-
The Patent Thing
-
[Michael Gissing] “If Xerox had patent protection like you espouse, then Apple would never have happened. We live in an age that has benefited more from the fact that until recently software couldn’t be patented. If you think the era we live in is because of patents then you really don’t know this subject.”
Well said and exactly right.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
It was also insteresting to read that Apple refused to settle out of court on the Samsung issue. Thi isn’t about revenue and getting the return and recognition from your ideas, even if your ideas where possibly somebody elses earlier. It’s about crippling inovation.
The game is now around owning as many trights to as many ideas as you can. Not with the intent to profit from them by licensing but by prohibiting others from expanding on those ideas.
Granted sometimes that restriction forces a re-think and a better solution can emerge but the effort and cost to achieve that for the little gain is a price end users are paying.It’s hard to see where Apple see their stance taking them. Becoming even richer for sure. Having a greater control over the products in the market for sure. But how will the end users, the buys of these devices feel about the way Apple choose to do business in the world? And will that change the way they spend their money?
Pat Horridge
Technical Director, Trainer, Avid Certified Instructor
VET
Production Editing Digital Media Design DVD
T +44 (0)20 7505 4701 | F +44 (0)20 7505 4800 | E pat@vet.co.uk |
http://www.vet.co.uk | Lux Building 2-4 Hoxton Square London N1 6US -
And more to follow:
Michael
-
[David Lawrence] “Picasso had a saying – “Good artists copy, great artist’s steal”. And we’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas. — Steve Jobs, 1996
I’m going to destroy Android because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. — Steve Jobs, 2010So which one is it?”
Uh,
In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.
In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.
Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?
“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
-
[Pat Horridge] “Granted sometimes that restriction forces a re-think and a better solution can emerge but the effort and cost to achieve that for the little gain is a price end users are paying.”
So is your contention that if these patents didn’t exist then our phones and iPads would be cheaper?
How much?
Seems to me that the prices of these things are set based on desirability and upon the same supply and demand that sets the price of everything.
The market says an iPhone is well worth the subsidized cost. And even for many, the unsubsidized cost.
If patents didn’t apply, what do YOU think the price of these items would be. And would that different be enough to make ANY functional differences to the businesses selling them?
Again, with the present admittedly imperfect system. There seems to be virtually NO restraint of innovation in the tablet or phone space. Plenty of sales. Plenty of competition. Pocket smart phones are accessible to virtually everyone but the very poor. And with subsidy and pre-pay models nearly universally available, the cost of the technology doesn’t seem to be suppressing trade at all.
So what’s the real argument here? What “innovation” is being thwarted by making giant companies such as these spar with each other to defend their tech and patents?
“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] “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.”
This post needs some serious corrections. First, the PARC mouse as I saw it, was a block of wood and had two wheels that allowed it to go straight up and down, or straight right and left. No diagonal, and no circles.
But on to your larger point. No, PARC patenting that would not have stifled development. You conveniently fail to mention that Apple tried to license their tech… tried to buy… tried to do anything to to get it out there. PARC in their infinite wisdom said “we have no provisions for selling or licensing anything”. Thankfully, John Warnock left and started Adobe so we could get laser printers and the PostScript language. Apple did the same for everything else. I think you’ll have a tough time not admitting that where Apple took this very rough tech is to hell and gone past where PARC ever would have.
As for stifling competition, look at any country that has no patent or copyright protections… zero innovation. After all, what’s the point… it’ll only get stolen and you’ll be saddled with all the R&D costs.
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
[Bill Davis] “Uh,
In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.
In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.
Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?”
Wrong.
The first quote refers to specific technologies. These technologies were “stolen” because they were developed before technology companies learned to abuse a broken patent system.
The second quote reflects the hypocrisy of a company that owes its very existence to “stolen” ideas.
When I was at Lucasfilm in the late 1980’s, my team and I were doing interactive software design research for Apple. I’ve been part of and have watched the software industry evolve for decades. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about and it has not changed for the better. Quite the opposite.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
‘How exactly do you incentivize innovation if you don’t protect it?’
i dunno, maybe ask tim berners lee that one. -
[David Lawrence] “[Bill Davis] “Uh,
In the first quote the subject is an IDEA.
In the second quote the subject is a PRODUCT.
Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?”
Wrong.
“Careful, now. You need to grasp–however difficult it might be–that Bill has a patent pending on the “condescending “Uh,…” and that he’s not afraid to use it.
-
[al ellis] “‘How exactly do you incentivize innovation if you don’t protect it?’
i dunno, maybe ask tim berners lee that one.”ROTFL ™
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up