CEO's don't develop projects themselves they send it off to an R&D department. This is theoretically why you would have such massive damages otherwise. Steve Jobs didn't work his butt off for years but it may have taken alot of test and adjust for a product like the first iPhone though we wouldn't really know how much (I doubt it was 24/7 for years, hardware barriers were probably a bigger issue for our current set of devices then design issues).
The issue with applying patents to design in all of this is that Google DID do all of its own work. Google didn't actually copy any lines of Apples code they saw the general look and feel of the device and figured they would recreate it. Unlike taking apart a washer and creating molds of parts or other reverse engineering tricks Google simply put their own spin on a look and feel project and hired tons of programmers and designers to create something that is inspired by iOS but does not have any single piece that is actually taken FROM iOS. To my knowledge Google has not broken into Apple and stolen code or even made it a practice to hire disgruntled Apple employees.
In fact there are a great many things about Androids design that differentiate itself from Apples. Patents prevent the idea of mutual discovery and are this the most strict form of IP control one can receive for an idea. This really harms computers as software innovation probably has more in common with book writing then it does with inventing a new form of internal combustion engine. We don't patent movie ideas or similar methods of writing books because it would unnecessarily complicate the product and it is a product which sells on art more then much else which is by and large the TRUE power to iDevices anyways.
I'd also question the need for 5 year terms on software patents when its abundantly clear that Apple has gained plenty of money through first to market advantage. Since iPhone was first introduced we've had YEARS of Apple supremacy and Android has only in the last year really become comparable function wise. Its actually had a couple of years (a software eternity) of being known as the less functional less stable platform that had flexibility as its own focus.
Since you can visibly tell the difference between iOS and Android and both have different design philosophy's and NEITHER company copied their work off of their classmates, in what way has Apple been harmed?
Slashdot Mirror
CEO's don't develop projects themselves they send it off to an R&D department. This is theoretically why you would have such massive damages otherwise. Steve Jobs didn't work his butt off for years but it may have taken alot of test and adjust for a product like the first iPhone though we wouldn't really know how much (I doubt it was 24/7 for years, hardware barriers were probably a bigger issue for our current set of devices then design issues).
The issue with applying patents to design in all of this is that Google DID do all of its own work. Google didn't actually copy any lines of Apples code they saw the general look and feel of the device and figured they would recreate it. Unlike taking apart a washer and creating molds of parts or other reverse engineering tricks Google simply put their own spin on a look and feel project and hired tons of programmers and designers to create something that is inspired by iOS but does not have any single piece that is actually taken FROM iOS. To my knowledge Google has not broken into Apple and stolen code or even made it a practice to hire disgruntled Apple employees.
In fact there are a great many things about Androids design that differentiate itself from Apples. Patents prevent the idea of mutual discovery and are this the most strict form of IP control one can receive for an idea. This really harms computers as software innovation probably has more in common with book writing then it does with inventing a new form of internal combustion engine. We don't patent movie ideas or similar methods of writing books because it would unnecessarily complicate the product and it is a product which sells on art more then much else which is by and large the TRUE power to iDevices anyways.
I'd also question the need for 5 year terms on software patents when its abundantly clear that Apple has gained plenty of money through first to market advantage. Since iPhone was first introduced we've had YEARS of Apple supremacy and Android has only in the last year really become comparable function wise. Its actually had a couple of years (a software eternity) of being known as the less functional less stable platform that had flexibility as its own focus.
Since you can visibly tell the difference between iOS and Android and both have different design philosophy's and NEITHER company copied their work off of their classmates, in what way has Apple been harmed?