Boris, I totally agree that the patent system needs adjustment. The absurd notion that human DNA disease-markers can be patented is an indication that the system needs major overhaul. But in the meantime, the rules say that you shouldn't copy others' work. Apple is the underdog here. They are the small corporation that had a string of good ideas, protected those ideas with patents as allowed for under the current system, and profited from their good ideas (iPod, iPhone, iPad). They are are now being treated as though they were Microsoft. Microsoft won dominance of the OS market through very questionable marketing practices; Apple won dominance of everything else through good ideas. Samsung and other scumsuckers are merely trying to copy whatever is the current successful product in hopes that it will earn them more quick dollars than it will cost them in legal fees and settlements.
stan On Aug 25, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: > Stan, I respectfully disagree. Beside the matters of letter of law > (royalties, etc) Apple simply invented very round wheel. Thumbs up to them. > > Now, in modern world innovation and true knowledge sharing exists only > personal level. Oftentimes my friends and I (not working for the same > company) would discuss an issue or two of our trade. Admittedly, not > oftentimes enough, I might add here. > > In terms of corporations this does not happen this way. Samsung played dirty > and got burned. Now they have to stand in the corner and everyone is shaking > their finger at them. > > But what happened really? Apple did something good and they were not able to > hold it to themselves. The real question - in modern world of inventions that > are mostly virtual (software engines are engines but that's just a figure of > speech, unlike car engines, for example) patent system requires serious > adjustment, don't you agree, Stan? > > Boris > > P.S. As a recall Ford Focus was the very first Golf-class vehicle that > featured fully independent multi-link rear suspension. Tell me, does it mean > that Hyundai for example had to pay patent royalties to Ford in order to use > in their i30? > > > On 8/25/2012 10:06 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: >> Remember long long ago? Like maybe 5 years ago? Many many different >> sizes and styles of cell phones on the market. Then the iPhone came >> out and most other manufactures panicked and tried to copy instead of >> building their own smartphone. This series of cases is far from over, >> but I would hope that the end result is awareness that patent and >> copyright laws do matter. Followed by greater investment in R&D to >> build innovative products rather than investment in advertising to >> sell knock-off products. >> >> stan >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> >>> On 8/25/2012 1:52 AM, Darren Addy wrote: >>>> Live blogging as it is being read: >>>> http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ >>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-apple-samsung-patent-trial >>>> >>>> >>>> > Looking like a HUGE win for Apple and a huge setback for Samsung. >>> >>> No matter who's right and who's wrong, the end user, that is you or >>> me will eventually suffer the consequences... >>> >>> Naively, I am wondering if having scored with Samsung, will Apple >>> attack the Big Man - The ElGoog? >>> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
