-
Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
-
Some relevant developments:
https://www.dailytech.com/Google+Seeks+to+Ban+Almost+Apples+Entire+US+Product+Line/article25467.htm
-
Right, and then Google says, ‘by the way we should change the system’ as Craig posted.
Also, Samsung, who is wrapping up closing arguments in the current Apple case as we type, is dumping a large sum of money to revamp a factory that will make iPhone processors.
https://www.statesman.com/business/samsung-plans-another-3-billion-austin-investment-2438996.html
You can’t make this stuff up.
Jeremy
-
The current round of patent suits does resemble a late-middle game “ko” fight, if you study Japanese-rules GO. Basically, expert players spend The middle game building as many threats as they can, so that if one of them pulls the pin on a really aggresive invasion, the one that has the most ko threats will eventually take the initiative “sente” to capture the most territory, or inflict such heavy damage on the adversary that a resignation is the only option.
But reading the proceedings reports, it seems like Apple is behaving like a belligerent teenager with no sense of mortality, and all the entitlement of a mediocre rich kid. The judiciary is not amused.
jPo
“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.
-
Finally had time to watch this.
I remain largely unswayed.
The creators of the melodies he builds his case upon had a perfect and unfettered opportunity to compete for financial success. And they failed compared to the Dylan expressions of very similar melodies.
Software companies that adapt others ideas (e.g. Xerox Parc) -also have ample opportunity to openly market their innovations and create significant business value for their shareholders and owners. Or to fail.
When they fail (mediocre expressions) or choose NOT to compete in the marketplace (PARC) they and/or their products become largely irrelevant.
What IS relevant in my thinking is when an individual or company refines a particular expression of an idea into a thing that has economic value demonstrated by market results – then others eschew doing their own innovation and instead RIDE on the mindshare or success generated by linking their work to the expressions that generated the marketplace success.
Patents exist, not to protect IDEAS per se, but to protect the ECONOMIC value that can be derrived from ideas. What increasingly creates that value is the marketplaces perceptions of a brand. Patents protect THAT.
Of course eveyones’ work is built on everyone else’s. Heck, my thinking as an individual is built on the foundations of what I learned from my parents, my teachers, and society in general. But if I invent something that becomes a success – the patent system is there to provide me with a defensible legal argument that someone shouldn’t be allowed to come along later and leverage the brand value that I’ve created in order to peddle a similar product.
They would be riding not on my “idea” so much as on the value I’ve created in the marketplace through driving the success of my expression of those universal ideas.
In politics currently, it’s the wedge about the President mentioning that small business success is leveraged by government investment. Everyone has access to the infrastructure. The “business creator” has to leverage that to build value. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong. The problem arises when someone conveniently ignores the contribution of either side. When the Republican says “government didn’t build the success, I did” they are cherry picking facts. And when the Democrat says “the entrepreneur has no path to success without government assistance” this is also cheery picking because intuitively there’s no real correlation between use of government assistance and the success or failure of any particular business.
Both sides play the same game of foolish absolutes.
Same with this discussion of Patent Law, IMO.
Derivative work is fine. Right up to the point that it extracts value from the patentable expressions of others purely in order to “vampire” unearned economic value from the brand it’s stealing from. Then it’s something the law should address. IMO.
The guy in the video is arguing that because the melodies are the same – that’s infringement. I’m arguing that because Dylan used the melody to create lasting value using that melody in song – that someone can’t come along and co-opt the additional VALUE he brought to that melody to leverage their own success.
An important distinction, IMO.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up