His point is that there should be no intellectual property or money and that everyone should just pay for new technology with rainbows and hugs.
The patent problem is a very difficult one, specifically because getting rid of patents isn't a viable option--that would destroy any incentive for companies to invest in R&D.
Apple doesn't make hardly any money at all off of advertising; they make the vast overwhelming majority of their money by selling actual hardware products that people want to buy. In no way are you "the product" when you buy from Apple--that's just idiotic.
I swear to God if someone posted that "at least Google doesn't make coats out of puppies like Apple does" it would get modded up to +5 Insightful.
There are people who use iPads for real work, generally in fields where information input is bandwidth limited anyway (point of sale, inventory, augmentative communication, studying, reading specs, electronic flight bag/maps/gps/etc., quick emails, etc.). It's not as powerful as a laptop, but then a laptop isn't as powerful as a desktop, which isn't as powerful as a server, which isn't as powerful as a mainframe, which isn't as powerful as a cluster, which isn't as powerful as a supercomputer--see the point? Right tool, right job.
In fact it isn't good for society for everyone to carry the cognitive burden of being an expert in every device they interact with--that's kinda the whole point of technology. Just like not everyone needs to know how their automobile or microwave works. The general direction of appliance computing is a good one for most people--it sounds like in this case they didn't think things through, or maybe they're just having growing pains.
A desktop is a toy, a workstation is a tool. A workstation is a toy, a server is a tool. A server is a toy, a mainframe is a tool. A mainframe is a toy, a cluster is a tool. A cluster is a toy, a supercomputer is a tool.
A very useful definition of religion is "the lack of falsifiability". If there is no evidence which would convince you that the FBI isn't a bad actor in this case then your claims are not falsifiable. Therefore, your belief that that "the evil government is out to get you" is a religion. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point most of Slashdot was swallowed up by this same "Church of the Tin Foil hat". It used to be funny, then it got scary, now it is just boring.
Since this is your religion, there is nothing I can do to talk you out of it, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot:
The government is not picking through your smartphone or tracking your location or reading your text messages. Of course they could, and would, but they aren't. Why? Because you don't matter.
if you are going to post to a tech site. There are plenty of beginner sites out there, this one is for people who know basic technical info like "You can put any OS you want on a MacBook".
There were patents during the Renaissance--often credited (in part) with the encouraging innovation.
Think about it, what is your motivation to invest in R & D if you know that whatever you invent can be immediately copied by someone else? It just doesn't work.
How come we never hear about them refusing to license these patents to their competitors? Oh, right, because they are FRAND patents and Apple plays by the rules.
1. You can't possibly know from a screen shot of the first page of a patent whether or not it is invalid 2. All inventions are combinations of previously invented things with minor tweaks or refinements. All of them. Every single one of them. I defy you to name a single invention which is *not* a combination of previously invented things. I'm serious, the light bulb, the television, everything. Almost always they are a fairly simple combination of those things which is pretty obvious in hindsight when subjected to they same kind of reductive scrutiny you are applying here. 3. Samsung had every opportunity to disqualify this guy during jury selection. They didn't, that's how the law works.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you are 17 years old.
Being a patent holder doesn't make someone a mindless shill for a corrupt system, it doesn't mean they think all patents are valid or that they care about intellectual property rights much at all. I'm a patent holder, as are many people on this forum. If the foreman is like most of us, his patent is the result of work he did at some company and it wasn't really optional. Grow up.
Holding a patent should not invalidate one from serving on a jury on a patent related case; unless the case is related to your patent, in which case you never would have made it past jury selection.
I don't know if there is sufficient prior art to invalidate those patents; and I don't know if the jury was even allowed to consider invalidation of those patents (if they were then all this prior art should have been displayed for them). I am 100% sure that you don't know either, you just cherry-picked comments and constructed some plotline which reinforces your world-view.
I don't think either pinch-zoom or scroll bounce-back are all that obvious. It seems like if they were obvious then they would have shown up in a smartphone or tablet before the iPhone/iPad. I suspect the world would be a better place if software/concept patents had a 3 year expiration date instead of 20 years. Why not direct your anger and energy at your congressmen to make that change?
Are you saying it is impossible to build a phone without pinch-to-zoom or scroll bounce-back? Or one that doesn't look just like an iPhone (like the hundreds of other smartphone models that Apple isn't sueing over).
Look at the new Microsoft phones, they look nothing like iPhones.
I've always wondered by they exclusively sell iPods, tablets, and phones; they should come up with some sort of personal computer. Not one that uses iOS, mind you, but something built on top of UNIX. Maybe it would also have a nice GUI (they could copy the icon-based desktop UI from Windows & Linux), but it would need to have terminal access with full command-line power.
Also it should have an available development environment with the ability to run your own code natively. These computers would need keyboards and mice (does Apple even know what a mouse is?).
Slashdot Mirror
seems pretty reasonable to me--it's not like apple is changing it every year.
His point is that there should be no intellectual property or money and that everyone should just pay for new technology with rainbows and hugs.
The patent problem is a very difficult one, specifically because getting rid of patents isn't a viable option--that would destroy any incentive for companies to invest in R&D.
Apple doesn't make hardly any money at all off of advertising; they make the vast overwhelming majority of their money by selling actual hardware products that people want to buy. In no way are you "the product" when you buy from Apple--that's just idiotic.
I swear to God if someone posted that "at least Google doesn't make coats out of puppies like Apple does" it would get modded up to +5 Insightful.
Awesome, I'm going to go write some code for my Wii now.
They are more like trademarks--they are for thinks like patenting the shape of the Coca-Cola bottle; they are specifically aesthetic.
But then, you already knew that.
There are people who use iPads for real work, generally in fields where information input is bandwidth limited anyway (point of sale, inventory, augmentative communication, studying, reading specs, electronic flight bag/maps/gps/etc., quick emails, etc.). It's not as powerful as a laptop, but then a laptop isn't as powerful as a desktop, which isn't as powerful as a server, which isn't as powerful as a mainframe, which isn't as powerful as a cluster, which isn't as powerful as a supercomputer--see the point? Right tool, right job.
In fact it isn't good for society for everyone to carry the cognitive burden of being an expert in every device they interact with--that's kinda the whole point of technology. Just like not everyone needs to know how their automobile or microwave works. The general direction of appliance computing is a good one for most people--it sounds like in this case they didn't think things through, or maybe they're just having growing pains.
A desktop is a toy, a workstation is a tool.
A workstation is a toy, a server is a tool.
A server is a toy, a mainframe is a tool.
A mainframe is a toy, a cluster is a tool.
A cluster is a toy, a supercomputer is a tool.
Idiots.
A very useful definition of religion is "the lack of falsifiability". If there is no evidence which would convince you that the FBI isn't a bad actor in this case then your claims are not falsifiable. Therefore, your belief that that "the evil government is out to get you" is a religion. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point most of Slashdot was swallowed up by this same "Church of the Tin Foil hat". It used to be funny, then it got scary, now it is just boring.
Since this is your religion, there is nothing I can do to talk you out of it, but what the hell, I'll give it a shot:
The government is not picking through your smartphone or tracking your location or reading your text messages. Of course they could, and would, but they aren't. Why? Because you don't matter.
if you are going to post to a tech site. There are plenty of beginner sites out there, this one is for people who know basic technical info like "You can put any OS you want on a MacBook".
There were patents during the Renaissance--often credited (in part) with the encouraging innovation.
Think about it, what is your motivation to invest in R & D if you know that whatever you invent can be immediately copied by someone else? It just doesn't work.
Yes, this system sucks. All other systems suck worse. Do you have a better system?
My vote is that software & consumer electronic patents should expire after 3-4 years.
How come we never hear about them refusing to license these patents to their competitors? Oh, right, because they are FRAND patents and Apple plays by the rules.
http://www.cringely.com/2011/07/01/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/
1. You can't possibly know from a screen shot of the first page of a patent whether or not it is invalid
2. All inventions are combinations of previously invented things with minor tweaks or refinements. All of them. Every single one of them. I defy you to name a single invention which is *not* a combination of previously invented things. I'm serious, the light bulb, the television, everything. Almost always they are a fairly simple combination of those things which is pretty obvious in hindsight when subjected to they same kind of reductive scrutiny you are applying here.
3. Samsung had every opportunity to disqualify this guy during jury selection. They didn't, that's how the law works.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you are 17 years old.
Being a patent holder doesn't make someone a mindless shill for a corrupt system, it doesn't mean they think all patents are valid or that they care about intellectual property rights much at all. I'm a patent holder, as are many people on this forum. If the foreman is like most of us, his patent is the result of work he did at some company and it wasn't really optional. Grow up.
this forum. Are we all somehow unclean in your eyes? Like we are all parties to a corrupt bargain with the devil?
Some patents are bogus, some aren't...regardless it is the law of the land. If you don't like it, then change the laws.
Holding a patent should not invalidate one from serving on a jury on a patent related case; unless the case is related to your patent, in which case you never would have made it past jury selection.
But it isn't.
Also, Apple doesn't make coats out of puppies.
I don't know if there is sufficient prior art to invalidate those patents; and I don't know if the jury was even allowed to consider invalidation of those patents (if they were then all this prior art should have been displayed for them). I am 100% sure that you don't know either, you just cherry-picked comments and constructed some plotline which reinforces your world-view.
I don't think either pinch-zoom or scroll bounce-back are all that obvious. It seems like if they were obvious then they would have shown up in a smartphone or tablet before the iPhone/iPad. I suspect the world would be a better place if software/concept patents had a 3 year expiration date instead of 20 years. Why not direct your anger and energy at your congressmen to make that change?
Nope? didn't think so.
Are you saying it is impossible to build a phone without pinch-to-zoom or scroll bounce-back? Or one that doesn't look just like an iPhone (like the hundreds of other smartphone models that Apple isn't sueing over).
Look at the new Microsoft phones, they look nothing like iPhones.
Apple licenses their design patents:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-design-patents-to-microsoft-in-anti-cloning-agreement/
...and you're not a genius because you like to fiddle with half working crap. Get over yourself.
Patent law might be unreasonable, but the verdict was pretty reasonable given the law.
Was there any doubt that Samsung was specifically trying to copy elements which were covered by Apple patents? No.
Are the patents valid. Yes.
Case closed.
I've always wondered by they exclusively sell iPods, tablets, and phones; they should come up with some sort of personal computer. Not one that uses iOS, mind you, but something built on top of UNIX. Maybe it would also have a nice GUI (they could copy the icon-based desktop UI from Windows & Linux), but it would need to have terminal access with full command-line power.
Also it should have an available development environment with the ability to run your own code natively. These computers would need keyboards and mice (does Apple even know what a mouse is?).