Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wozniak On the Samsung Patent Verdict

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-sir-I-don't-like-it dept.

dgharmon writes "'I hate it,' Wozniak told Bloomberg in Shanghai today, referring to the patent battle. He thinks the ruling will be overruled. Samsung will of course appeal, and this case will go back and forth for months still, but Wozniak just wishes everyone could get along. 'I don’t think the decision of California will hold. And I don’t agree with it — very small things I don’t really call that innovative. I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody’s technologies,' he said."

12 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Please. by pdbogen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would be amazing.

  2. The really stupid thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple STARTED this patent war. If they hadn't started aggressively going after the other major Smartphone makers, everyone would still be rolling along quietly.

  3. Couldn't we all just get along? by jerpyro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that nearly everyone except the lawyers and leadership wish we could get along. When the patent system was envisioned a long time ago, progress didn't happen nearly as quickly, consumerism wasn't so rampant (you didn't buy a new ANYTHING every two years except maybe a toothbrush), and the manufacturing cycle was MUCH longer than it is today.

    I consider the lawyers of these tech companies (Apple, Samsung, Oracle, etc) to be exploiting 'bugs' in the patent system, and I suspect that most others do as well. The patent system needs a hotfix, and there's no political pressure to do so.

    1. Re:Couldn't we all just get along? by Dave+Emami · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, at least as far as high tech is concerned, the patent system has morphed from its original "encourage inventors to share and explain their inventions in exchange for a short period of official monopoly" to a legally-empowered version of "I call dibs on that." Rather than developing something and patenting the result, people are observing trends, anticipating where things will go, and patenting that. Sometimes (such as with Apple) they proceed to actually develop something, and other times (as with patent trolls) they just wait to cash in. But in either case, the patent boils down to "I was the first person to tell the Patent Office that things were moving in this direction."

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  4. Re:Nope, Apple did not start it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone has been copying from everyone else in this industry for decades, including Apple itself. Now that they're the king of the hill, they want to change the rules. Too bad for them, this kind of crap means that every other player will now proceed to nuke them with everything at their disposal - and rightly so. /me is eagerly waiting for a lawsuit over LTE in iPhone 5 from Samsung...

  5. Why doesn't someone say what everyone is thinking by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "For anything non-trivial, it is simply illegal to develop software." Companies are getting away with patenting things that are trivial and obvious, for almost any piece of software, you're tripping over dozens of patents. If we were to enforce the letter of the law, developing software is illegal.

    --
    God spoke to me
  6. A Voice Of Reason by ChodaBoyUSA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is truly sad that a voice of reason like Woz is so rare in "business" anymore.

    1. Re:A Voice Of Reason by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It leaves the little guy relying on the "and play nice". This is basically what we had in the mobile phone industry between 2006 and 2011 (or whenever Apple kicked off this nonsense). Before 2006, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson and others were all suing each other over 3G patents. They came to a settlement where everyone decided to cross license their patents and offer FRAND licensing so that the little guys didn't get shut out. The problem is that Apple came along and took advantage of the little guy provisions to enter the market, then started throwing patents around which are very much not being offered on FRAND terms ($30 per device for half a dozen UI interaction patents, vs $6 for hundreds of radio and networking hardware patents?).

  7. Re:Nope, Apple did not start it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know why this is modded up to 5 when it's verifiably false. Their demos were a month or so apart, with F700 coming a bit later, and LG Prada with similar design came out a few months before them both. If anything, it just shows that market was coming to this already.

    Anyways, I find Apple fanboys' claims about "blatant copying" rather silly, considering courts have mostly denied Apple's claims about copying (up to telling Apple to apologize in UK's case) and most surviving claims are utility patents related, though even those didn't fare as well as Apple hoped.

    So yeah, it seems "infringing on a software patent" == "blatantly copying" in their lingo.

  8. woz is a great guy by LodCrappo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Woz always seems to be sensible, realistic and honest. Make you wonder how S. Wozniak got mixed up with the likes of S. Jobs in the first place.

    --
    -Lod
  9. Re:He also added... by darkfeline · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least Google doesn't try to hide the fact that they are advertising to you, and offer great compensation in the form of high-quality services such as search and mail. On the other hand, you're paying Apple to be the product.

  10. Re:Nope, Apple did not start it by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That may actually suggest that Apple and Samsung both copied a third party.

    Which implies prior art that should in fact have completely prevented the patents in question from being issued in the first place.

    The whole thing about federal courts giving the USPTO higher deference on patent validity when the USPTO itself rubber stamps everything and lets the courts sort it out.