not), just point me to those other posts or reproduce them here. I presented my case as a set of reasonable counter-arguments to an international system. I even made the case for establishing treaties that will help simplify the patent standards internationally (which is what you want).

But, you seem to really want to ignore a simple truth. Why would any country (not just the US) want to subjugate its legal system to an international community if the standards established by the international community makes that country worse off? What logic is there to do that? I mean seriously, this is not nationalism. What you're advocating, really, is a form of international equality not brought by strengthening those with weaker systems but instead weakening those with stronger systems so that the misery may be equally spread. After all, if you don't care what the international standards are, how else can you justify enforcing bad standards which could make everyone worse off.

Maybe you can explain to me why patents need to be country specific? I can't think of a single reason that doesn't ultimately boil down to some form of nationalism. I can't see any reason why the patent objectives would or should be different in the US or Europe or Asia. The aim is the same - to allow companies and individuals to invent something new and protect it.

Yes I am advocating a form of international equality. What's wrong with that? These are multinational companies selling the same products all over the world. How does it makes sense to have to go through the patent application process 50 times in 50 different countries with 50 different court cases rather than go though it once?

In the end this case will continue to wind it's way through the US legal system up to the supreme court who will make a final ruling. Everyone will probably disagree and it will probably ultimately end up as US-Korea dispute at the World Trade Organisation.

I can understand why you want to keep the current system - because it is highly favourable toward US companies. Apple has now sued Samsung in 5 countries that I am aware of and they have lost 4 of those 5 cases. The only case they've won has been in the US. That means effectively that the US patent/court system is able to ride roughshod over every other national court in the world simply because Samsung will have to make the necessary changes to sell their products in the US and will probably just make the same changes in the rest of the world to. To me that is a form of colonialism which provides US companies with a highly disproportionate advantage.

You see the problem is that many people including me think that the current US patent system is a joke. They are approving patents that should never have been approved simply because they have such a backlog that they don't have the time to investigate the veracity of each patent application. Apple are being granted patents for things that are not genuine "inventions" in the true sense of the word. It's ridiculous. Apple is exploiting these flaws in the US patent system to garner a protectionist position, hiding behind their patents rather than staying ahead through continued genuine innovation. I happen to think this is wrong.

 

[anonymouslurker]

you see the problem is that many people including me think that the current us patent system is a joke. They are approving patents that should never have been approved simply because they have such a backlog that they don't have the time to investigate the veracity of each patent application. Apple are being granted patents for things that are not genuine "inventions" in the true sense of the word. It's ridiculous. Apple is exploiting these flaws in the us patent system to garner a protectionist position, hiding behind their patents rather than staying ahead through continued genuine innovation. I happen to think this is wrong.

+1000

 

[GadgetDon]

Maybe you can explain to me why patents need to be country specific? I can't think of a single reason that doesn't ultimately boil down to some form of nationalism. I can't see any reason why the patent objectives would or should be different in the US or Europe or Asia. The aim is the same - to allow companies and individuals to invent something new and protect it.

Yes I am advocating a form of international equality. What's wrong with that? These are multinational companies selling the same products all over the world. How does it makes sense to have to go through the patent application process 50 times in 50 different countries with 50 different court cases rather than go though it once?

In the end this case will continue to wind it's way through the US legal system up to the supreme court who will make a final ruling. Everyone will probably disagree and it will probably ultimately end up as US-Korea dispute at the World Trade Organisation.

I can understand why you want to keep the current system - because it is highly favourable toward US companies. Apple has now sued Samsung in 5 countries that I am aware of and they have lost 4 of those 5 cases. The only case they've won has been in the US. That means effectively that the US patent/court system is able to ride roughshod over every other national court in the world simply because Samsung will have to make the necessary changes to sell their products in the US and will probably just make the same changes in the rest of the world to. To me that is a form of colonialism which provides US companies with a highly disproportionate advantage.

You see the problem is that many people including me think that the current US patent system is a joke. They are approving patents that should never have been approved simply because they have such a backlog that they don't have the time to investigate the veracity of each patent application. Apple are being granted patents for things that are not genuine "inventions" in the true sense of the word. It's ridiculous. Apple is exploiting these flaws in the US patent system to garner a protectionist position, hiding behind their patents rather than staying ahead through continued genuine innovation. I happen to think this is wrong.

Yes, you're asking for universal equality. You're asking for a universal equality that replaces the US patent system because you don't approve of it, you're asking for a universal equality that doesn't grant protection for work on user interfaces and usability work.

So basically, you want to tell the United States "You aren't allowed to have your system because ours is superior and if you don't agree you're a narrow-minded nationalist nyah nyah nyah"

 

[69650]

Yes, you're asking for universal equality. You're asking for a universal equality that replaces the US patent system because you don't approve of it, you're asking for a universal equality that doesn't grant protection for work on user interfaces and usability work.

So basically, you want to tell the United States "You aren't allowed to have your system because ours is superior and if you don't agree you're a narrow-minded nationalist nyah nyah nyah"

I've said this over and over again: what part of an "international" patent system do you not understand? It's not replacing the US system with the European system or vice versa, it would be an entirely new system. It would replace the US system, the UK system, the Swedish system, etc, etc. We live in a different world now. I could invent something, put it on the internet and sell it worldwide in a matter of days.

The only problem is the current patent system. It would cost me a fortune to go round and patent it in every country. That is a restraint to trade, it stifles innovation and leaves the little guy out in the cold whilst the big wealthy corporations churn out ridiculous patents like they were confetti. I'm sorry but if you can't see that I don't know what else to say. In the end you want to protect your US system because it's your system so you can wave your little flag and be all patriotic. Like I've said repeatedly in the end it still boils down to narrow minded nationalism.

 

[linkgx1]

I guess this wasn't entered as evidence.

“Picasso had a saying: good artists copy, great artists steal
and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” - Steve Jobs

I think stealing an idea and stealing product is different. Still a bit hypocritical, but theres a difference between plagarism and summarzing ideas.

 

[GadgetDon]

I've said this over and over again: what part of an "international" patent system do you not understand? It's not replacing the US system with the European system or vice versa, it would be an entirely new system. It would replace the US system, the UK system, the Swedish system, etc, etc. We live in a different world now. I could invent something, put it on the internet and sell it worldwide in a matter of days.

The only problem is the current patent system. It would cost me a fortune to go round and patent it in every country. That is a restraint to trade, it stifles innovation and leaves the little guy out in the cold whilst the big wealthy corporations churn out ridiculous patents like they were confetti. I'm sorry but if you can't see that I don't know what else to say. In the end you want to protect your US system because it's your system so you can wave your little flag and be all patriotic. Like I've said repeatedly in the end it still boils down to narrow minded nationalism.

Except in your prior post, you don't say "bad patents are being adopted everywhere" "People are getting patents they shouldn't". You said the US patent system was a joke.

Hard to read that and think "but oh, no, it's not at all a judgement on how your country does it, it's not at all a statement that the standards of the United States are wrong".

You think the utility patents are ridiculous. Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Me, having done interface world at a far lower scale (think sand castles compared to the Empire State Building), I think great interface innovations are worthwhile. And yes, while there may be some parts that came from elsewhere, there were major innovations in the iPhone to make them into a workable whole.

 

[bawbac]

Apple's upset that since the birth of Android, they've been far behind the grade in the cellphone department and people are starting to realize it. It's much like the day when Apple fell behind in the computer hardware department and they started having to use PC parts. They're left to use advertising to trick people into buying their worthless crap and that will only last so long. If everything you say is ********, people will soon start to realize it. Apple should do like Steve Jobbs and die already.

----------

I sense a bit of hatred and hostility. I can understand that. If I was a Samsungite I might be unhappy too.

BTW, you do realize that despite Android's reported increasing numbers out there, Apple is still raking in the vast majority of the profit, right?

And, as mentioned in my latest blog posting (link below), Apple's iOS has 65% of the web market share while Android has (wait for it)... 1%.

It all makes you wonder if Android's numbers are seriously overinflated.

Mark

Q. What does this mean for Apple?

A. Analysts say it could help Apple gain market share at the expense of Android phones, if these have to avoid some attractive and easy-to-use features introduced by Apple.

Despite being a driving force in phone development since the iPhone was launched in 2007, Apple has only 19 percent of the worldwide smartphone market, according to IDC. The high price of the iPhone keeps it out of the reach of many consumers. Meanwhile, Android phones have 64 percent of the market.

 

[kdarling]

You think the utility patents are ridiculous. Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Me, having done interface world at a far lower scale (think sand castles compared to the Empire State Building), I think great interface innovations are worthwhile. And yes, while there may be some parts that came from elsewhere, there were major innovations in the iPhone to make them into a workable whole.

Fair enough. I've explained many times why I'm against patents on gestures. Now we might benefit from hearing your side:

Could you please reference a couple of Apple interface patents that you think are "major innovations", and why you think they are worthy of a 20 year lockdown to one owner?

Thanks!

 

[GadgetDon]

Fair enough. I've explained many times why I'm against patents on gestures. Now we might benefit from hearing your side:

Could you please reference a couple of Apple interface patents that you think are "major innovations", and why you think they are worthy of a 20 year lockdown to one owner?

Thanks!

OK, I'll start with "bounce back", because it shows the attention to detail that Apple does in their design work.

Standard scroll behavior on computers - attempting to scroll too far (above the top of the content, below the bottom of the content) just does nothing.

Problem: On a computer, you're working with a scroll device, scrollbars, that show you've reached the top or the bottom, so it's obvious why you aren't scrolling any more. On a touch device, where there are no obvious scrollbars and you're clicking in the content area to make it scroll, there's no immediate user feedback about why it won't scroll.

Solution#1 - Eh, they'll figure it out eventually. Just don't scroll. Eventually, users will figure it out, but it'll be a moment of "what the" that you really don't want users to have.

Solution #2 - OK, audible queue, "beep" when you get too far. Problem, it's easy to have the finger waver which could result in an overscroll creating annoyance for others, beep really doesn't say much about what is wrong, a computer voice saying "you have scrolled too far" is going to be really annoying.

Solution #3 - let them keep scrolling. Except they scroll too far, no content visible on screen, and no obvious scrollbar to say which way you've gone too far.

So, Bounce-back is a version of Solution#3, let them keep scrolling, but then fix it automatically.

Is that the only good solution to the problem? No, but it's clean and elegant. And I'll guarantee there was a lot of testing and tweaking about details like "how fast to scroll back"

BTW, each individual innovation may not be "major". I think they added up to be a major innovation in user friendliness in phones and similar devices. And any creation need not be major for protection - check the top 40 songs and tell me how many of those are major innovations in songmaking but they all got copyright protection for even longer.

 

[uberman15]

I've said this over and over again: what part of an "international" patent system do you not understand? It's not replacing the US system with the European system or vice versa, it would be an entirely new system. It would replace the US system, the UK system, the Swedish system, etc, etc. We live in a different world now. I could invent something, put it on the internet and sell it worldwide in a matter of days.

So what happens if the international system adopts exactly the US system which you believe to be bad. Would you accept this as an improvement or would you realize that a universal system for the sake of universality is rife with problems?

The only problem is the current patent system. It would cost me a fortune to go round and patent it in every country. That is a restraint to trade, it stifles innovation and leaves the little guy out in the cold whilst the big wealthy corporations churn out ridiculous patents like they were confetti. I'm sorry but if you can't see that I don't know what else to say. In the end you want to protect your US system because it's your system so you can wave your little flag and be all patriotic. Like I've said repeatedly in the end it still boils down to narrow minded nationalism.

I agree that this cost is problematic particularly for growing companies that are about to expand into foreign markets. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that an international panel of bureaucrats can solve this problem.

Moreover, there is no way anyone can agree on what works and why would any country change its system if it believes that the standards it's forced to accept are worse than their own. This is not nationalism, this is basic logic. Why accept something that is worse just because the worse system is applied more uniformly? It makes no logical coherent sense. You are advocating a worse system for the sake of uniformity.

For example, one could argue that countries with stronger patent enforcement have a stronger pharmaceutical industry. It's not nationalism for the US to believe that having stronger pharmaceutical companies is something worth preserving. But, if the international system will weaken patent enforcement to the point that pharmaceutical companies would be worse off (both locally and globally), why accept it? Your are conflating this with narrow-minded nationalism which is not what it is.

I agree that the US system has problems. I object to software patents and believe they have no place in patent law. The failure of the US system does not naturally lead one to conclude that we need an international system. My conclusion is that the US system should be fixed.

Uniformity of patent standards will be better achieved through the desire to copy systems that work rather than through international bureaucrats. If countries with worse patent standards inhibiting growth and development do not choose to adopt better patent standards of successful countries, they harm themselves. But it's foolish to harm more successful countries for the sake of uniformity. Until you can make an argument on how you can ensure that international patent standards can be guaranteed to be better than every patent system in every country, you are advocating undermining a better patent system for the sake of uniformity. This is beyond foolish.

The only reason I can see for why you believe this is because international patent courts have sided with Samsung and not Apple. Hence, you believe that international courts have better systems and thus forcing the US to change its system to match the general view of the international community will be better. While you say that all these other countries would also be forced to change their system, don't lie and act that you're not motivated by a desire to see the US' patent system more closely aligned with that of Europe rather than Europe's being more closely aligned with that of the US. You know, come to think of it, maybe you're just the narrow-minded European "nationalist."

It's not nationalism to see your system work, believe it works, and want to continue with it. It is idiocy to see a system work and believe it should be changed because it is not the same as other systems. The US' system is certainly problematic as I agree there shouldn't be software patents. But this does not immediately call for an international system.

You still have not made a coherent counter-argument to why any country should subjugate its legal system for the sake of international uniformity at the cost of what it believes works and what does not. This is not nationalism. This is not pride in a country simply because you were born there. This is pride in a legal system that you believe, for the most part, works (but could very well need some fixing) and believing that changing a working system for a non-working one for the sake of uniformity is incomprehensibly stupid.

 

[John.B]

Despite being a driving force in phone development since the iPhone was launched in 2007, Apple has only 19 percent of the worldwide smartphone market, according to IDC. The high price of the iPhone keeps it out of the reach of many consumers. Meanwhile, Android phones have 64 percent of the market.

It's pretty easy to be the low cost manufacturer when other people are doing all the R&D for you...

 

[69650]

So what happens if the international system adopts exactly the US system which you believe to be bad. Would you accept this as an improvement or would you realize that a universal system for the sake of universality is rife with problems?

I agree that this cost is problematic particularly for growing companies that are about to expand into foreign markets. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that an international panel of bureaucrats can solve this problem.

Moreover, there is no way anyone can agree on what works and why would any country change its system if it believes that the standards it's forced to accept are worse than their own. This is not nationalism, this is basic logic. Why accept something that is worse just because the worse system is applied more uniformly? It makes no logical coherent sense. You are advocating a worse system for the sake of uniformity.

For example, one could argue that countries with stronger patent enforcement have a stronger pharmaceutical industry. It's not nationalism for the US to believe that having stronger pharmaceutical companies is something worth preserving. But, if the international system will weaken patent enforcement to the point that pharmaceutical companies would be worse off (both locally and globally), why accept it? Your are conflating this with narrow-minded nationalism which is not what it is.

I agree that the US system has problems. I object to software patents and believe they have no place in patent law. The failure of the US system does not naturally lead one to conclude that we need an international system. My conclusion is that the US system should be fixed.

Uniformity of patent standards will be better achieved through the desire to copy systems that work rather than through international bureaucrats. If countries with worse patent standards inhibiting growth and development do not choose to adopt better patent standards of successful countries, they harm themselves. But it's foolish to harm more successful countries for the sake of uniformity. Until you can make an argument on how you can ensure that international patent standards can be guaranteed to be better than every patent system in every country, you are advocating undermining a better patent system for the sake of uniformity. This is beyond foolish.

The only reason I can see for why you believe this is because international patent courts have sided with Samsung and not Apple. Hence, you believe that international courts have better systems and thus forcing the US to change its system to match the general view of the international community will be better. While you say that all these other countries would also be forced to change their system, don't lie and act that you're not motivated by a desire to see the US' patent system more closely aligned with that of Europe rather than Europe's being more closely aligned with that of the US. You know, come to think of it, maybe you're just the narrow-minded European "nationalist."

It's not nationalism to see your system work, believe it works, and want to continue with it. It is idiocy to see a system work and believe it should be changed because it is not the same as other systems. The US' system is certainly problematic as I agree there shouldn't be software patents. But this does not immediately call for an international system.

You still have not made a coherent counter-argument to why any country should subjugate its legal system for the sake of international uniformity at the cost of what it believes works and what does not. This is not nationalism. This is not pride in a country simply because you were born there. This is pride in a legal system that you believe, for the most part, works (but could very well need some fixing) and believing that changing a working system for a non-working one for the sake of uniformity is incomprehensibly stupid.

Why would any new system be worse than the current system? I didn't suggest that. I think we should raise the standards not lower them. Provide better protection for inventors and patent holders.

If you or I sitting in our shed invented the light bulb today we almost certainly wouldn't make a penny out of it, because we would not have the ability to patent it worldwide. You would patent it in the US and start selling it. Along comes some bright spark in China who steals the idea, patents it in the rest of the world and makes a fortune. That is the system we have now. Do you think that is a good system or not?

The current system simply does not work. Apple have lost exactly the same patent battle in 4 out of 5 countries. The same arguments made, the same patents reviewed and yet Apple has only won the one court case in the US.

The current international patent system is a mess. It benefits nobody.

However what's worse is that your broken US system not only affects you but it also affects me. Although Samsung won the exact same patent dispute in the UK they will still be forced to either withdraw or modify the products they sell here because they are worldwide products so they will have to comply with the US courts. So your broken system affects me in the UK even though we have no input or influence over your broken system.

Would you like it if local decisions in the UK courts had a direct affect on what products you were able to buy in the US? I don't think so.

 

[GadgetDon]

The current system simply does not work. Apple have lost exactly the same patent battle in 4 out of 5 countries. The same arguments made, the same patents reviewed and yet Apple has only won the one court case in the US.

Actually, that's not true. In South Korea, it was a double-loss - Apple was found to infringe on Samsung's patents, Samsung was found to infringe on Apple's patents.

And let's be honest. I can't say for sure about any other country but in the U.S., a lone non-millionaire inventor is probably not going to win even in the U.S., the costs of litigation will wipe them out before they can win, they'd have to sell it to someone with the money to defend it. And I can't believe that it'll be any cheaper in an International Court.

And how would due process be handled in the International Court. Would there be appeals courts, and how many levels (and if you're going to say "no need, the panel will get the right decision", I think you have an excessive amount of faith in the infallibility of International Tribunes).

What International Court can you point to that settles disputes between individuals and groups that successfully manages to keep the issues on the merits, as opposed to prejudices about the country in question, or influence of one sort or another?