VIA Wants iPad, iPhone Banned in USA

[bloody000]

If we invalidate patents own by those who does not actually make things we would be basically telling all small-time inventors to go fuck themselves.
There's also FRAND licensing for technically essential patents.

[newy]

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/largest-us-wireless-carrier-verizon.html

You reap what you sow, macFAGS!

[vuzedome]

This is actually good for macfags, they get to look hip again, since most people will be going android making Apple products look niche again.

[surdumil]

Think of patents as the failure of an idea and fuel for packs of lawyers.
Think of patents as a gigantic heel grinding innovation into the dirt, then stomping on it many, many times.

When you can successfully patent a simple light switch or a simple, well-known algorithm, or an obvious arrangement of pixels, then the patent system has become worse than useless.  It becomes an impediment, a retardant, an irritant, an infectious boil oozing the foulest stench imaginable, a bad thing.

Patents are for greedy sewers (suers), not for thinkers or problems solvers.
Avoid them.  Keep your inventions hidden.  If you sell your ideas, make sure you can one-up them first.

[rostheferret]

...

Sometimes. There are drawbacks to the system in place but it's usage is still valid when properly applied, and when lawsuits occur it should be for invalid usage. Though that said there are some silly loopholes. You know Gene Simmons of KISS owns the patent rights to calling Orange Juice "OJ"?!?!?! I mean, seriously...

[Bob2004]

The whole point of the patents system is to allow one company to have a monopoly on a specific idea, and make as much money as they can from it while preventing anyone else from making use of or improving it. By definition this stifles innovation, because if nobody is allowed to make use of an idea, then nobody can innovate on it.

To take an example mentioned earlier in this thread - nobody other than Apple is allowed to make 'minimalist style' tablet computers. Seriously? That pretty much gives Apple a license to stop anyone from making a small tablet PC, entirely. Which is obviously completely ridiculous. Imagine if IBM had tried to enforce patents on a 'micro chip containing a digital computer processing unit' - Intel and AMD would not have been able to improve on IBM's cpu designs, and where would we be now? Patents serve no purpose other than to make easy money for a few people by stifling innovation.

[Tiffanys]

The whole point of the patents system is to allow one company to have a monopoly on a specific idea, and make as much money as they can from it while preventing anyone else from making use of or improving it. By definition this stifles innovation, because if nobody is allowed to make use of an idea, then nobody can innovate on it.

To take an example mentioned earlier in this thread - nobody other than Apple is allowed to make 'minimalist style' tablet computers. Seriously? That pretty much gives Apple a license to stop anyone from making a small tablet PC, entirely. Which is obviously completely ridiculous. Imagine if IBM had tried to enforce patents on a 'micro chip containing a digital computer processing unit' - Intel and AMD would not have been able to improve on IBM's cpu designs, and where would we be now? Patents serve no purpose other than to make easy money for a few people by stifling innovation.

Royalties, Bob. Royalties.

They don't have to just horde... they can license them out, and get paid for their inventions.

[Scudworth]

I hate apple and it's legions of macfags so much, I really hope apple looses big on this.

[Bob2004]

The whole point of the patents system is to allow one company to have a monopoly on a specific idea, and make as much money as they can from it while preventing anyone else from making use of or improving it. By definition this stifles innovation, because if nobody is allowed to make use of an idea, then nobody can innovate on it.

To take an example mentioned earlier in this thread - nobody other than Apple is allowed to make 'minimalist style' tablet computers. Seriously? That pretty much gives Apple a license to stop anyone from making a small tablet PC, entirely. Which is obviously completely ridiculous. Imagine if IBM had tried to enforce patents on a 'micro chip containing a digital computer processing unit' - Intel and AMD would not have been able to improve on IBM's cpu designs, and where would we be now? Patents serve no purpose other than to make easy money for a few people by stifling innovation.

Royalties, Bob. Royalties.

They don't have to just horde... they can license them out, and get paid for their inventions.

Yeah, but they don't. Instead they just ban everyone from releasing any 'minimalist style' tablets in Germany.

[ColdFission]

The minimalist design reminds of an editorial from DailyTech:
http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+Much+Like+the+iPad++or+Samsung+Tab+101/article22685.htm

The article suggests that, even though Apple did file the patent first for the iPad, Samsung was out first with an actual product in the form a digital picture frame with the minimalist design. Overall, I just thought that ruling in Germany against Samsung was idiotic just because it has a similar minimalist design like the iPad. Same logic could also be applied to Samsung TVs, they're rectangular, has a black bezel, and with hardly or no buttons at all. Are Samsung TV's going to be banned in Germany too because it also shares the minimalist design from the iPad? Are people going to mistake Samsung TVs for iPads (sarcasm)? Seriously though, how can you mistake a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 from an iPad 2? You hold them differently, Samsung's is landscape and Apple's is portrait. The GUI is different, the dimensions are different, and the iPad 2 is the one with the button. Hell, there are bloody signs in the stores and online saying that they are the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Apple iPad 2.

For those want to, you can read an article about the ruling:
http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Crushes+Samsung+in+German+Court+Galaxy+Tab+101+Ban+is+Complete/article22682.htm

I also recall that Apple has 'shopped some images in its case against Samsung:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219189/Apple_s_evidence_may_be_flawed_in_European_Samsung_case

However, it was noted that the judge did have the tablets in his hands, despite the 'shopped images there:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14542200

It is understood that the judge involved in the German case made his ruling based on a physical examination of the two tablets, rather than relying Apple's paper submission alone.

I've seen patent wars come and gone and its not even remotely funny anymore. It is a really serious problem that needs to get fixed, the patent system is broken. Anyone remember when Rambus was suing companies left and right when they didn't even make ANYTHING? In the end, the customer loses because of these useless patent lawsuits.

[AceHigh]

I am waiting for the day when someone patents colour "blue".

[surdumil]

I am waiting for the day when someone patents colour "blue".

Exactly.

The prime failure of the patent system is that the bar is set so low for patentability that the system has become useless, except for lawyers, of course.
The patent system, as it exists right now, is a total failure.
It's so far away from pie in the sky "oh, it protects the inventor's interests" that it's hilarious.

Oo!  Oo!  Lookit!  I patented my new cold fusion process!

Big deal.  My aunt Harriet patented her latest stool sample.  It was an inspired invention.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/why-software-patents-are-a-joke-literally/2039

[fohfoh]

I am waiting for the day when someone patents colour "blue".

I almost believe such a thing has already occurred. Why do I say this? Try having fun with the color naming scheme of different car companies.

I heard Donald Trump owns a patent (or something similar) for the phrase, "You're fired."

[Freedom Kira]

I remember a story about someone patenting the wheel just for fun.