Canada Kicks Ass
Posner dismisses With Prejudice the Apple Motorola Patents C

REPLY



Curtman @ Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:09 pm

Posner dismisses With Prejudice the Apple Motorola Patents Case

$1:
As everyone who didn’t work directly for Apple or Motorola was hoping he would, Judge Posner has thrown out the Apple v. Motorola patents case, dismissing it with prejudice. We were reasonably certain that he would as his preliminary remarks had said he would, but the ruling just came out over this weekend.


R=UP

Patent trolls lose again. :)

$1:
It is not that an invention is some form of natural property which the owner has a right to exploit. Rather, it is that an invention is a public good. In the technical sense this means that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Once something has been invented we cannot stop someone else making that same thing and their making that same thing does not deprive the original inventor of his copy.

   



DrCaleb @ Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:51 am

$1:
It is not that an invention is some form of natural property which the owner has a right to exploit. Rather, it is that an invention is a public good. In the technical sense this means that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Once something has been invented we cannot stop someone else making that same thing and their making that same thing does not deprive the original inventor of his copy.


That always bugged me about patents, when they started allowing processes and ideas to be pateneted. That's the whole point of innovation. Sure, you have the right to profit from your work, so patents on things (and for a limited time) make sense, but your idea is based off of someone elses' idea, and you are not paying them for using it. Why not let someone else use your idea and make it better, so they can profit?

   



Curtman @ Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:36 pm

DrCaleb DrCaleb:
$1:
It is not that an invention is some form of natural property which the owner has a right to exploit. Rather, it is that an invention is a public good. In the technical sense this means that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Once something has been invented we cannot stop someone else making that same thing and their making that same thing does not deprive the original inventor of his copy.


That always bugged me about patents, when they started allowing processes and ideas to be pateneted. That's the whole point of innovation. Sure, you have the right to profit from your work, so patents on things (and for a limited time) make sense, but your idea is based off of someone elses' idea, and you are not paying them for using it. Why not let someone else use your idea and make it better, so they can profit?


It makes sense for physical objects that need to be produced in factories. There's a lot of investment required. Software isn't like that at all. In many many cases it requires no money at all to produce, and through cooperation over the Internet it almost creates itself. Patents on software innovations are the same as patents on mathematics. Imagine if pythagorean theorem had been granted a patent.

   



BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:55 pm

Curtman Curtman:
Patents on software innovations are the same as patents on mathematics. Imagine if pythagorean theorem had been granted a patent.


Yet mathematical encryption systems are almost always granted patents and they can take years and sometimes even billions of dollars to produce.

Software developers have a right to trademark and patent their works just the same as authors and musicians and movie makers do.

Where Apple goes off the reservation is in trying to enforce a patent as a right to a monopoly when a patent is no such thing. A patent prevents anyone from copying an Apple product but Apple wants to prevent anyone from making an alternative to Apple products and in this they are both dead wrong and they are also the monopolistic corporation that too many retards have accused Microsoft of being.

   



Curtman @ Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:04 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Curtman Curtman:
Patents on software innovations are the same as patents on mathematics. Imagine if pythagorean theorem had been granted a patent.


Yet mathematical encryption systems are almost always granted patents and they can take years and sometimes even billions of dollars to produce.

Software developers have a right to trademark and patent their works just the same as authors and musicians and movie makers do.

Where Apple goes off the reservation is in trying to enforce a patent as a right to a monopoly when a patent is no such thing. A patent prevents anyone from copying an Apple product but Apple wants to prevent anyone from making an alternative to Apple products and in this they are both dead wrong and they are also the monopolistic corporation that too many retards have accused Microsoft of being.


Every stupid thing you can possibly imagine is granted a patent in the software world. Being granted a patent doesn't mean it will hold up in court as these two recent cases show. It probably wont, but it will cost you a fortune to try. In the process some huge conglomerate will end up owning your patent, because no individual can afford the litigation.

It's impossible write a piece of software anymore without infringing on several patents. The existing patents are a tool for corporations to extort money from the little guy. The patent system is broken, and it became that way when they decided to start granting software patents.

   



REPLY