-
The Patent Thing
Interesting article on Gizmodo where Jesus Diaz argues that the Apple patent victory is a huge win for computing.
In part…
“The truth is that Apple’s win only kills the shit smartphones and the unimaginative copycats who poop them out of their design boards busting with carbon paper. The people at Google, Samsung and HTC who thought “oh f**k this, let’s all do the same.”
Even Google proves the patent whiners wrong. In recent Android releases, smelling the inevitable outcome of the patent wars, tinkered with the interface enough that it finally felt new and fresh. And sometimes, its innovations were much better than Apple’s own stuff. Oh, and guess what? Google patented those too. And when they didn’t have the patents, they bought them. They will fiercely defend them against Apple or anyone else if the occasion arises…”
Full article here:
https://gizmodo.com/5833924/we-hope-apple-wins-the-patent-wars
FWIW.
“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
-
70 Replies
-
By “Apple Patent Victory” you obviously mean the one in the Dutch courts over a year ago, because that is what this article is about.
-
Rather than just link to an opinion piece where one man says this was a good use of patent protection, I prefer to look at the big picture. You really should listen or read the transcript of the This American Life that Shane talked about Bill, because the problem is the companies using patents to block development and innovation. That is their primary business model and I am not talking about companies like Google or Apple because they are not necessarily the prime movers in this stifling use of patents.
The companies that actually develop products are forced to apply for patents as protection against the patent troll companies. However, I still feel that Apple in it’s patent wars with Samsung is showing an increased attitude of using patents to stifle as much as to protect – in other words they are borderline trolling.
Finally the critical issue is that far too many patents are so general and the patent office seems unable to distinguish what is a real invention versus some trivial innovation which is how the original thread on this topic came up.
-
Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY.
Mr. Diaz opened his article by referring to his position taken a year ago in response to that patent decision last year – but then went on to indicate his position is unchanged – and in fact, everything I quoted was written by him in the current article and refers to the current Apple case.
“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
-
[Michael Gissing] ” You really should listen or read the transcript of the This American Life that Shane talked about Bill, because the problem is the companies using patents to block development and innovation. “
I had the time to watch the TED referenced link – and disagreed with the position argued there – and posted my opinions about it in the original thread.
I was on deadline today for another broadcast piece that runs tomorrow – so I haven’t had the hours to go back and listen to the This Amercan Life piece. But I’ll try to.
Still, the overall point is that there is certainly more than one way to view these issues. I felt that Mr. Diaz’s point that patent protection – even aggressive patent protection – is, on balance, an important driver of innovation.
I argued in my post to the TED piece that it’s irrelevant whether Dylan used the same melody originally used by others to create his work. What matters is the commercial value he created by leveraging that melody into a singular marketplace success. The melody is not the thing that needs protection. Melody’s are used and re-used all the time. But when a melody and lyrics are fixed into a tangible expression – and gain public awareness and traction – it is THEN that the value attaches to them. The person who breaches copyright isn’t leveraging the NOTES in the song – they’re leveraging “good will” that the song has accrued by virtue of it’s very success.
Similarly, the fact that PARC invented the mouse concept is irrelevant. The fact that Apple converted the idea into a tangible expression that created brand differentiation is the economic success.
Same with the iPod. Music players came before it. But the iPod created a unique and massive brand value. And protecting that for the successful company is what Patents properly do.
The Gizmodo article I referenced takes the position that Apple’s patent success actually improves the entire industry – since it encourages others to create similar value – and the chance of such success in and of itself is what drives the entire creative community forward.
Seems sensible to me.
“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
-
[Bill Davis] “Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY.”
I don’t know what you were quoting, but what you linked to is an article from Aug. 2011. See for yourself:
https://gizmodo.com/5833924/we-hope-apple-wins-the-patent-wars
-
PARC did much more than invent a mouse ‘concept’. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap.
They also invented the GUI using click-able icons. The relevant point is that if Xerox PARC had patented those inventions, Apple would never have happened – nor would modern computing as we know it. PARC is an excellent example of how patents would have stifled development and innovation.
But the issue that needs to be recognised is that current behaviour by companies that police patents as a business are clearly stifling development and innovation, in spite of you finding minor instances where the pro argument can be made.
-
[Michael Gissing] “You really should listen or read the transcript of the This American Life that Shane talked about Bill, because the problem is the companies using patents to block development and innovation. That is their primary business model and I am not talking about companies like Google or Apple because they are not necessarily the prime movers in this stifling use of patents.
“I second that. The This American Life piece was excellent journalism.
-
[Michael Gissing] “PARC did much more than invent a mouse ‘concept’. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap.”
And, rather stupidly, single-buttoned.
-
Interesting quote from todays newspaper reports on the Apple v Samsung trial that just returned a judgement against Samsung. If the law experts are saying this then I am inclined to listen.
Patent system “out of control”
Before the verdict an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, Robin Feldman, described the case as unmanageable for a jury.
“There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions,” Feldman said. “I don’t give that much reading to my law students. They can’t possible digest it.
“The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control. No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we’ve gone too far in the intellectual property system.”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up