The general news outlets mention one or two bullets and then get into the blather about the "epic world wide battle between the two tech giants".  They mention one or two example points in the dispute of which I'm scratching my head as to how they were patentable to begin with.

I'd like to read up on the list of infringement items being claimed by the two parties without all the legal blather.  If a good source could be shared that would be awesome.

-Josh

From Techdirt: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement. While this will be corrected and won't change the results much, it certainly suggests that the jury rushed through this and may not have taken this particularly seriously. When you start talking about the numbers being thrown around in damages here, at some point, it must start to feel like play money. But it's a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this. It raises significant questions about how careful they were in getting to a verdict vs. how quickly they wanted to be done in time for the weekend.

Is that an unfair comment to make? Not suggesting that the Jury wasn't impartial just saying that the appearance of impartiality might have been served better by holding the hearing (or whatever it was) somewhere other than Apples' home turf.

Good news for any players not involved in the debacle I guess.

(And Apple should tell their lawyers not to look so smarmy).

3 hours ago, Ian2 wrote

(And Apple should tell their lawyers not to look so smarmy). 

Find me anybody who just found out that they made a billion dollars for their company who doesn't have a big smile on their face.

9 hours ago, cheong wrote

From Techdirt: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement. 

I actually didn't believe that when I read it just now. Surely this allows Samsung to request a retrial on the grounds that the entire court, not just the Apple lawyer, was clearly high on crack?

9 hours ago, cheong wrote

I don't, but just heard that the judge pointing out the jury awarded that sum of damage without even finding a single infringement cause me to think something problematic is happening.

Did they actually find no infringement? Or was it that they awarded damages for claims A, B and C, even though they only found infringement for A and B?

(And I'm confused - I thought the juries didn't handle sentencing? (In fact, I thought one only had jury trials in criminal cases?))

Shhhh, Square with round edges already gone, but nobody said anything about circles with square edges ....

2 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

(And I'm confused - I thought the juries didn't handle sentencing? (In fact, I thought one only had jury trials in criminal cases?))

Juries don't handle sentencing. Juries decide whether the charges are valid. The judge decides what the penalty should be.

In this case, the jury decided that the charge was valid, and hence that damages should be paid. The judge decides what the level of damages are.

12 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

In this case, the jury decided that the charge was valid, and hence that damages should be paid. The judge decides what the level of damages are.

Not in the US. The jury can decide. Hence whopping huge damages for a too hot cup of coffee.

1 day ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

Goddamit. This $hit has got to stop. This is just like the Eolas and i4i suits that Microsoft lost but worse since many of these patents Apple have there is plenty of prior art or they are even more obvious. Apple really invented pinch to zoom? 

Yeah, it's a little bit more complicated than that. Samsung's case collapsed once emails and documents came to light that demonstrated they'd wilfully copied trademarked design elements and stolen IP from Apple. As it turns out, there was even more damning evidence, but Samsung destroyed it  Still, what was submitted proved damaging enough: documents that dissected the Apple UI, analysed why their own functionality was inferior, and then showed how to use these elements in an Android skin that emulated the iPhone. There was an email from Google warning them against skinning an Android UI that copied the iPhone. Samsung ignored it. Apple offered them the opportunity to license the IP. Samsung showed them the middle digit. 

And so the two companies went to court, where Samsung demonstrated the kind of hubris that comes from being above the law in your own country.

In order to score a quick win, Samsung brought a countersuit, claiming that Apple owed them millions for 3G FRAND licenses. The company generously offered to take a small sum for the licenses if Apple agreed to drop the suit and allowed them free access to the contested IP. Apple refused, stating that the licenses had been paid for when they bought the 3G chips from Intel; Samsung was effectively trying to double-dip. Samsung didn't have a leg to stand on, and when the surviving emails and documents were submitted as evidence, Samsung's case pretty much imploded straight away. Their legal team decided it was time to start throwing $hit at the walls to see what would stick.

First they claimed that they had come up with the idea first: a phone similar to the iPhone was already in development before the iPhone was released. Here it is:

Similar? Not so sure, myself.

Anyway, it was too late to submit that little conjuring trick as evidence, so the judge refused. Samsung released it to the press anyway, claiming that the public had a right to see it. They then followed up with criticisms of the legal process, the judge, the method of jury selection, the presentation of evidence...

Now, many Apple fans accused the judge of bias because she didn't charge Samsung with contempt. I think what they failed to realise was that Samsung already knew they'd lost the case, and were, most probably, trying to force a mistrial. Judge Koh was determined not to give them any excuse for doing so.

And of course, Apple wasn't much better, a late submission near the end of the trial prompted Koh to ask if the Apple legal team was smoking crack!

Samsung tried the prior art route, submitting an example of a tablet similar to the iPad that had been conceived years before:

Yes, there were tablets in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. They weren't touch screens though.

And they didn't really exist.

Still, since this case was about design elements as well as IP, then I think they should have been considered. However, the jury didn't agree with Apple that the Samsung tablet was too similar to the iPad, so it made little difference.

Samsung enlisted the help of Google, who proposed a change to the way patents are seen: if IP demonstrated that it was so obviously the right way to do something, then that intellectual property should be made available freely to everyone. Apple had clearly demonstrated the right way to build a phone, so everyone should be allowed to build a phone in the same way, even if it infringed on Apple's patents. 

The problem with that argument is that if it was so 'obviously' the right way to build a phone, then why had no one done it before?

Meanwhile, the Samsung case continued to unravel: Apple's witnesses were well-rehearsed, succinct, and ran rings around the Samsung legal team. Samsung made a subtle strategic shift: yes, we did it, but we should be allowed to do it! Apple is trying to keep vital technology locked up behind their polished glass walls! They're attempting to stifle competition!

Apple said this was not the case. They were happy to license their IP as long as their licensees didn't use it to build copies of Apple's products.

"Hah! Prove it!" screamed Samsung.

"Okay," said Apple, and produced a jaw-dropper: a license agreement between themselves and Microsoft that allows MS to use Apple's intellectual property in the Surface tablet.

I'm not sure what this IP is, but it is interesting to note that Apple holds the patent on the keyboard/case that Microsoft is selling alongside the Surface. Anyway, it proved that Apple wasn't adverse to giving the competition a leg-up as long as they did not use the IP to copy Apple's products.

So now, pretty much beaten, Samsung employed the strategy they should have used from day one: damage limitation.

Yeah, we did it, but $2.75 billion is a bit excessive don'tcha think?

And here, the jury agreed. Apple accounts for about 70% of the profits in the mobile space. That, and the fact that they couldn't meet existing demand at the time, led the jury to decide that $1billion-ish should be enough. 

Let's face it, even $2.75 billion is a drop in the profit ocean for both companies. The damage to Samsung's reputation, and the possibility that other companies will come after them for IP theft, could prove far more expensive. And in the longer term, Samsung will lose their biggest customer: Apple. Cupertino is already looking at alternative suppliers for screens, memory and processors.

Apple has sent a clear message to the rest of the industry: We have a long memory and bottomless pit of cash. Steal from us and we will crucify you. Even if they'd lost the case, they'd already achieved their main objective: Samsung has moved away from Apple designs and started using their own skins and design elements. As one pundit put it, the S3 is the first phone designed by lawyers.

And the real irony is that many think it looks better than the iPhone ... 

19 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Hate the game, don't hate the player.

Well, yes.

According to this article, these court tussles are really just a form of marriage counselling.

Cult of Mac. Why Apple sues

6 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

Well, yes.

According to this article, these court tussles are really just a form of marriage counselling.

Cult of Mac. Why Apple sues

I don't agree with that article, it tries to talk right what is clearly bent. Lawsuits are just another form of competition.

The hard way is designing, marketing and producing a highly valued product or a service. The easy way is to use the extent of the law to prohibit competition. Legal fees of hundreds of millions are still peanuts compared to the billions of dollars that go into designing a better product.

Apple clearly nailed the hard part on the head with the iPhone and the iPad. To prolong it's succes, they're preventing others from doing the same thing. It's killing other peoples billion dollar investments, with just a couple of millions.

Do I hate Apple for it? No. The framework is there, it would be folly to condem anybody for trying to maximize the lifecycle of their product.

Is it the best outcome for the consumer? No. Consumers are getting the short end of the stick. They get a company wich has basically a monopoly on every aspect of what makes a good device. Driving up the costs up and maximizing profits, their bank account is proof you are paying too much.

So, who do I blame? I blame the entity who hands out the power to protect aspects of a succesfull product. If you want to drive innovation, shorten the lifespan of products, let other people copy it! Then you will see the shift from legal competition to competition in the marketplace.

Many will claim patents drive innovation, that it protects the small businesses from the big players. While the spirit is clearly nobel, the effects are devastating.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G#114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

Apple did such a good job of showing how Samsung's devices were identical to their own that that's the only message laymen have heard. Now they question why the Apple devices cost so much.

This prolonged legal battle was a mistake by both sides. They should have settled before so much behind the scenes information was revealed and before the court of public opinion could crucify either or both regardless of the legal outcome.

Patent laws are a lynchpin of Capitalism, why throw them out? You only enable the wealthy to pirate the inventor's product, which is plain theft. This is ok with you. Wow. You are no inventor.

EDIT: Now that Apple is the biggest corporation, isn't it time for them to be the oppressor and no longer the 'cool' underdog?

12 seconds ago, wkempf wrote

@JohnAskew: Under the existing system, do you really think the wealthy are blocked from crushing the little guy? Reality is that patents are used to keep the little guy from being able to get into the game in the first place.

The patent system wasn't designed that way, but it ended up that way simply because of the explosion of patents being award for the most ridiculous things (e.g. rectangular devices with rounded corners) warrants hiring of patent attorneys to do research. You can file a patent application as a small entity for $190. The fact that there's even a tiered schedule based on your entity size is proof that the system was intended to favor small business.

Small companies and individuals only think of filing for patents on inventions that they truly believe are novel, but they have to sift through hundreds of thousands of bullshit filed by huge corporations like Apple, IBM, and, yes, Microsoft to find out if their invention has already been patented and that costs money.

There is a reality here that takes over when you have a patent and want to take on a GE or Microsoft etc.   These big corporations will flood you with legal paper and counterclaims.  Their whole purpose is to drain you financially so you have no money left after paying legal fees.   It takes so long to sue someone that time is not on your side either.     The only hope for the little guy is to be ignored or get bought out.    The patent system does NOT work for the guy with an idea anymore. 

34 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

The patent system wasn't designed that way, but it ended up that way simply because of the explosion of patents being award for the most ridiculous things (e.g. rectangular devices with rounded corners) warrants hiring of patent attorneys to do research. You can file a patent application as a small entity for $190. The fact that there's even a tiered schedule based on your entity size is proof that the system was intended to favor small business.

Small companies and individuals only think of filing for patents on inventions that they truly believe are novel, but they have to sift through hundreds of thousands of bullshit filed by huge corporations like Apple, IBM, and, yes, Microsoft to find out if their invention has already been patented and that costs money.

+1

@TexasToast: I agree that monied interests will sabotage and steal any profitability whereever it can prevail. I believe that our Government is supposed to level the playing field, and, in the span of my life, has gone the opposite direction. Ours is the Corporate nation that President Eisenhower warned us against. Sad. Wall Street owns the USA.

13 hours ago, wkempf wrote

@Ray7: Can't disagree with too much of what you said, but I think you're missing something in your evaluation. Apple may not have won where it matters:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G#114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

Apple did such a good job of showing how Samsung's devices were identical to their own that that's the only message laymen have heard. Now they question why the Apple devices cost so much.

This prolonged legal battle was a mistake by both sides. They should have settled before so much behind the scenes information was revealed and before the court of public opinion could crucify either or both regardless of the legal outcome.

Mmm. Dunno. I think it's a stretch to point to one anecdote on Google+ and claim that Apple may not of won where it matters. It kind of depends on what matters to Apple: that no one copies their look and feel or uses their IP without paying for it. As long as the cheaper option doesn't look like their stuff, they're not really that fussed. Remember that they sell far few devices and make far more money than anyone else. This has little to do with the higher price, and a lot to do with the lock on the supply chain they've had for the past four years.

I think it's too early to tell what damage has been done to either side. You have to bear in mind that surprisingly few people know this is happening. So far the outcome has increased Apple's share price up to $675 and wiped about $12billion off the value of Samsung. How it further affects both companies remains to be seen. Since the theft was wilful, Koh has the option of raising the award to $3billion. No one expects her to do that. 

Next up: Apple will apply for a sales injunction; Samsung will lodge an appeal.

This prolonged legal battle was a mistake by both sides. They should have settled before so much behind the scenes information was revealed and before the court of public opinion could crucify either or both regardless of the legal outcome.

Well, yes, I'm sure they both tried, or so they both claim. I don't think public opinion will hurt either company; this is really just geek news.

I agree though: neither company has exactly covered themselves in glory.

13 hours ago, cbae wrote

@Ray7: Wow! I didn't read your whole post, but the few sentences I did read were worthy of  "Post of the Year" honors on TUAW.

Cheers!

13 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

@Maddus Mattus: You are suggesting taking the monetary incentive out of innovation and invention.

Patent laws are a lynchpin of Capitalism, why throw them out? You only enable the wealthy to pirate the inventor's product, which is plain theft. This is ok with you. Wow. You are no inventor.

EDIT: Now that Apple is the biggest corporation, isn't it time for them to be the oppressor and no longer the 'cool' underdog?

Whether the patent system changes or not will make no difference to Apple. Successful tech companies go through a similar lifecycle: exciting startup, dull corporation, cash-cow semi-retirement.

The only difference here is that Apple has been through it twice. Still, even if Jobs had lived, they would not be at top forever. Someone else (and we most probably haven't seen them yet) will come along and take the crown from them. It's inevitable.

12 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@TexasToast: On the other hand, for the "guy with an idea", there is no way on Earth to raise the capital often needed other than to go to a VC and ask for some. And doing that without patent protection of your idea is not only foolish, but unlikely to turn out successfully.

Yeah, but we still get a lot of these little guys sitting on a patent with no intention of developing it. They wait for a large corporation to develop the idea then turn up on their doorstep, waving the court order in their face. I really think you should at least have a working prototype before you submit. It doesn't have to be a finished, saleable product; just a working model that proves the principle.

The problem is that the folk who grant these patents don't appear to be reading them. Some of Apple's patents needed to have been bounced back with a note saying, "Be more specific" or "Show me this thing actually working."

Case in point.

If someone comes up with this then why should Apple get a penny for just 'thinking' of the idea?

49 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Next up: Apple will apply for a sales injunction; Samsung will lodge an appeal.

*snip*

Sure Samsung will appeal. They have strong prove of jury misconduct there.

The jury foreman is a patent holder who seek to punish the infringer, while the instruction given to jurors explicitly written they should not do that.

Also, the jury foreman succesfully persuaded them to rush it so they skipped the discussion on prior art altogether.

20 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Apple clearly nailed the hard part on the head with the iPhone and the iPad. To prolong it's succes, they're preventing others from doing the same thing. It's killing other peoples billion dollar investments, with just a couple of millions.

Well, they didn't stop Microsoft making the Surface. They just licensed the IP and asked them not to make a copy of the iPad. As a result, MS came up with a tablet that many people here think is better than the iPad. Likewise, they sought a licensing deal with Samsung, but they couldn't agree terms.

6 minutes ago, cheong wrote

*snip*

Sure Samsung will appeal. They have strong prove of jury misconduct there.

The jury foreman is a patent holder who seek to punish the infringer, while the instruction given to jurors explicitly written they should not do that.

Also, the jury foreman succesfully persuaded them to rush it so they skipped the discussion on prior art altogether.

Both Apple and Samsung knew he was a patent holder and were happy with that. Remember that Samsung was also suing Apple in the same case, so having a patent holder could have gone either way for both of them.

The prior art was not rushed; it was skipped because the jury had already decided to back Samsung on the devices it was being applied to. There was no need to discuss it because Samsung had already (quite rightly) won on that count.

The foreman said that he sought to punish the infringer, but here's the thing: 

Apple asked for $2.75billion, but the jury found that Samsung's theft was wilful (as more than proved by the emails). In these circumstances, the jury could have tripled their award to $3billion – a shade above Apple's ask. They wisely chose not to, possibly to kill the chances of an appeal on those grounds.

Seeking to punish the infringer and actually doing it are two different things.

It is unlikely that Samsung will be able to overturn the conviction (in the latter part of the case they were not even saying they were innocent; they just argued that Apple's demands for compensation were unreasonable, so in that sense they scored a big win).

But we shall see how the appeal plays out.

1 minute ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Both Apple and Samsung knew he was a patent holder and were happy with that. Remember that Samsung was also suing Apple in the same case, so having a patent holder could have gone either way for both of them.

The foolish part that on Reuter's interview at 25th Aug, he admitted that himself. So whether he really did that with this idea in mind, Samsung would use this written prove as evidence.

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

Intention doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.

What matters is the outcome and only the outcome.

You can talk all day about how things should have been, but the fact is, that some benefit at the expense of others. And that's wrong.

@JohnAskew:

Yeah, I'm saying exactly that.

Be gone protectionism! I loath the!

38 minutes ago, cheong wrote

*snip*

The foolish part that on Reuter's interview at 25th Aug, he admitted that himself. So whether he really did that with this idea in mind, Samsung would use this written prove as evidence.

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

 

Mmm. Not sure if that is enough. At most, they can get the award reduced.  The foreman says he wanted to be painful, but not unreasonable. The amount could have been $3billion and still been reasonable as the theft was wilful, and Koh is within her rights to raise it to that level on appeal. 

And of course, the money isn't the issue: that amount is loose change to either company. What matters here is Apple sending warning other companies that they will not tolerate the theft of their design trademarks. I think they've got that message across.

It's worth bearing in mind that of the 28 Samsung devices found to be using Apple IP, Apple is only seeking an injunction on eight of them. And of those eight, only two are considered current. This really isn't about the money.

41 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ray7: Isn't it weird that I as a consumer have to pay Apple when I buy a Microsoft product?

Yes, and it's just as weird that, as a consumer, I have to pay Microsoft when I buy a Linux product.

Neither company is setting a precedent here.

It's a system that prevents competition and therefore innovation.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ray7: My point exactly!

It's a system that prevents competition and therefore innovation.

Except that Samsung weren't innovating; they were taking design elements wholesale and using them to build their own iPhone clones. 

If the consumer wants those features, why allow only one company to serve that demand?

And how can you 'take' design elements? You can either a) copy them b) improve on them.

If Ford was the only company in the world to allow products to be manufactured with a production line, we would have gotten nowhere as a society.

And it's not like the Galaxy-SII has a 50%+ market share, now is it?

The iPhone does! And it's being allowed this monopoly position with the help of patents.

Innovation to ones products, does not always mean, we have got to discover a totally new way of doing things. Sometimes an idea just works and it's pure protectionism to deny others to implement these ideas.

5 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ray7: Isn't it weird that I as a consumer have to pay Apple when I buy a Microsoft product?

Not really, no. When you buy a car from Ford, some of the money goes to Dunlop/Pirelli or whomever makes the tyres. When you buy a iPhone, some of the money goes to Samsung for the chips and display etc. Why should it be any different when it's a 'software' or 'design' component rather than a physical one? How do you plan to pay the people who do that work if you take away their IP protection?

The term "patent troll" was used as early as 1993 to describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits. The Patent Troll was originally depicted in "The Patents Video" which was released in 1994 and sold to corporations, universities and governmental entities. In "The Patents Video", an unsuspecting victim is surprised by the Patent Troll who strategically positions himself to collect patent licensing revenue.

...

Patent troll "companies have no interest in using the patents... but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves." This gives them an advantage over manufacturers since they are relatively immune to the typical defensive tactic large entities use against small patent plaintiffs, because the cost of litigation tends to fall more heavily on an accused infringer than on a plaintiff with a contingency-fee lawyer, and because trolls have an almost-unrestricted ability to choose their preferred plaintiff-friendly forums, most prominently the Eastern District of Texas

Apple is no patent troll.

But, in the context of this thread, dropping in uninvited as I have, perhaps I am...

This is where patent law can defeat innovation, I apologize for being less correct earlier and now clearly enjoy invincible credibility.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

Not really, no. When you buy a car from Ford, some of the money goes to Dunlop/Pirelli or whomever makes the tyres. When you buy a iPhone, some of the money goes to Samsung for the chips and display etc. Why should it be any different when it's a 'software' or 'design' component rather than a physical one? How do you plan to pay the people who do that work if you take away their IP protection?

Buying a physical tire compared to buying the idea of a tire, is something completely different.

By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

@JohnAskew:

How do you figure that it is working? 

21 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Buying a physical tire compared to buying the idea of a tire, is something completely different.

By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

Patents expire. I don't know of any that span over 2000 years, anyway.

@JohnAskew:

How do you figure that it is working? 

Who doesn't love a troll?

22 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Buying a physical tire compared to buying the idea of a tire, is something completely different.

By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

So you're saying because you can't physically touch something then it can't be stolen?

Seems to mirror the views of folk who think you can't steal software or music because you can't touch it.

And not sure about your Roman argument. Is there any documentation available that proves Romans patented roads? You'll probably find they're open source.

22 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

By that notion we should be paying the descendants of the Romans for the idea of a road.

If the guy who invented the road were still alive, I think it'd only be right that everyone give him a few pennies to recognise his contribution to making the world a more industrious and better place.

And the guy who invented the tire - why shouldn't he get a few pennies for every tire sold? Without his contribution to the automobile industry, I would be very much more sore when I got to work each morning.

I think as a society we're doing ourselves a disservice if we force great inventors to have a second job to pay the bills, rather than letting them get on with the job that they're good at and that improves all of our lives - i.e. spending their time inventing stuff.

37 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: And I would argue that we would have a whole lot more inventions and paid inventors if the business of inventing wasnt such a snakepit full of lawers.

I agree - the process of applying for patents should be as simple, cheap and straightforward as possible for small and independent inventors. 

But the solution to this isn't to abolish the concept of patents, or the ability for inventors to protect their inventions through copyright and patent law. If you do that, JK Rowling would be poor and her publisher would be rich and all small innovative companies would go out of business to big companies that are good at copying and producing goods cheaply rather than inventing new products.

The west is powered by innovation (in contrast to many of the emerging countries that are powered by manual labour). If we want to remain competitive, we really need more innovation not less, and that means reforming patent law to work - not abolishing it and letting all of our ideas pass for free to big manufacturing firms in emerging economies.

If you abolish patents tomorrow, everyone in Silicon Valley and Redmond will be unemployed by Christmas.

As for high tech patents and trendy patents. no comment. It is too complicated for me. It is a both love and hate relationship.

Either way, why couldn't they just settle this off the court like how MS getting some lisence fee from various Android devices? Why it turns to such nasty fight?

5 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I agree - the process of applying for patents should be as simple, cheap and straightforward as possible for small and independent inventors. 

Sure, it's never the fault of the system, it's the fault of people in the system, they are doing it wrong.

If you look at what the patent system has brought us, is a whole bunch of protectionism and an army of lawyers.

Huurah for progress!

But the solution to this isn't to abolish the concept of patents, or the ability for inventors to protect their inventions through copyright and patent law. If you do that, JK Rowling would be poor and her publisher would be rich and all small innovative companies would go out of business to big companies that are good at copying and producing goods cheaply rather than inventing new products.

And how would I go about checking the fact the JK Rowling wouldnt have made a fortune? You can't prove that statement, so it's not valid.

I can however point you to the Star Wars books. You are free to write those and publish. The result is a whole host of fan and professional books that all take place in the Star Wars universe. The spinoff is it's keeping the idea alive and Lucas can still make money off his original work.

So you have your hypothetical situations, mine is based on fact.

The west is powered by innovation (in contrast to many of the emerging countries that are powered by manual labour). If we want to remain competitive, we really need more innovation not less, and that means reforming patent law to work - not abolishing it and letting all of our ideas pass for free to big manufacturing firms in emerging economies.

Patents prohibit innovation. You are not allowed by law to improve upon the ideas of others.

If we want to stay ahead of developing countries, we need to get rid of patent law.

China and India are rapidly becoming more innovate, because they have no lawyers holding them back. If we want to stay ahead, we should even up the odds, not stack them further against us.

If you abolish patents tomorrow, everyone in Silicon Valley and Redmond will be unemployed by Christmas.

Your arguments always focus on the negative and are not based on facts but on emotions. This is just doom mongering.

We've had innovation before patents, had our biggest innovation and growth then, therefore we will have innovation after patents.

37 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Sure, it's never the fault of the system, it's the fault of people in the system, they are doing it wrong.

If you look at what the patent system has brought us, is a whole bunch of protectionism and an army of lawyers.

Huurah for progress!

*snip*

Here is a clear case where the end result is the only thing that matters to you rather than the intent or the original ideals of the system, so you want to trash the entire system.

Yet, you cling so tightly to the ideal that the capitalist system fosters competition when in reality it creates oligarchies, which by and large are WORSE than monopolies (i.e. effectively monopolies with the regulatory cover of not being an actual monopoly).

I am wrong on patent law because I am wrong on capitalism, because it creates oligarchies which are worse then monopolies?

Sound reasoning!

37 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae:

I am wrong on patent law because I am wrong on capitalism, because it creates oligarchies which are worse then monopolies?

Sound reasoning!

No, you're wrong because you're wrong. My point is that your arguments are never consistent, and you contradict yourself often.

12 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

I can however point you to the Star Wars books. You are free to write those and publish. The result is a whole host of fan and professional books that all take place in the Star Wars universe. The spinoff is it's keeping the idea alive and Lucas can still make money off his original work.

Hate to break it to you, but you can't publish a Star Wars book without prior approval of Lucas Licensing.

*snip*

Patents prohibit innovation. You are not allowed by law to improve upon the ideas of others.

Nonsense. You are free to improve upon the ideas of others as much as you like, there is simply a mechanism in place to ensure that the guy with the original idea gets his fair share. Likewise when somebody else improves on your ideas, you get your fair share too.

If you remove patents, a great many things won't get invented because it's impossible to recoup the development costs of refining that idea. Someone else will simply take what you've done and shamelessly copy it and the undercut you because they never had any of the costs you, as the original developer of the idea, had.

1 day ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

If you remove patents, a great many things won't get invented because it's impossible to recoup the development costs of refining that idea. Someone else will simply take what you've done and shamelessly copy it and the undercut you because they never had any of the costs you, as the original developer of the idea, had.

Emmm... A common question with common answer. "So we human have not invented anything before the introduction of patents?"

IMO, in technology market, maintaining a "leading technology" advantage is the way to win the market. Barring others to copy is not. Just let them wait and figure out how to make something, and you're already shipping out the next version.

I think how the "CPU war" works demonestrates how patents in technology market should work. You're never completely barred from copying, you're just barred from copying before the technology in the market is running out of value. In such way, the inventor does not lose his advantage, and the competitors can evolve from the (somewhat old) technology without issues, and sometimes invent things on top of it that beats out the original inventor.

The current patent system keeps the marketing advantage for too long, and therefore in turn inhibits invention.

@cheong: +1

My sentiments exactly, with a small note that I don't think patents are needed at all.

If a company doesn't innovate, it won't last long. With patents protecting him, he doesn't have to innovate, he can just hang back and watch the cash come in.

@AndyC: ah, my bad, thought you were allowed.

And his fair share is about one billion dollars, because he invented a single button in the centre and rounded corners.

Fact is, we've had major innovation before patents and I think we are stagnating today because of the patent battles. Court battles al over the planet, costing the tax payers and consumers billions of dollars. Resources that could have been put to better use.

Just make sure patent system would not turn into "golden goose" that will make intelligent people lazy.

It's a bulky system wich only benefits the holder of the patent at the expense of the consumer.

7 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: another sound set of reasoning. Come back when you have something to bring to the table other then; I am god, you're wrong, kkthxbye!

There you go folding like a tent whenever you get caught in a contradiction. Here's an idea. Show us how you're not contradicting yourself and maybe you'll stop being called out on it.

5 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cheong: From 20 years to 1 or 2, why not abolish it all together?

It's a bulky system wich only benefits the holder of the patent at the expense of the consumer.

Deregulation only benefits the corporation at the expense of the consumer. Why aren't you on a crusade to have government regulate more?

10 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Fact is, we've had major innovation before patents and I think we are stagnating today because of the patent battles. Court battles al over the planet, costing the tax payers and consumers billions of dollars. Resources that could have been put to better use.

But "major" innovations are few and far between, there are lots of genuinely useful innovations that are relatively small but very expensive to refine into a workable solution. There simply has to be some way of compensating those who invest money into that process, otherwise they won't do it.

And it's wrong to assume that patent court cases cost the tax payer or even the consumer any money whatsoever. All they're doing is shuffling the funding between the companies behind the development.

10 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cheong: From 20 years to 1 or 2, why not abolish it all together?

It's a bulky system wich only benefits the holder of the patent at the expense of the consumer.

Yes, the problem with your argument is that it's pretty one-sided. Without a patent system then how is the small, one-man garage inventor protected from having his idea stolen by a massive corporation?

17 hours ago, cheong wrote

@AndyC:

*snip*

IMO, in technology market, maintaining a "leading technology" advantage is the way to win the market. Barring others to copy is not. Just let them wait and figure out how to make something, and you're already shipping out the next version.

Which ignores the fact that it takes years to take an idea from concept to product. Personally, I think it's wrong that a company can spend years and millions making something, only to have someone rip it off after only a few months on the market.

30 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Which ignores the fact that it takes years to take an idea from concept to product. Personally, I think it's wrong that a company can spend years and millions making something, only to have someone rip it off after only a few months on the market.

Sure, but how ridiculous a patent is comes into play in what we think "should" happen. But that's for another thread.

I'm sure those rounded corners took millions to design.

24 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Sure, but how ridiculous a patent is comes into play in what we think "should" happen. But that's for another thread.

I'm sure those rounded corners took millions to design.

Indeed. It would be deeply foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

The patent system undoubtedly needs revision, it needs to become counter-productive to file the ridiculous patents and more needs to be done to prevent vague over-reaching patents that are more about trying to block a market than protect a real innovation. All that aside, the fundamental principles behind patents and the protection they are intended to provide is something that we need if we value people taking the time to invest in bringing ideas to fruition.

19 hours ago, cheong wrote

@AndyC:

*snip*

Emmm... A common question with common answer. "So we human have not invented anything before the introduction of patents?"

Before we had patents, we had Guilds (which emerged from Universities in the 1200s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

As Ogilvie (2004) argues, the guilds negatively affected quality, skills, and innovation. Through what economists now call "rent-seeking" they imposed deadweight losses on the economy. Ogilvie says they generated no demonstrable positive externalities and notes that industry began to flourish only after the guilds faded away. Guilds persisted over the centuries because they redistributed resources to politically powerful merchants. On the other hand, Ogilvie agrees, guilds created "social capital" of shared norms, common information, mutual sanctions, and collective political action. This social capital benefited guild members, even as they hurt outsiders.^[14]

The guild system became a target of much criticism towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. They were believed to oppose free trade and hinder technological innovation, technology transfer and business development. According to several accounts of this time, guilds became increasingly involved in simple territorial struggles against each other and against free practitioners of their arts.

...

Because of industrialization and modernization of the trade and industry, and the rise of powerful nation-states that could directly issue patent and copyright protections — often revealing the trade secrets — the guilds' power faded. After the French Revolution they fell in most European nations through the 19th century, as the guild system was disbanded and replaced by free trade laws. By that time, many former handicraft workers had been forced to seek employment in the emerging manufacturing industries, using not closely guarded techniques but standardized methods controlled by corporations.

With patents, you encourage innovators to tell society what their ideas are, and let other people use them. Without patents, the only way to keep innovations profitable is to tell as few people as possible and sell the results of the innovation, rather than revealing the innovations themselves.

I think most people on this thread would believe that humans have been more innovative (both absolutely and per-capita) since the fall of the guild system.

Also, I don't think anyone working in the technology industry should be allowed to claim that anything is getting in the way of innovation. The way we do business, communicate, travel, shop, relax and socialize has changed more in the last twenty years than ever before ever. Let's not try and pretend we're in an era where innovation is stifled.

From time to time, some people choose to publish their secret formula out. The country's way to award them is to recognize them as "master" of that discipline. They'll have special say on policies affecting their specialized area. People who wants to work in that discipline will strive to be his apprentice so that they can get initial fame when they "have learn enough to start their independent business", which in turn bring more fame to them (and steady supply of high quality workforce). Their product will carry his name and known to be "better quality brand named product".

I think the traditional Chinese's rule is fairer and more productive. How do you think?

2 hours ago, cheong wrote

I think the traditional Chinese's rule is fairer and more productive. How do you think?

It's similar in principle to the "Guilds" that we used to have here in England back in the Middle Ages that evildictaitor mentioned and is subject to similar problems. Slowly but surely it leads to a situation in which all the power to innovate in any given area ends up in the hands of the few, rather than the many. And ultimately that has the effect of holding back development overall.

Also, the "master" status is recognised by all the people, not be any organization or government authorities. If the formula released is not recognised by everyone (at least in that discipline) as awesome, it has no value at all.

We're just rewarding those who're willing to share the secret in a way that won't hinder others who wish to make more progress out of it.

13 hours ago, AndyC wrote

And it's wrong to assume that patent court cases cost the tax payer or even the consumer any money whatsoever. All they're doing is shuffling the funding between the companies behind the development.

All the costs of the company, divided by the amount of products they churn out, makes the price of a product (add a bit profit and a bit tax for consumer price).

So, if costs of protecting ones business increases, product price increases.

Therefore, these court battles are at the expense of the consumer and of the tax payer. The consumer pays the legal fees and fines if convicted and the tax payer provides the courts and the patent office.

In conclusion, it's a bulky system only set out to protect the manufacturer at the expense of the consumer and the tax payer.

9 hours ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Sure, but how ridiculous a patent is comes into play in what we think "should" happen. But that's for another thread.

That is a problem for the patents being accepted, not a problem with the whole system of patents. Democracy has it's problems, but I don't think we should throw the whole concept out the window. 

I'm sure those rounded corners took millions to design.

Ah, but the problem isn't the rounded corners. That's just something Samsung has told you to get you on their side.

Apple's argument concerns the whole look and feel (hardware and UI), which is a trademarked design. The reason they didn't win the iPad argument is because they didn't register the design trademark (oops!).

4 hours ago, cheong wrote

I think the traditional Chinese's rule is fairer and more productive. How do you think?

I think both systems have merit. The only thing I would say that in terms of consumer technology, I don't think the Chinese system works particularly well (and consumer electronics is what we're talking about here). 

Now, I think about it, we have a similar system anyway; we hand out knighthoods for example.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee didn't patent his invention, but is widely respected and recognised because of it. He even made an appearance in the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.

10 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Yes, the problem with your argument is that it's pretty one-sided. Without a patent system then how is the small, one-man garage inventor protected from having his idea stolen by a massive corporation?

Why should we protect him? Is it our job to protect his ideas?

I don't think so.

Do note that we extend the same privileges to the man in the garage to the massive corporations you talk about.

So we end up protecting whomever has the largest army of lawyers.

Do we as a society benefit from this system? Do we get better and cheaper products?

I really don't think so.

10 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Which ignores the fact that it takes years to take an idea from concept to product. Personally, I think it's wrong that a company can spend years and millions making something, only to have someone rip it off after only a few months on the market.

Better, cheaper products because of more competition.

Is that wrong?

That's good!

Alternative is lousier, pricier products because of a lack of competition.

Or am I just holding it wrong?

9 hours ago, AndyC wrote

Indeed. It would be deeply foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

The patent system undoubtedly needs revision, it needs to become counter-productive to file the ridiculous patents and more needs to be done to prevent vague over-reaching patents that are more about trying to block a market than protect a real innovation. All that aside, the fundamental principles behind patents and the protection they are intended to provide is something that we need if we value people taking the time to invest in bringing ideas to fruition.

So, you will have courts or civil servants deciding if rounded corners are 'innovate' enough to be patented.

That can only end well.

And you think history will judge patents any different then guilds?

Future Joe will make a Wikipedia amendment to the guild page and put; "and even worse system evolved in the 1800's, entrepreneurs started protecting their interests with the help of government. By the year 2050 there were in excess of 15 billion patents filed. Stagnating innovation, providing poor quality products for premium prices."

In today's age, guilds wont last long with the internet.

Stackoverflow is a prime example for that.

I love the fact that they have largely free trade.

I just hope you don't make the same mistakes we did, relying to much on government.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Why should we protect him? Is it our job to protect his ideas?

Yup. So he's rewarded for his work and will be encouraged to come up with more idea.

Do note that we extend the same privileges to the man in the garage to the massive corporations you talk about.

Yes, we do. That's why the likes of Trevor Baylis can invent stuff in their garage, benefit others and still make money.

So we end up protecting whomever has the largest army of lawyers.

Baylis didn't have an army of lawyers.

Do we as a society benefit from this system? Do we get better and cheaper products

Without them, we wouldn't have products at all. Without incentive to make money, people would just release copy after copy of the same product.

In today's age, guilds wont last long with the internet.

I think cheong showed you that's not true. In china (where they have the Internet), they still have a huge concept of "trade-secrets" that different mega-corporations use instead of patents to protect their ideas. This is exactly what the guilds did.

Why should we protect him? Is it our job to protect his ideas?]

I don't think so.

Do note that we extend the same privileges to the man in the garage to the massive corporations you talk about.

So we end up protecting whomever has the largest army of lawyers.

Do we as a society benefit from this system? Do we get better and cheaper products?

I really don't think so.

Let's look at Google. They started as a couple of guys in a garage with an idea. They lived in a country where having an idea, and implementing it well enabled them to turn their little garage company into one of the world's biggest companies in less than a decade.

Let's look at Microsoft. They started as a couple of young engineers with an idea. They lives in a country where having an idea, and implementing it well enabled them to turn their little garage company into one of the world's biggest companies in less than a decade.

Let's look at Facebook. They started as a couple of young students with an idea. They lives in a country where having an idea, and implementing it well enabled them to turn their little garage company into one of the world's biggest companies in less than a decade.

Is it a coincidence that when comparing China and the US, that the US has much stronger copyright and patent law, but also has vastly superior innovation, leading to some of the worlds' biggest and most innovative companies being set up in the US rather than China? China's pretty good at building stuff, but it's leagues behind Silicon Valley at innovating.

People who innovate need to protect their ideas. If society doesn't give them a way of protecting their ideas through some kind of legal protection (it doesn't need to be patents, but it does need to be something), then they end up not telling their idea to everyone else. And we all suffer as a consequence.

The customer gets to "enjoy" the dubious benefits of shoddy merchandise at rock bottom prices. Real choice is gone, real innovation is gone and quality control is something only to be found in fairy tales.

All three companies benefitted from the protection of their ideas, to become huge nearly monopolist companies, because patents limited the competition.

Those are prime examples how patents stop other companies from competing.

And now they spend all their time in courts.

Huuzah for patents!

Is it a coincidence that when comparing China and the US, that the US has much stronger copyright and patent law, but also has vastly superior innovation, leading to some of the worlds' biggest and most innovative companies being set up in the US rather than China? China's pretty good at building stuff, but it's leagues behind Silicon Valley at innovating.

It has decades of catching up to do. So that comparison is not really fair. I think they are doing fairly well and eventually will pass the USA as innovators.

I think that the protectionist laws of the USA has already driven work to less regulated countries and it will be only a matter of time before innovation leaves as well.

People who innovate need to protect their ideas. If society doesn't give them a way of protecting their ideas through some kind of legal protection (it doesn't need to be patents, but it does need to be something), then they end up not telling their idea to everyone else. And we all suffer as a consequence.

Do you spend time on the internet?

There are loads and loads of people spouting out their ideas on the internet. Sharing, helping, innovating. They do not need any government protection for their ideas. They need protection from government to not make them pay hefty fines for their ideas. 

In the end society will reward them differently, with social status, money will follow automatically.

Here is consultant X, he invented the internet. You have to pay him $350,-/h.

Google, Facebook and Microsoft are prime examples that the lack of competition is driving prices and profits up with the protection of their ideas covered by patents.

4 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@Maddus Mattus: Products don't get better without IP protection, it's simply cost prohibitive to try out genuinely new ideas yourself. Everyone has to resort instead to simply attempting to clone what already exists but cutting on costs in an effort to undercut the competition. Development slows and you end up with a race to the bottom.

The customer gets to "enjoy" the dubious benefits of shoddy merchandise at rock bottom prices. Real choice is gone, real innovation is gone and quality control is something only to be found in fairy tales.

Got any concrete examples?

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

All the costs of the company, divided by the amount of products they churn out, makes the price of a product (add a bit profit and a bit tax for consumer price).

So, if costs of protecting ones business increases, product price increases.

And licensing technologies to other companies adds an additional revenue stream, reducing the level of R&D costs that would otherwise have to be factored into the end price to customers. Meanwhile fines for violating IP controls are really only keeping a level playing field, preventing one company from offloading it's R&D onto the customers of the originating company.

At the end of the day, even the massive multi-million dollar lawsuits between major corporations have very little effect on the net worth of the economy and even less on the end price consumers actually pay for goods and services.

2 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

Yup. So he's rewarded for his work and will be encouraged to come up with more idea.

And how is he motivated to keep coming up with new ideas?

Because he has competition?

Oh wait, the law helps him eliminate pesky competition, so he doesn't need to innovate, just protect.

Without them, we wouldn't have products at all. Without incentive to make money, people would just release copy after copy of the same product.

I wonder how we came up with the wheel then, since there was no patent office to protect the idea.

8 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor:

All three companies benefitted from the protection of their ideas, to become huge nearly monopolist companies, because patents limited the competition.

Wait... we have small startups, that turn into some of the biggest and most innovative international companies, partly thanks to patent protection ... and that's a BAD thing!?

Good luck living in Maddus-mattus-land, where small people with big ideas know their place, rather than making something of themselves.

Google, Facebook and Microsoft are prime examples that the lack of competition is driving prices and profits up with the protection of their ideas covered by patents.

errr, Google and Facebook's main products are free for consumers. And Microsoft gives you software with literally millions of man-hours of effort for less than $100. So claiming that they're giving customers a hard deal is a bit rich.

It has decades of catching up to do. So that comparison is not really fair. I think they are doing fairly well and eventually will pass the USA as innovators.

I think that the protectionist laws of the USA has already driven work to less regulated countries and it will be only a matter of time before innovation leaves as well.

Do you think China has been improving, or reducing it's innovation regulations in recent years? Do you think that perhaps China getting foreign investment might, perhaps have been tied to, say, them protecting patents and copyright more.

Do you perhaps suppose that Microsoft might focus more on China, rather than less, now that China has agreed to actually pay for Microsoft products and protect the innovation that goes into them?

If you think that the USA has driven all it's work away, it's pretty clear you've never visited Redmond or Silicon Valley.

In the end society will reward them differently, with social status, money will follow automatically.

Yes, and a nice flat in Moscow and pride of place during the annual party meeting, comrade. Who needs money? Let the workers unite! Instead of ideas being sold, let them be freely shared amongst the people, to better the People's Republic of Maddus Mattus!

Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds did roughly the same thing (building an OS) at roughly the same time (~1990). One of those men decided that innovation was important and protected his product  with copyright and patent law. That man is now one of the richest people alive, owns the biggest commercial research department in the USA and is now busy trying to solve problems like poverty and diseases across the world. His company invented C#, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, Visual Studio, the XBOX, the Kinect, DirectX and SQL Server. His company sits on the standards committee of HTML, CSS, Javascript, and C++. He employees tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people across the globe, and basically built a city in the US.

Torvalds gave his software away for free. Sure he gets kudos in developer circles. But I'm not sure that keeps him warm at night.

38 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

And licensing technologies to other companies adds an additional revenue stream, reducing the level of R&D costs that would otherwise have to be factored into the end price to customers. Meanwhile fines for violating IP controls are really only keeping a level playing field, preventing one company from offloading it's R&D onto the customers of the originating company.

Exactly, the current system allows you to create a company that does nothing but horde patents and make gazillions of dollars of the work of others. All to protect some guy in a garage having an idea, doesn't seem worth it to me.

The costs of R&D of all companies would be shared. The added value is the status of being an innovative company, the status Apple now has. Then there would be no need for patent lawyers, patent buro and patent courts. Win-win-win-win-winning!

At the end of the day, even the massive multi-million dollar lawsuits between major corporations have very little effect on the net worth of the economy and even less on the end price consumers actually pay for goods and services.

One billion dollars is not a lot of money? The production price of a billion TV's now cost one dollar extra, that impact is HUGE.

20 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Exactly, the current system allows you to create a company that does nothing but horde patents and make gazillions of dollars of the work of others. All to protect some guy in a garage having an idea, doesn't seem worth it to me.

As someone claiming to be a capitalist, why are you objecting to the concept that ideas are things that can be traded for money?

If someone is good at inventing stuff, why shouldn't they be able to make a living from it?

The costs of R&D of all companies would be shared.

The Soviets did that. See how that turned out.

29 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Wait... we have small startups, that turn into some of the biggest and most innovative international companies, partly thanks to patent protection ... and that's a BAD thing!?

It's bad when they are helped by government at my expense to become big corporations. They should get there because they have a superior product to sell and the competition will keep them on their toes.

Or do you think we should have stopped after internet explorer 1?

Good luck living in Maddus-mattus-land, where small people with big ideas know their place, rather than making something of themselves.

You seem to think that these people can't make it without the government's help. I think they will do just fine. You can't have government picking winners and losers like that!

errr, Google and Facebook's main products are free for consumers. And Microsoft gives you software with literally millions of man-hours of effort for less than $100. So claiming that they're giving customers a hard deal is a bit rich.

TINSTAAFL!

How can you tell, without competition that you are getting the best deal? You get the only deal!

Do you think China has been improving, or reducing it's innovation regulations in recent years? Do you think that perhaps China getting foreign investment might, perhaps have been tied to, say, them protecting patents and copyright more.

China is investing abroad more then abroad is investing in China. And it's because of low regulation companies have started moving there, if they boost regulations, companies will move out.

Do you perhaps suppose that Microsoft might focus more on China, rather than less, now that China has agreed to actually pay for Microsoft products and protect the innovation that goes into them?

See how this works? Microsoft wants special favors of the Chinese government protecting it's business, before investing there and the government is complying. What's next?

The Chinese government should tell Microsoft to make better products or provide a more innovating way to license them so that people are actually willing to pay for. But why do that, when you can use the force of law? Is much easier.

If you think that the USA has driven all it's work away, it's pretty clear you've never visited Redmond or Silicon Valley.

Clearly you haven't looked at the USA debt, here's a clock for you; http://www.usadebtclock.com/

Yes, and a nice flat in Moscow and pride of place during the annual party meeting, comrade. Who needs money? Let the workers unite! Instead of ideas being sold, let them be freely shared amongst the people, to better the People's Republic of Maddus Mattus!

Money is what you and I agree it to be.

Where am I saying you should be forced to share your ideas? I'm saying if you want, you can. If you don't, you don't. That's freedom.

Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds did roughly the same thing (building an OS) at roughly the same time (~1990). One of those men decided that innovation was important and protected his product  with copyright and patent law. That man is now one of the richest people alive, owns the biggest commercial research department in the USA and is now busy trying to solve problems like poverty and diseases across the world. His company invented C#, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, Visual Studio, the XBOX, the Kinect, DirectX and SQL Server. His company sits on the standards committee of HTML, CSS, Javascript, and C++. He employees tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people across the globe, and basically built a city in the US.

Torvalds gave his software away for free. Sure he gets kudos in developer circles. But I'm not sure that keeps him warm at night.

So, the size of your bank account is how you determine success? And if you use government protection to acquire wealth is a good thing.

In one thread you want to almost hang people who do this, in the other they are to be regarded as heroes?

Linus's greed is something else then money, his choice and I respect and admire him for that. But I also respect Bill Gates for his accomplishments in IT. I think he would have done it without government help and that there would be 10.000 Microsoft's instead of one and 10.000 rich people instead of one. But hey, can't all be rich right?

1 minute ago, evildictait​or wrote

As someone claiming to be a capitalist, why are you objecting to the concept that ideas are things that can be traded for money?

I have no objection. I just don't want government protecting the idea, you should be able to do that on your own.

If someone is good at inventing stuff, why shouldn't they be able to make a living from it?

He should be able to, just not with the protection from the government.

The Soviets did that. See how that turned out.

Russia didn't have companies, they had a government. They didn't have consumers, they had government.

See how that turned out.

31 seconds ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

It's bad when they are helped by government at my expense to become big corporations. They should get there because they have a superior product to sell and the competition will keep them on their toes.

Or do you think we should have stopped after internet explorer 1?

Why is it your expense? Getting a patent is not free. And protecting it isn't either. If you're an innovative company like Apple and someone else (like Samsung) steals your invention, you pay your own lawyers to sue Samsung for it who pay using their lawyers to defend against it. The lawyers are all in the private sector, as are Apple and Samsung. The court fees are paid by the losing side, so it's free for the taxpayer.

And yes, Samsung products now cost a bit more because they just had to pay $1bn. But Apple products now cost a bit less, because they just got $1bn in damages.

What this means is a minor swing in prices to accurately reflect the fact that part of Samsung's product was made by Apple.

How can you tell, without competition that you are getting the best deal? You get the only deal!

Because Google and Microsoft and Apple and Samsung all have competitors.

If you think Windows8 at $40 is a bad deal - buy a Mac. Or go Linux.

Don't like Google search? Use Bing. Or Yahoo.

If you don't like Google's Android phones, use an iPhone. Or a Windows Phone.

Hate that XBox's hugely inflated price? Well, but a Wii or a PS3 instead, and see if you get a better deal from Sony or Nintendo.

Facebook's ToCs too weird for you? Use Google+. Or MySpace. Or hell, go outside and talk to real people for a change. 

All of these companies are big -  but none of them are monopolies.

In fact, this is in stark contrast to the banks you're defending on the other thread. There are only five banks in the UK - all of whom are guilty of serious misconduct in the last few years:

HSBC (money laundering for Mexican cartels), RBS (84% owned by the taxpayer as part of the bailout), Lloyds (77% state-owned, was the first to introduce the PPI fraud),  Barclays (fixed the LIBOR rate - accused of major irregulars and fraud by financial regulators) and Standard Chartered (accused of money laundering for Iran).

The banks might not be a monopoly, but they're sure as hell a cartel. 

And it's because of low regulation companies have started moving there, if they boost regulations, companies will move out.

No - it's because of cheap labour.

The Chinese government should tell Microsoft to make better products or provide a more innovating way to license them so that people are actually willing to pay for. But why do that, when you can use the force of law? Is much easier.

The Windows Genuine Advantage thing took thousands of man hours to design and build. Those are man-hours that Microsoft wasn't spending making your computer safer, faster or more feature rich.

By making Microsoft fight to protect its own innovation, you're reducing the amount of innovation that they're doing - because now their effort isn't solely on making the best possible product. It's on making the best possible product and designing and implementing WGA.

Money is what you and I agree it to be.

No. Money is what I and the shopkeeper agree it to be. I can't buy shoes with "developer kudos". I can't feed my family with "stackoverflow reputation". I can't go on a lovely holiday or buy a house with "aren't I very clever". I need dollars for all of those things.

Where am I saying you should be forced to share your ideas? I'm saying if you want, you can. If you don't, you don't. That's freedom.

If you want to give ideas away for free, you already can. Public domain ideas cannot be patented.

So, the size of your bank account is how you determine success?

That's how capitalism defines success, yes.

In one thread you want to almost hang people who do this, in the other they are to be regarded as heroes?

Nope. I think people can and should try and make as much money as possible. I'm a cold hearted capitalist at heart - more so than you. I think problems are solved better by bringing them within the confines of capitalism and letting capitalism sort them out.

In both of the threads I'm arguing to bring or keep things in the realm of capitalism. In this thread, I argue that ideas are commodities that should be tradable - but since ideas only have value when they are exclusive, society needs patents to allow you to trade ideas for cash. Ideas have value. You should be allowed to trade them.

In the other thread I'm arguing that risk applied to non-invested savings should be brought within the capitalist sphere. That way people can take small, medium or huge risks for potential profit. But the risk should always fall back to you to deal with. It should never be for society to bail you out, or pay to recover your customer's money when you screw up. It was your risk - you insure it.

... and that there would be 10.000 Microsoft's instead of one and 10.000 rich people instead of one. But hey, can't all be rich right?

Microsoft has made a lot more people than just Bill Gates rich - both directly and indirectly.

24 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Why is it your expense? Getting a patent is not free. And protecting it isn't either. If you're an innovative company like Apple and someone else (like Samsung) steals your invention, you pay your own lawyers to sue Samsung for it who pay using their lawyers to defend against it. The lawyers are all in the private sector, as are Apple and Samsung. The court fees are paid by the losing side, so it's free for the taxpayer.

It's at my expense because I pay for it all! We have more expensive products instead of less expensive products. This 1 billion dollars is just one of many lawsuits. And don't forget the licensing deals that happen without your knowledge. This could ultimately lead to products that are not dollars but tens of dollars more expensive. That's huge!

And yes, Samsung products now cost a bit more because they just had to pay $1bn. But Apple products now cost a bit less, because they just got $1bn in damages.

What this means is a minor swing in prices to accurately reflect the fact that part of Samsung's product was made by Apple.

See above, this is just one of many.

Because Google and Microsoft and Apple and Samsung all have competitors.

If you think Windows8 at $40 is a bad deal - buy a Mac. Or go Linux.

Don't like Google search? Use Bing. Or Yahoo.

If you don't like Google's Android phones, use an iPhone. Or a Windows Phone.

Hate that XBox's hugely inflated price? Well, but a Wii or a PS3 instead, and see if you get a better deal from Sony or Nintendo.

Facebook's ToCs too weird for you? Use Google+. Or MySpace. Or hell, go outside and talk to real people for a change. 

All of these companies are big -  but none of them are monopolies.

 

Guess again. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and I believe other's should be convicted as well, but it's not to any fault of their own.

In fact, this is in stark contrast to the banks you're defending on the other thread. There are only five banks in the UK - all of whom are guilty of serious misconduct in the last few years:

HSBC (money laundering for Mexican cartels), RBS (84% owned by the taxpayer as part of the bailout), Lloyds (77% state-owned, was the first to introduce the PPI fraud),  Barclays (fixed the LIBOR rate - accused of major irregulars and fraud by financial regulators) and Standard Chartered (accused of money laundering for Iran).

The banks might not be a monopoly, but they're sure as hell a cartel. 

You just proved your own case wrong. They are also being helped to stay in power by government, just through a different mechanism.

No - it's because of cheap labour.

Because of less regulations, circle is round again.

The Windows Genuine Advantage thing took thousands of man hours to design and build. Those are man-hours that Microsoft wasn't spending making your computer safer, faster or more feature rich.

By making Microsoft fight to protect its own innovation, you're reducing the amount of innovation that they're doing - because now their effort isn't solely on making the best possible product. It's on making the best possible product and designing and implementing WGA.

And is still crap, provide a free windows and sell functionalities or something. Not sabotage your own OS, that's just dumb.

No. Money is what I and the shopkeeper agree it to be. I can't buy shoes with "developer kudos". I can't feed my family with "stackoverflow reputation". I can't go on a lovely holiday or buy a house with "aren't I very clever". I need dollars for all of those things.

That's what I mean, I'm the shopkeeper

If you want to give ideas away for free, you already can. Public domain ideas cannot be patented.

That's how capitalism defines success, yes.

No, it does not. That's how YOU defined it.

It defines success by the goals you reach that you set out for yourself. Your greed is the urge for you to reach those goals. To have a lot of money is not a goal, but a means to a goal. A goal can be a large house, a boat, etc. etc.

Nope. I think people can and should try and make as much money as possible. I'm a cold hearted capitalist at heart - more so than you. I think problems are solved better by bringing them within the confines of capitalism and letting capitalism sort them out.

In both of the threads I'm arguing to bring or keep things in the realm of capitalism. In this thread, I argue that ideas are commodities that should be tradable - but since ideas only have value when they are exclusive, society needs patents to allow you to trade ideas for cash. Ideas have value. You should be allowed to trade them.

If it requires government force for protection, then there is no market.

If you want government to protect your personal interest at the expense of another, you are not a capitalist, but a socialist.

In the other thread I'm arguing that risk applied to non-invested savings should be brought within the capitalist sphere. That way people can take small, medium or huge risks for potential profit. But the risk should always fall back to you to deal with. It should never be for society to bail you out, or pay to recover your customer's money when you screw up. It was your risk - you insure it.

Microsoft has made a lot more people than just Bill Gates rich - both directly and indirectly.

Oh I agree. But 10.000 Microsofts could have benefitted more people and would still have made Bill Gates rich, just not godlike rich. That's capitalism and with patents you just get the one Bill Gates.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

We have more expensive products instead of less expensive products. 

When Samsung paid $1bn in damages, that $1bn didn't disappear. It went to Apple.

So yes, your Samsung products are now more expensive. But your Apple ones are now a bit cheaper.

This is because Samsung decided they didn't want to innovate and would mooch off Apple's innovations. And the court said that you can't profit by mooching off other people's innovations, and that they should either invent their own damn stuff or pay Apple money to recognise that Apple paid researchers to invent stuff that Samsung is illegally selling.

And is still crap, provide a free windows and sell functionalities or something. Not sabotage your own OS, that's just dumb.

Then people move to pirating the functionalities. What you're calling for, Maddus, is for Microsoft to not be allowed to choose the terms on which it sells its stuff. Which is violating the key rule of capitalism: that the value of the goods is the agreement between the vendor and the customer.

It seems like your ultimate goal is really an anti-capitalist one after all. You're calling for the very society that the Soviets built and that society collapsed because it was unsustainable.

Capitalism says that the value of a product is the price agreed by the vendor and the customer.

If Microsoft wants to put a price tag of $100 on Windows, that's it's right to do so. If it wants to put its price to $50,000, you deal with it. If they want to make it a free windows and sell functionalities - that's for THEM to decide. Not for you or anyone else to, Maddus.

If you don't like the price, it is your capitalist right to buy something else. It is NOT your right to just take it for free.

Microsoft has WGA to protect against people like you who don't believe in paying for innovation. That means Microsoft spends time and money making WGA, rather than improving Windows.

So yeah, thanks for ruining Windows with your communism, Maddus.

No, it does not. That's how YOU defined it.

It defines success by the goals you reach that you set out for yourself. Your greed is the urge for you to reach those goals. To have a lot of money is not a goal, but a means to a goal. A goal can be a large house, a boat, etc. etc.

Capitalism defines reward as money, and is defined to yield reward (money) for success.

So yes, capitalism does in fact equate success with generating money. That's not a bad thing.

If you have other personal goals, success in capitalism helps you with those goals in a capitalist society. If you want to go on holiday, think up a clever, novel and marketable idea, and sell it (via a patent) to someone who might implement it. You get a holiday, the company gets a clever new product. Everyone wins.

If it requires government force for protection, then there is no market.

The same government protection is afforded to patents as is afforded to other contracts. Are you suggesting contracts are also socialist? Because they're kind of not. In fact, they're one of the fundamental building blocks of capitalism.

Oh I agree. But 10.000 Microsofts could have benefitted more people and would still have made Bill Gates rich, just not godlike rich. That's capitalism and with patents you just get the one Bill Gates.

There we go again with the spread-the-wealth diatribe Maddus. Maybe if you were in charge you'd introduce a pay-cap, or you'd tax him more to spread his money to poor people. Or you'd force him to run his business differently. Because deep down, Maddus, you're just a soviet-era socialist struggling to get by in a world that's moved on.

The wall has fallen Maddus. Your ideas of suppressing innovation and protecting cartels have all been tried by the soviet union, and they failed. The same ideas you have bankrupted the Soviets, just like they'll bankrupt anyone else who's silly enough to listen to you.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Exactly, the current system allows you to create a company that does nothing but horde patents and make gazillions of dollars of the work of others. All to protect some guy in a garage having an idea, doesn't seem worth it to me.

And they bought those off somebody. So, somewhere along the way the guy who came up with the idea got paid.

The costs of R&D of all companies would be shared. The added value is the status of being an innovative company, the status Apple now has. Then there would be no need for patent lawyers, patent buro and patent courts. Win-win-win-win-winning!

In what sense would it be shared? If I spend $5 million developing an idea, launch the product and the next day every other tom, dick or harry is selling the exact same thing for far less than I can (because they have zero debt where I have $5m), in what sense is that R&D cost shared? In what sense am I not $5 million in the red for absolutely no benefit?

What's going to motivate me to come up with another product? And how exactly can I fund it?

*snip*

One billion dollars is not a lot of money? The production price of a billion TV's now cost one dollar extra, that impact is HUGE.

No, because had they not lifted the ideas in the first place, that billion dollars would have had to go into R&D of their own products. Not to mention that the price of a billion iPads just came down by $1. In reality the public doesn't lose out.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

It seems like your ultimate goal is really an anti-capitalist one after all.

*snip*

He's pro-capitalism, yet he's very anti-capitalist. IOW, he loves the institution of capitalism but hates the individual participant capitalist (except himself, of course). 

I'm sure if that if he had any intellectual property worthy of a patent, he'd be singing a different tune. You don't need to build a fence around an empty lot after all.

Currently I have no solution about how to trade ideas as a commodity.  I'm not convinced you could even consider an idea a commodity.

You should be able to protect your product from copycats, but to protect the principles on how the product works,... I dunno,... That's just ripe fruit for ill intended people to take advantage off.

Open source companies have clearly shown, you can still make a decent living when you share intimate details on the workings of your product.

All things considered, I am against government protection of individual ideas, it leaves too much room for government picking winners and losers. This is a situation you want to avoid at any cost. As it creates the intent to 'motivate' government to pick in your favor.

18 hours ago, cbae wrote

I'm sure if that if he had any intellectual property worthy of a patent, he'd be singing a different tune. You don't need to build a fence around an empty lot after all.

I have tons of intellectual property.

You can download it freely at;

http://www.nuget.org/packages/Krempel.WP7

Or browse the sourcecode at;

http://krempelwp7.codeplex.com/

Unlike you, I put my money where my mouth is.

Currently I have no solution about how to trade ideas as a commodity.  I'm not convinced you could even consider an idea a commodity.

If an idea isn't a commodity, it has no value in capitalism.

A patent is a tradable idea. That's all it is.

The patent system allows you to buy and sell ideas in much the same way that having cash allows you to buy and sell packets of crisps, or that brand-protection allows you to invest in and build consumer confidence in your brand.

The government isn't protecting you or your idea - you do that yourself. The police will never knock on your door to ask you about your patents, and you'll don't get thrown in jail for patent violation. Politicians didn't order Apple to sue Samsung, and there were no politicians or civil servants decided the verdict. The government didn't provide lawyers to either side, didn't give them special advice, and didn't give either side any money to start the case.

The patent lawsuit between Apple and Samsung was entirely brought and paid for by two private companies. Samsung lost because a jury decided they had stolen the idea from Apple. Samsung were fined for stealing goods from Apple, and Apple got damages to pay for the goods that were stolen from them.

The patent lawsuit was an entirely zero-sum game for the taxpayer and consumers. Samsung lost $1bn. Apple gained $1bn. Samsung products that were made cheaply by stealing ideas now have the R&D cost of those ideas built into the price. And Apple who were doing R&D for another company unwillingly are being paid for having done the R&D - so Apple's R&D department (who were unwillingly outsourcing themselves to Samsung) are ploughing that money back into developing new ideas and cheaper products for Apple.

Open source companies have clearly shown, you can still make a decent living when you share intimate details on the workings of your product.

No they haven't. The vast majority of contributors to open source have never been paid for their work.

2 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

If an idea isn't a commodity, it has no value in capitalism.

A patent is a tradable idea. That's all it is.

A patent is a government issue of the ownership of an idea. Big difference.

Without that government support, the commodity does not exist.

So it relies on government force for it to be a commodity.

I don't think that's very capitalistic.

No they haven't. The vast majority of contributors to open source have never been paid for their work.

Again, you seem to think that only money is a reward. There are other things in life then money.

You greedy capitalist

6 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Without that government support, the commodity does not exist.

Without government support, money (both electronic and physical) doesn't exist either. I don't hear you calling for abolishing that though.

In fact, without government support, contracts aren't enforcible either. And stocks and shares and trade-agreements wouldn't exist either. Without government support, you can't be sure that insurance company will pay out rather than run off with your money, and you can't be sure that your employer will pay you at the end of the month.

In fact, we haven't had a barter economy like that since before the Romans - I'm not really all that sure that would be a good thing. In societies that only trade in "real things" that aren't government protected (like gold, and sheep and corn), there are no long term investments, no shares, no stocks, no insurances, no real economic growth to speak of.

There are societies like that still. And they are all in total, absolute, all-encompassing poverty.

Capitalism only works when it's allowing people to trade assets that society thinks are valuable.

We live in a capitalist society. Patents are required to make ideas tradeable. Suggesting that should abolish patents (i.e. that we shouldn't be allowed to trade ideas for money) is directly equivalent to saying that society should place ZERO VALUE on ideas.

You greedy capitalist 

I don't know why you think that's a bad thing. I'm quite proud to call myself a cold hearted capitalist. I just disagree with your ideas about crippling capitalism by undermining all of the safeguards that keep it chugging along.

Capitalism in one form or another, backed up by government protection has been responsible for pretty much ALL human invention since the bronze age. The soviets had a go at doing it your way. They failed.

What happens if we raise the ante from TV's to thousands of human lives.

Let's say I found the cure for cancer, it involves a new medicine delivery system in the human body. The system is blindingly obvious, but no one thought of it.

Being a good citizen, of course, I patent the system.

Now I am the only person in the world that can make the cure for cancer. For twenty, or so, years, I have the sole right to produce the cure. I can ask whatever I want for that pill, because I am free from competition.

What incentive do I have to develop my transport system to the next level, in those twenty years? If I didn't hold a patent, I would be forced to improve on it continuously to stay ahead of the competition.

That's how capitalism works, higher quality, lower prices, by competition. Government intervention puts sand in these gears.

Would I still have invented it? I think so, being the first to do something is highly valuable, no amount of marketing can get you that.

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

I have tons of intellectual property.

You can download it freely at;

http://www.nuget.org/packages/Krempel.WP7

Or browse the sourcecode at;

http://krempelwp7.codeplex.com/

Unlike you, I put my money where my mouth is.

Nice! Free controls! Thanks for contributing to my laziness. You must be a socialist at heart.

Unfortunately, with regard to patentability, I can probably find cases of prior art for each of your controls. It's a goodwill gesture on your part to offer these, but let's not kid ourselves. If you really had patentable IP, you would patent it in a heartbeat.

13 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Without government support, money (both electronic and physical) doesn't exist either. I don't hear you calling for abolishing that though.

Blatantly not true.

We in Holland have had money long before the government printed it. The materials used in the coin represented it's value.

Before money, the US had pink slips. The FED was founded because it was hard for a citizen to withdraw money in San Fran Cisco with a pink slip from a New York bank.

But since we have the internet, we can check if the bank exists real fast. So actually, there is no need for government printed money.

It's a convenience, turned into a form of control.

In fact, without government support, contracts aren't enforcible either. And stocks and shares and trade-agreements wouldn't exist either. Without government support, you can't be sure that insurance company will pay out rather than run off with your money, and you can't be sure that your employer will pay you at the end of the month.

Semi true. Business entities communicate with one another. So if there is a criminal amongst their midst, they communicate it. It's in their mutual interest to help each other. So, one or two might be hurt, but the thief then has to move along to a new market for new victims.

Government helps catching these criminals, but it's not needed to neutralize the criminal.

In fact, we haven't had a barter economy like that since before the Romans - I'm not really all that sure that would be a good thing. In societies that only trade in "real things" that aren't government protected (like gold, and sheep and corn), there are no long term investments, no shares, no stocks, no insurances, no real economic growth to speak of.

There are societies like that still. And they are all in total, absolute, all-encompassing poverty.

Bet they don't have a debt of a million per household. How is that wealth?

Capitalism only works when it's allowing people to trade assets that society thinks are valuable.

We live in a capitalist society. Patents are required to make ideas tradeable. Suggesting that should abolish patents (i.e. that we shouldn't be allowed to trade ideas for money) is directly equivalent to saying that society should place ZERO VALUE on ideas.

They have zero value. They only have value because of government backing. If that backing fails in court they have zero value. How can a court be responsible for setting the value of an idea in a capitalist system? Isn't the price system in the market supposed to take care of that.

And with that I think you are right, ideas have zero value in the market. It's what you do with those ideas that creates value.

I don't know why you think that's a bad thing. I'm quite proud to call myself a cold hearted capitalist. I just disagree with your ideas about crippling capitalism by undermining all of the safeguards that keep it chugging along.

Capitalism in one form or another, backed up by government protection has been responsible for pretty much ALL human invention since the bronze age. The soviets had a go at doing it your way. They failed.

Notice the smiley face that I put at the end?

I think you have a very warm heart, so warm in fact that you are willing to spend other peoples money to protect the rights of other peoples ideas by using government force to turn them into commodities.

24 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Notice the smiley face that I put at the end?

I think you have a very warm heart, so warm in fact that you are willing to spend other peoples money to protect the rights of other peoples ideas by using government force to turn them into commodities.

I guess that you don't seem to recall evil mentioning that you have to spend your own money to defend a patent. You just couldn't wait to unload your "government force" schtick again, could you? And I see you got a daily double with the "spend other people's money" bit! LOL

48 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

We in Holland have had money long before the government printed it. The materials used in the coin represented it's value.

Not since the 11th century you haven't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money).

Before money, the US had pink slips. The FED was founded because it was hard for a citizen to withdraw money in San Fran Cisco with a pink slip from a New York bank.

I presume you are talking when you say Pink slips about the Colonial money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_scrip):

During the American Revolution, the colonies became independent states; freed from British monetary regulations, they issued paper money to pay for military expenses. The Continental Congress also issued paper money during the Revolution, known as Continental currency, to fund the war effort. Both state and Continental currency depreciated rapidly, becoming practically worthless by the end of the war.

To address these and other problems, the United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, denied individual states the right to coin and print money. The First Bank of the United States, chartered in 1791, and the Coinage Act of 1792, began the era of a national American currency.

So in fact, the thing that predated the US dollar, was, in fact, a note issued by the revolutionary government with fiat value, i.e. money.

But since we have the internet, we can check if the bank exists real fast. So actually, there is no need for government printed money.

How do you intend to trade in solid gold soverigns over the Internet? Are you just going to mash the gold into the modem?

Or are you going to use electronic money - i.e. a form of currency that has no intrinsic value, which is issued by the government for the settlement of debts and the payment in exchange for trade items and services?

Bet they don't have a debt of a million per household. How is that wealth?

China's doing pretty well at the moment. They have a surplus of twenty kazillion dollars per household - since we're clearly playing make-up-numbers here.

In fact, the banks with the highest capital assets margins are the Sovereign Bank of China, Central Bank of Russia and Bank of India in that order - all of which are state owned.

They have zero value. They only have value because of government backing. 

Like all money since the 11th Century.

How can a court be responsible for setting the value of an idea in a capitalist system

Courts don't set the value of a patent. They determine whether a patent is valid. In fact, this is very much the same way that they determine whether someone is in breach of contract.

So should society also ban contracts, comrade Maddus? The cruel capitalist world we live in denies the people their rights, by imposing all of these contracts on them. Surely, comrade, you must rise to become most equal amongst comrades - a world FREED from the tyrrany of capitalism, money, wealth and greed.

Oh - wait - we tried that in Russia last century. Didn't really pan out.

I think you have a very warm heart, so warm in fact that you are willing to spend other peoples money to protect the rights of other peoples ideas by using government force to turn them into commodities.

I pay substantially more taxes than the average person in my country, and receive substantially less than my fair share in return. But I don't think that crippling capitalism and abolishing the government would equal me back to a better position. I think that it would just crush the economy and throw everyone in the country into blinding poverty.

40 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Not since the 11th century you haven't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money).

*snip*

I think we all know that in Dutch history, there was a time when tulip bulbs practically served as currency. (Gotta love how the unfettered capitalist system was able to pull that one off!) Maybe Maddus wants to go back to the Tulip Standard.

I pay substantially more taxes than the average person in my country, and receive substantially less than my fair share in return. But I don't think that crippling capitalism and abolishing the government would equal me back to a better position. I think that it would just crush the economy and throw everyone in the country into blinding poverty.

You bring up a great point. Nose, face, spite. The neocons in our country would sooner have everybody live in abject poverty than to give anybody currently in poverty "something for nothing" because of their warped notion of what "fairness" is.

14 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC:

What happens if we raise the ante from TV's to thousands of human lives.

Let's say I found the cure for cancer, it involves a new medicine delivery system in the human body. The system is blindingly obvious, but no one thought of it.

Being a good citizen, of course, I patent the system.

Now I am the only person in the world that can make the cure for cancer. For twenty, or so, years, I have the sole right to produce the cure. I can ask whatever I want for that pill, because I am free from competition.

What incentive do I have to develop my transport system to the next level, in those twenty years? If I didn't hold a patent, I would be forced to improve on it continuously to stay ahead of the competition.

That's how capitalism works, higher quality, lower prices, by competition. Government intervention puts sand in these gears.

Would I still have invented it? I think so, being the first to do something is highly valuable, no amount of marketing can get you that.

I'm a little bit shocked that of all the counter-examples you might have tried, you picked the drug industry. Which rakes in billions of pounds a year because of the patent system and has never shown any signs whatsoever of slowing down it's rate of innovation.

It turns out, oddly enough, that developing new drugs is a massively long and expensive process and so when you get one that works having IP protection of the recipe behind it all is basically fundamental to being able to recover that investment. The drug industry, being so reliant on IP protection, is also one that has long understood the value in licensing that to as many people as possible to maximise revenue in the short space of time that you have exclusivity.

As for being first to do something, it has surprisingly little value if everyone can copy it immediately and start undercutting you.

The patent system in the drug industry works a bit differently. They have five year patents, not twenty plus year patents. They are always in court protecting their products and judges declare drugs generic all the time.

When a drug becomes generic you see that the price of the drug drops. Because the government protection of a certain companies drug is lifted. It's a good example of how markets work without government protection. Drug companies improve on each other's ideas and constantly learn from each other. They compete, but they also work together.

I've worked a couple of projects at a large drug company in the Netherlands. I know how the drug business works. That's why I made the nuance of patenting a drug delivery system, instead of a new drug in my example. You could not patent the drug for very long, but you could patent the delivery method of the drug.

You raise the issue of cost of the drug, have you ever wondered why they cost so much? Why they do so much research?

Government demands it of them. Guess they don't trust them or something. It takes years for a drug to reach the markets, takes huge investments.

The company I worked for just completed the trails and was placing a new heart drug on the market after years of research and trails. Only to have the judge declare it generic within days of release.

As for being first to do something, it has surprisingly little value if everyone can copy it immediately and start undercutting you.

I beg to differ.

Take a look at the fashion industry. If you don't innovate, you are no longer hip and you are out.

Same applies with Microsoft and Apple. Apple is hip, Microsoft is stale. Therefore Apple is winning in the market.

Back to the issue;

When a idea could save many thousands of lives, should a company or an individual take be allowed to take ownership of that idea and be protected from competition by the government?

18 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC:

The patent system in the drug industry works a bit differently. They have five year patents, not twenty plus year patents.

But they still have patents.

You raise the issue of cost of the drug, have you ever wondered why they cost so much?

Because it costs an average of $1.8bn to research a new drug. That's why.

Drugs are expensive before they are generic because they only have 5 years in which to pay back the $1.8bn. After that, the company which "wins" in the market is the one that can produce the pills the cheapest, not the one that invented the drug.

Tell me, Maddus, which company did the better thing for society? The guy who invented the drug in the first place, or the guy who waits for the innovator to make his first ($1.8bn) pill, and then copies it and floods the market with cheap equivalents?

Same applies with Microsoft and Apple. Apple is hip, Microsoft is stale. Therefore Apple is winning in the market.

This is an example of the patent system working. Apple are innovative, and therefore APPLE are winning in the market. If Apple couldn't protect their ideas, then perhaps Apple would be innovative, Microsoft would steal their ideas to cement their monopoly of the OS. They'd scrap MSR - since there's no point making new ideas that produce long-term results when it's much cheaper to set up a Microsoft Copying Other People's Ideas department who specialize in disassembling other company's ideas and putting Microsoft equivalents out to market within two months.

Good luck competing with Microsoft in patent-free land.

When a idea could save many thousands of lives, should a company or an individual take be allowed to take ownership of that idea and be protected from competition by the government?

Or to put in another way: Should an individual who comes up with an idea that saves thousands of lives be rewarded for that idea? Or should they be slapped in the face and told "No! In Maddus-land ideas are worthless! Stop spending $1.8bn researching new ideas when you could be spending a mere $100m on copying our competition's ideas!"

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

Because it costs an average of $1.8bn to research a new drug. That's why.

I know the cost, I've seen the numbers, the question is; Where does that money go and why?

This is an example of the patent system working. Apple are innovative, and therefore APPLE are winning in the market. If Apple couldn't protect their ideas, then perhaps Apple would be innovative, Microsoft would steal their ideas to cement their monopoly of the OS. They'd scrap MSR - since there's no point making new ideas that produce long-term results when it's much cheaper to set up a Microsoft Copying Other People's Ideas department who specialize in disassembling other company's ideas and putting Microsoft equivalents out to market within two months.

Good luck competing with Microsoft in patent-free land.

Ah, there is competition from guys in garages with Microsoft. You know what Microsoft did?

They threatened to sue everybody who sold their product, Linux, if they didn't license their IP.

So, good luck competing with Microsoft in a patent world!

Unless you do something completely revolutionary like Facebook, Apple or Google the pie is already sliced.

And when you do something completely revolutionary, due make sure you are holding the knife.

So good luck doing ANYTHING in a patent market.

Or to put in another way: Should an individual who comes up with an idea that saves thousands of lives be rewarded for that idea? Or should they be slapped in the face and told "No! In Maddus-land ideas are worthless! Stop spending $1.8bn researching new ideas when you could be spending a mere $100m on copying our competition's ideas!"

He would be rewarded greatly, just not at the expense of others with government protection. He would have a very high market value and a very high wage. In Maddus-land nobody would be slapped, but patted on the back. 

In evildictaitor-land you would get slapped constantly by the courts for thinking something up that looks a bit like an idea of somebody else. You would be left with court fees in the billions dollars for making a product that people actually want to buy.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Ah, there is competition from guys in garages with Microsoft. You know what Microsoft did?

They threatened to sue everybody who sold their product, Linux, if they didn't license their IP.

If Linux wants to build a free OS that competes with Microsoft, they absolutely can.

What they can't do is steal Microsoft's ideas to do it.

Microsoft spend many millions of dollars going through tons of iterations developing the Office 2007 ribbon before they got it right. Would it be fair if OpenOffice just copied the end result?

OpenOffice can have a nice shiny new UI if they either:

A) Pay Microsoft to recognise that Microsoft paid to develop the ribbon UI

B) Think up their own ideas and pay to do the market research to check that it's a good idea and implement that themselves.

He would be rewarded greatly, ... He would have a very high market value and a very high wage.

Decided by whom? Is the government going to decide his wage like the Soviets did? Because no pharmacutical company in Maddus-land is going to be spending $1.8bn on a new drug, when they can just wait for their competitors to develop it and then copy it.

Or are you going to force innovators to work for big companies, because that's the only place where they can develop their ideas? Independent innovators would need to work night shifts at WalMart to pay the bills and would be too tried to innovate during the day. Yay for innovation in Maddus-land.

Why spend money making a great research department like MSR, when you could instead, build a department who excels at reverse-engineering your competitors products?

You think Apple would be so successful with ideas like the iPhone if Nokia had an army of engineers to pounce on the first iteration of the iPhone, strip it apart and have an nPhone out by the end of the month at half the price? It's much cheaper for Nokia to steal an idea from Apple than it was for Apple to develop the idea in the first place.

Capitalism has time-and-again been proved to be the best way to determine the value of things. So either ideas are completely worthless and we should bothering with all of this innovation nonsense, or we should let capitalism find the price by letting people buy and sell ideas from each other.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

If Linux wants to build a free OS that competes with Microsoft, they absolutely can.

What they can't do is steal Microsoft's ideas to do it.

So they can make an OS, just can't use the keyboard or the mouse.

Microsoft spend many millions of dollars going through tons of iterations developing the Office 2007 ribbon before they got it right. Would it be fair if OpenOffice just copied the end result?

The idea? Yes!

The exact implementation? No.

OpenOffice can have a nice shiny new UI if they either:

A) Pay Microsoft to recognise that Microsoft paid to develop the ribbon UI

B) Think up their own ideas and pay to do the market research to check that it's a good idea and implement that themselves.

Yeah sure, do it differently then everybody else. In each and every application.

Or pay Microsoft, not for the control, but for the idea of the control. First yes, second no.

Decided by whom? Is the government going to decide his wage like the Soviets did? Because no pharmacutical company in Maddus-land is going to be spending $1.8bn on a new drug, when they can just wait for their competitors to develop it and then copy it.

By the pricing system. If you are a capitalist like you claim, this should be very familiar concept to you.

Or are you going to force innovators to work for big companies, because that's the only place where they can develop their ideas? Independent innovators would need to work night shifts at WalMart to pay the bills and would be too tried to innovate during the day. Yay for innovation in Maddus-land.

If they choose to be independant, yes, they work at WallMart. Now, they work at WallMart becuase they have a legal bill to pay.

Why spend money making a great research department like MSR, when you could instead, build a department who excels at reverse-engineering your competitors products?

Because, like fashion, by the time you copy it, your competitor will have churned out a new version.

So, innovate to stay ahead of the competition, instead of patent and sue to stay ahead of the competition.

You think Apple would be so successful with ideas like the iPhone if Nokia had an army of engineers to pounce on the first iteration of the iPhone, strip it apart and have an nPhone out by the end of the month at half the price? It's much cheaper for Nokia to steal an idea from Apple than it was for Apple to develop the idea in the first place.

Yes.

Nokia is so large, they can't turn that fast. It's impossible.

Capitalism has time-and-again been proved to be the best way to determine the value of things. So either ideas are completely worthless and we should bothering with all of this innovation nonsense, or we should let capitalism find the price by letting people buy and sell ideas from each other.

Ideas are not a commodity. You can't touch them, you can't eat them.

People with ideas, are a commodity. You can touch them, you can eat them.

Therefore, if you want invoke capitalism to be able to trade ideas, trade people!

15 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

So they can make an OS, just can't use the keyboard or the mouse.

The keyboard and mouse are out of patent - which is one of the other key features of patents. This means that the makers of the idea of the keyboard and mouse made lots of money for having an idea that has changed everyone on this forum's lives and millions more besides, and now the idea is open to the world to do with as they please.

The idea? Yes!

Open Source tends to push out updates to its customers faster than Microsoft. Do you think it would be fair if having seen the Windows8 CP, that Ubuntu would have an Ubuntu-Metro before Microsoft did? Would it be fair if, given an Office 2007 early preview, Open Office could reach the market first or soon after with a fully-fledged Ribbon implementation?

Do you think Microsoft would invest money making their products innovative if all the money they spend on research didn't give them a commercial advantage?

By the pricing system. If you are a capitalist like you claim, this should be very familiar concept to you.

Capitalism can't state the price of something if you can't trade it. If you don't have patents, how are you going to trade ideas? If you can't patent an idea, how does your garage inventor come up with a new idea about how to make cars go faster and get money from selling it to a car company who can implement it?

If they choose to be independant, yes, they work at WallMart. Now, they work at WallMart becuase they have a legal bill to pay.

So just to be clear. Independent inventors - i.e. the guys who invented most of the stuff we currently use, who tend to be fiercely independent and tend not to fit into rigid monolithic organisations - should not be allowed to work as independents?

Aren't you basically just arguing that we should scrap innovation and be done with it?

Because, like fashion, by the time you copy it, your competitor will have churned out a new version.

How long does it take a guy in a garage with a great idea about how to make a new type of engine for a car to push that out to market, compared with, say an existing car engine company?

I think you'll find the car-engine company will be able to copy garage-man's idea and put it into the market long before garage man gets version 2 out of the door. And the one that hits the market will be from an established vendor with all of the marketing lined up. Garage man doesn't stand a chance.

No, the only way garage man can make money from his idea is to apply to be an intern at the company. He'll never get the $10m that his idea is worth, but he might get a promotion out of it. Meanwhile the company makes $100m off the back of his idea.

But wait - garage man just had an idea about how to make planes go faster too - he can't work for both the car company and the plane company. Perhaps tomorrow he'll come up with a way of making computers faster. And the day after perhaps he'll invent a way of making shops sell stuff faster.

Which company should he work for Maddus? The shop company, the plane company, the car company or the computer company?

In society today, he can work for any, all or none of them. He can be his own company, patent the ideas and sell them to the companies that pay the most for the ideas.

In Maddus land, the inventor had to work on someone else's terms for someone else's company, and got to fix perhaps one problem. In evildictaitor-land (and the real world), he got to work for himself, got to fix four problems for society, and gets to work on his own terms and got rewarded by the various companies he sold ideas to at a value determined by market capitalism.

Ideas are not a commodity. You can't touch them, you can't eat them.

Neither is electronic money. And stocks and shares for that matter. But that doesn't mean I think they're not tradeable.

1 minute ago, evildictait​or wrote

The keyboard and mouse are out of patent - which is one of the other key features of patents. This means that the makers of the idea of the keyboard and mouse made lots of money for having an idea that has changed everyone on this forum's lives and millions more besides, and now the idea is open to the world to do with as they please.

Exactly, lot's of money because they prevented somebody else to compete.

So, in a capitalist system the pricing system determines the value of a commodity. How would the pricing system work, if there is no competition? It can't.

Also, the notion of turning ideas into a commodity doesn't work in capitalism either. Capitalism is all about multiple people trading the same commodity and the price of that commodity would be set by supply and demand. Because there is only one supplier of that idea, the price system again fails.

Therefore government protection of your ideas, is not capitalism,.

Open Source tends to push out updates to its customers faster than Microsoft. Do you think it would be fair if having seen the Windows8 CP, that Ubuntu would have an Ubuntu-Metro before Microsoft did? Would it be fair if, given an Office 2007 early preview, Open Office could reach the market first or soon after with a fully-fledged Ribbon implementation?

So, because competition is fierce Microsoft should be protected from it somehow?

How would Microsoft be motivated in any way to bring products faster to market when their business is so well protected?

Do you think Microsoft would invest money making their products innovative if all the money they spend on research didn't give them a commercial advantage?

Have you seen Microsoft's history?

They don't innovate, they buy companies, strip their IP and lay off the people.

Capitalism can't state the price of something if you can't trade it. If you don't have patents, how are you going to trade ideas? If you can't patent an idea, how does your garage inventor come up with a new idea about how to make cars go faster and get money from selling it to a car company who can implement it?

You don't.

You trade the people with ideas.

So just to be clear. Independent inventors - i.e. the guys who invented most of the stuff we currently use, who tend to be fiercely independent and tend not to fit into rigid monolithic organisations - should not be allowed to work as independents?

Aren't you basically just arguing that we should scrap innovation and be done with it?

No, I'm saying that preventing other people from using the same idea as you limits innovation.

How long does it take a guy in a garage with a great idea about how to make a new type of engine for a car to push that out to market, compared with, say an existing car engine company?

There are guys with inventions for a better engine, the variable stroke length engine is an example.

But they are so caught up in fighting over who's idea it is, that the idea might never come to market.

How's that for innovation for you?

Why doesn't Maddus-land have some way where he could, say, sell that idea to the car company. It's worth $100m to them - surely they could come to some kind of arrangement. If only there was a way that garage man could, say, protect his invention. Then he'd be able to sell it. The company would benefit, he'd be paid, and the customers would get a car that goes faster. Everyone wins.

You could sell the design of a new engine. Because that would take years to accomplish.

What you can't do is sell the idea. Ideas are abundant. There are literally billions and billions of ideas. Therefore they are worthless.

Design of an engine based on the idea on the other hand are worth something. Because it takes effort to turn ideas into something useful.

Therefore patenting ideas that are part of a design or a solution is preventing others to come up with designs and solutions. And by that logic they limit innovation.

Neither is electronic money. But that doesn't mean I think it's not tradeable.

How many ideas would it take to buy a bread?

51 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Exactly, lot's of money because they prevented somebody else to compete.

So, in a capitalist system the pricing system determines the value of a commodity. How would the pricing system work, if there is no competition? It can't.

They didn't prevent anyone else competing. They stopped other people stealing their idea.#

If you thought that a joystick was a great way to move a pointer on a screen, the patent on the mouse didn't stop you from developing the joystick and marketing it.

Capitalism is all about multiple people trading the same commodity and the price of that commodity would be set by supply and demand.

 

Because there is only one supplier of that idea, the price system again fails.

A) Since when does capitalism say anything about lots of people trading the same commodity? I'm the only one that bought my house. No-one else did. But that doesn't mean I didn't pay market price for it.

B) Who is this single supplier of all ideas? Is it Brian Beckman? Has no-one else invented any idea before or since? Surely, if there is one person who supplies all of our ideas in society, we are but dust to his/her sheer intellectual godliness.

They don't innovate, they buy companies, strip their IP and lay off the people.

Aha! There we have it. Microsoft is not innovative, therefore it has to buy ideas from people who are. See - that's what I'm taking about. Small companies who don't have the scale that Microsoft has sell their ideas (via patents) to Microsoft, who turns them into successful products, benefiting the consumer.

If they couldn't sell their ideas to Microsoft (either by selling the idea, or by selling the company), then the only way to get an idea into Microsoft would be to make it public domain or to work for Microsoft - and not everyone fits into the culture of Microsoft, and not everyone who doesn't has ideas that won't work when Microsoft implements them.

Companies already outsource their payroll, their accounting, their HR, their IT. Why shouldn't a company be able to outsource their R&D as well?

You trade the people with ideas.

Wait - now your researchers are commodities? Think, slave, think harder! If I don't have more ideas by sundown, I shall sell you and your whole team to Oracle, and they'll whip you till you cry! Bwahahahaha!

And anyway, what if your researchers don't want to move jobs? What if they like it in their little research company where they get to wear jeans to work and go home at 4? Why should they be forced to wear a suit and sit in a cubicle to bring an idea to market? Why can't they just sell the idea to the men in suits who are good at making, rather than having to join their ranks to make a difference?

No, I'm saying that preventing other people from using the same idea as you limits innovation.

If they came up with the same idea by using their brains, the idea wasn't novel and shouldn't have been patentable in the first place.

If they came up with the same idea by copying your product, then why should they be allowed to make a cheaper product by bypassing the cost of R&D?

What you're asking for, Maddus, leads to a wholesale closure of independent research companies, and research departments in major companies. Apple would go out of business tomorrow to Foxconn if they didn't have patents, because Foxconn (by definition) can make iPhones cheaper.

You could sell the design of a new engine. Because that would take years to accomplish.

Aha! A design is being sold. That's what a patent is.

What you can't do is sell the idea. Ideas are abundant. There are literally billions and billions of ideas. Therefore they are worthless.

If you want to spend $600 patenting a worthless idea, be my guest. People only patent ideas that are marketable.

How many ideas would it take to buy a bread?

How many shares would it take to buy one?

Values of things are set by the market - so let's ask the market. Mr A will buy my idea for $500, and Mrs B will sell me a bread for $2. Therefore I can buy 250 breads with my idea.

Isn't capitalism great at coming up with relative values for things, You should try it sometime, Maddus. It's pretty liberating.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC:

The patent system in the drug industry works a bit differently. They have five year patents, not twenty plus year patents. They are always in court protecting their products and judges declare drugs generic all the time.

I love you how backtrack after somebody destroys your argument. You were right the first time. Patent protection on drugs lasts 20 years (at least they are in the US), but that period of protection, as with any patent, begins when it's filed.

Drugs have to go through extensive testing in clinical trials before the FDA approves them and well before they ever hit the market, and that process could take years. Companies, effectively have only some fraction of those 20 years of protection, but it certainly isn't zero.

12 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC:

*snip*

I beg to differ.

Take a look at the fashion industry. If you don't innovate, you are no longer hip and you are out.

There is very little genuine "innovation" in the fashion industry. One dress is conceptually no different to another. Fashion is instead mostly about convincing people that they need to buy replacements for items they already have and that would otherwise be perfectly serviceable, simply on the grounds that the older ones no longer possess some ethereal quality called "cool", even though they did when you first got them.

That said, the fashion industry is massively dependent on copyright protection. There really is no reason anyone couldn't mass produce direct copies of the latest Nike trainers or Gucci jeans. And they could do so without all that annoying hassle of having to employ highly paid and skilled designers because Nike, Gucci et al would have done that for them. And, of course, the moments of true innovation in the fashion industry (the zip, Velcro and so on) were all patented ideas and successful because of it.

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Yeah sure, do it differently then everybody else. In each and every application.

Or pay Microsoft, not for the control, but for the idea of the control. First yes, second no.

Except that it's not particularly expensive to write a Ribbon control from scratch. What is expensive is all the user acceptance studies and iterative development that goes into ironing out all the little details like the specific arrangement of functions. Which is why Microsoft very generously license the Ribbon out for nothing except in the specific case of direct Office competitors. If they couldn't do that, it would instead be a case of developing the interface in the cheapest way possible, regardless of whether it really improved things because you can bet that within weeks of launch a competitor would simply release a direct clone. 

10 hours ago, AndyC wrote

There is very little genuine "innovation" in the fashion industry. One dress is conceptually no different to another. Fashion is instead mostly about convincing people that they need to buy replacements for items they already have and that would otherwise be perfectly serviceable, simply on the grounds that the older ones no longer possess some ethereal quality called "cool", even though they did when you first got them.

So they innovate and stay "cool".

That in your opinion a dress hasn't changed much, just shows you are not into fashion.

I could argue the same about Windows 8, nothing fundamentally has changed. You still click a mouse, tap on the keyboard and move files around.

That said, the fashion industry is massively dependent on copyright protection. There really is no reason anyone couldn't mass produce direct copies of the latest Nike trainers or Gucci jeans. And they could do so without all that annoying hassle of having to employ highly paid and skilled designers because Nike, Gucci et al would have done that for them. And, of course, the moments of true innovation in the fashion industry (the zip, Velcro and so on) were all patented ideas and successful because of it.

Copyright is something entirely different then patents. I'm all for protection of ones brands and products. But as soon as you start handing out patents, for say the concept of a T-shirt and hand it to Nike. Then it is free to produce T-shirts at a price determined by Nike, we as a consumer get the short end of the stick. The price should be set by the price system and there should be competition, patents prevent that.

Patents didn't do the Linux community any good. For instance, the OGG file format is fully patent free and because of this it needs to completely redefine how to store audio and video. This makes for a very bad file format, because audio and video is stored in a certain way because that is most efficient. So patents hurt me as a consumer, because I now have to pay more for licensing someone's ideas or more because someone has to put in extra work to work around them. It's a lose-lose-win situation, where the holder of the patent wins and the rest loses.

Except that it's not particularly expensive to write a Ribbon control from scratch. What is expensive is all the user acceptance studies and iterative development that goes into ironing out all the little details like the specific arrangement of functions. Which is why Microsoft very generously license the Ribbon out for nothing except in the specific case of direct Office competitors. If they couldn't do that, it would instead be a case of developing the interface in the cheapest way possible, regardless of whether it really improved things because you can bet that within weeks of launch a competitor would simply release a direct clone. 

Poor Microsoft, yeah we really need to protect them with a government writ. Otherwise they would have never launched the vNext of Office. I hope you see how ridiculous that sounds.

There will always be innovation.

8 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

So they innovate and stay "cool".

That in your opinion a dress hasn't changed much, just shows you are not into fashion.

Judging from your avatar picture, neither do you. Horizontal stripes?

There will always be innovation.

Yes, and even in a world that has patents. Quite a lot, actually.

Poor Microsoft, yeah we really need to protect them with a government writ. Otherwise they would have never launched the vNext of Office.

They would have launched Office 2007 - of course they would. They just wouldn't have invented the Ribbon interface.

It's too expensive to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-months developing stuff that your competitors can just steal, so it'd be a race-to-the-bottom.

Patents not only encourage people to innovate, they also encourage competitors to try out different ideas. If the ribbon wasn't protected by a patent, OpenOffice would just blindly implement it. As it stands, they have to up their game and actually invent a new interface for themselves.

Or they can wait until the patent expires, and use it.

Either way, society wins. The innovator gets a short-term competitive advantage until the patent expires that allows them to earn money to pay back the cost of the R&D, and the competitors get an incentive to invent and try out new ideas.

13 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

They would have launched Office 2007 - of course they would. They just wouldn't have invented the Ribbon interface.

Why would I buy 2007 then? If it's completely the same as 2005? Since Microsoft can't protect it's ideas and by your logic then doesn't invest into new ideas. The end result is that the 2005 would be exactly the same as the 2007.

You can't prove that fact, neither can I prove the fact that they would have launched anyway, but I think mine is closer to reality then yours.

It's too expensive to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-months developing stuff that your competitors can just steal, so it'd be a race-to-the-bottom.

How do you reach that conclusion? I've found no examples in real life.

Patents not only encourage people to innovate, they also encourage competitors to try out different ideas. If the ribbon wasn't protected by a patent, OpenOffice would just blindly implement it. As it stands, they have to up their game and actually invent a new interface for themselves.

Patents do no such thing. They establish ownership of an idea. Nothing more, nothing less.

What's wrong with OpenOffice implementing it? If it's a good way of doing a menu? Who cares?

Microsoft get's the innovaters badge and OpenOffice get's the ridicule. Kinda like how Microsoft is now getting ridicule and Apple has the innovators badge.

I really don't see the problem. More choice for consumers, less profit for Ballmer.

Or they can wait until the patent expires, and use it.

Either way, society wins. The innovator gets a short-term competitive advantage until the patent expires that allows them to earn money to pay back the cost of the R&D, and the competitors get an incentive to invent and try out new ideas.

So in 20 years we would be able to use the Ribbon idea?

And you think that's capitalism? That's pure protectionism!

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

You can't prove that fact, neither can I prove the fact that they would have launched anyway, but I think mine is closer to reality then yours.

This argument is getting rather boring. Fine, Maddus. You prove that without patents everyone would be more innovative. Prove to me, Maddus, that without patents Microsoft would still have invented the Ribbon. Go on. Why not have a look at the most innovative countries in the world. Which ones of those have patent laws? Let's look at the least innovative countries in the world. Do they have patent laws? Is that just a really strong correlation, or is it causation, Maddus?

I know for sure that if I was the head of Microsoft, and the US said "ok - times up - no more patents for anybody", the first thing I'd do is instruct the head of MSR to fire half of his research team and I'd hire a huge team of reverse-engineers to make sure that when anyone else puts a product on the market, that we've found out how it works and can field a competitor product with all of their ideas in it within a month of their release.

Why bother getting ideas the long and expensive road of researching them yourself, when you can just steal someone else's completed idea? It's way cheaper.

No - in patent-free-land, the innovation in Microsoft products would come from stomping out small competitors and stealing their ideas - not from coming up with good ideas myself.

Why spend $5bn developing a new car for Honda, when Honda could just steal the design of the next Toyota to hit the market at the cost of $100m? Sure there's a minor time-difference between when Toyota hits the market and when Honda does. But are Toyota really going to make $4.9bn in that time? What price are they going to have to charge for their cars in the first few weeks to make that kind of money back? And is anyone going to pay it when they know that they can wait a few weeks to get a Honda car that looks exactly the same that Honda stole from Toyota?

Toyota would notice that making new good cars is a roughly ($4.9bn - money made in the first few months) loss making exercise. So they'll stop making new things.

Sure, for a few months everyone would have cheapy-cheap cars made by reverse-engineering companies in Thailand and China. But after a few years of no innovation and mass unemployment of researchers across the US, is this really something that would be in the benefit of the US economy, or the end consumers?

Once again, Maddus, you're barking up the wrong tree. What we need is more capitalism in the market, not less. Without patents, you artificially reduce the amount of competition and volume of trade of ideas. If patents are the means to protect the idea that people who make ideas that other people want get rewarded at a price decided by the market - that's what we as a capitalist society should do.

Just arbitrarily shouting "no - ideas are for everybody" just sounds from here like communist BS, and a sure-fire way of crippling the innovation market.

This is a good article, puts our discussion into perspective;

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/06/imagining-world-without-patents.html

You have valid points and I do realize that we can't go back to a patent free world. But (always a but) I still believe it is a means to create a sanctioned monopoly. And capitalism says monopolies are bad, mmmmmmkay?

You have valid points and I do realize that we can't go back to a patent free world. But (always a but) I still believe it is a means to create a sanctioned monopoly. And capitalism says monopolies are bad, mmmmmmkay?

And tell me, Maddus. How are monopolies prevented in the US? Is it by consumers who refuse to buy from them, or is it the law which makes it illegal to be a monopoly, and the government who breaks them up?

Capitalism says monopolies are bad - but it has no way to prevent them, other than government regulations.

Governments preventing monopolies is a case in point of regulation needed to keep capitalism working in the best interests of society.

Patents don't create monopolies. They give exclusivity of an invention to the inventor for a short amount of time so they can recoup the costs of inventing it.

That's why I'm so hell bent against patents, they create monopolies instead of preventing them!

Patents don't create monopolies. They give exclusivity of an invention to the inventor for a short amount of time so they can recoup the costs of inventing it.

Yes, a sanctioned monopoly.

You can twist and turn it anyway you like it, in it's core it's creating it, whether the law is written with this intention or not. 

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

That's why I'm so hell bent against patents, they create monopolies instead of preventing them!

Patents don't create monopolies on ideas any more than laws against burglaries create monopolies on possessions, or the laws on trespass create monopolies on houses.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: Oh, I am all for government regulations against monopolies. There are plenty of cases where government has a role in protecting the capitalist system.

That's why I'm so hell bent against patents, they create monopolies instead of preventing them!

*snip*

Yes, a sanctioned monopoly.

You can twist and turn it anyway you like it, in it's core it's creating it, whether the law is written with this intention or not. 

Actually, you're the one doing the twisting. You're trying to expand the definition of monopoly to beyond what is commonly accepted. The sooner that you realize that your positions are often both the minority opinion and considered by many to be radical, the sooner you'll understand why hardly anybody ever agrees with your positions.

Patents have no more a monopolistic effect on trade than copyright laws do, yet I don't see you  complaining that you can't re-record the Beatles White Album without paying royalties to Apple Records. The difference is that your livelihood is based on writing software and not on your singing voice. I would imagine if this were the case, you'd be complaining on some music forum that your inability to steal lyrics from the Beatles is hindering innovation in music and that copyright laws are tantamount to government sanctioned monopolies.

7 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

That's why I'm so hell bent against patents, they create monopolies instead of preventing them!

*snip*

Which patent created what monopoly?

23 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

So they innovate and stay "cool".

That in your opinion a dress hasn't changed much, just shows you are not into fashion.

That's not innovation, or at least not in a patentable sense. There is no inventive step, nothing that progresses human knowledge. It is, quite literally, entirely about how things look.

Patents didn't do the Linux community any good. For instance, the OGG file format is fully patent free and because of this it needs to completely redefine how to store audio and video. This makes for a very bad file format, because audio and video is stored in a certain way because that is most efficient. So patents hurt me as a consumer, because I now have to pay more for licensing someone's ideas or more because someone has to put in extra work to work around them. It's a lose-lose-win situation, where the holder of the patent wins and the rest loses.

The Linux community did not have to invent a different method of doing video encoding. They did so entirely out of a set of restrictions on what is acceptable that they have entirely forced upon themselves. If that turns out not to be cost effective, that's entirely up to their decision to encumber themselves with more restrictions than anyone else. It's like deciding that whenever you fly, you'll only ever fly Eastwards, nobody but yourself is to blame when you find out that's expensive sometimes.

As a consumer, you have to pay for the things you use. It doesn't really matter whether that's in licensing H.264 or in the work of reinventing the wheel that the Linux community have done. The system works because consumers always end up paying appropriately for the things they consume. Once you remove that, the system falls down because there is no longer any guarantee that the people consuming have ever contributed their share to the costs of what they consume.

*snip*

There will always be innovation.

Why?

If you were in charge of any company and you had the option of either spending $1 million developing a product and then trying to sell it the recoup that debt (baring in mind the minute you launch it, someone else can sell the same thing at 0 development costs), or just copying what someone else has already done and starting out at an effective $1 million ahead of where you would otherwise, what would you do? What possible motivation do you imagine there is in spending money you don't have to?

-Josh

You ask me what patent create what monopolies, the verdict is a clear example of how Apple has a monopoly on creating devices that even remotely resemble an iPhone.

And your last remark is a clear example of how inventors and investors are protected at the expense of the consumer.

It's not governments job to reduce the risks of investors. If he thinks he can make money with the idea, he will still invest, it's for him to decide. All you are doing with patents is reduce risk and increase ROI at the expense of the consumer.

It's also not governments job to protect the income of an inventor. If the market values his ideas at nothing, they are worth nothing. Creating a deed of ownership to a concept is just ridiculous. The value of the inventor is inventing solutions, if the market values that skill they will price it accordingly. It's not governments job to protect his income at the expense of the consumer.

What governments job is, is protecting Apple's products. So products that do not originate from Apple that bare the Apple logo, are not allowed to be sold. This way government is protecting the consumer, the employees and the investors at the same time.

No amount of reform of current patent law is going to change these facts.

Btw, property rights are something entirely different than intellectual rights.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC:

You ask me what patent create what monopolies, the verdict is a  clear example of how Apple has a monopoly on creating devices that even remotely resemble an iPhone.

In much the same way that McDonalds has a monopoly on making Happy Meals yes and having burger chains that have a big yellow M on the front.

Apply has a "monopoly" - if you insist on using the word is a silly way -  on making iPhones, but it doesn't have any control over the smartphone market.

You can still buy an Android tomorrow if you want. Or a Windows phone. Those are pretty similar to an iPhone.

If you actually just want an iPhone, then buy an iPhone. But buy it from Apple, because they're the ones who invented it.

A) It's not governments job to reduce the risks of investors

B) It's also not governments job to protect the income of an inventor

C) What governments job is, is protecting Apple's products

A) You're right. But the government doesn't do that.

B) You're also right. The government doesn't do that either. If the invention sucks, the inventor doesn't get paid. He only gets paid if his patent is a good idea and he can join forces with someone who turns it into products that actually sell. Go capitalism!

C) Nope. Government's job isn't protecting Apple's anything. Apple can protect their own damn products through a court of law - like they just did in a patent court for example (at Apple's expense). All government does is provide and secure the marketplace. After that, companies are on their own.

Patents provide and secure the marketplace of ideas, just like stockmarket rules provide and secure the marketplace of company shares and the sale-of-goods-act provides and secures the marketplace inside a shop.

Government doesn't subsidize, or discriminate in the patents market. If you have an idea, patent it. The value of the patent is what the market decides.

17 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

In much the same way that McDonalds has a monopoly on making Happy Meals yes and having burger chains that have a big yellow M on the front.

Apply has a "monopoly" - if you insist on using the word is a silly way -  on making iPhones, but it doesn't have any control over the smartphone market.

You can still buy an Android tomorrow if you want. Or a Windows phone. Those are pretty similar to an iPhone.

If you actually just want an iPhone, then buy an iPhone. But buy it from Apple, because they're the ones who invented it.

Monopoly on making Happy Meals and on restaurants with a yellow M in the front yard. They do not have the monopoly on making hamburgers.

It's not just a protection of the Apple brand and the product that they call an iPhone, it's a patent on rounded corners, buttons, applications, layout,.. Basically the whole burger and the temperature you put the grill on.

And if it was up to Apple, I would not be able to buy a Galaxy SII anymore.

A) You're right. But the government doesn't do that.

B) You're also right. The government doesn't do that either. If the invention sucks, the inventor doesn't get paid. He only gets paid if his patent is a good idea and he can join forces with someone who turns it into products that actually sell. Go capitalism!

C) Nope. Government's job isn't protecting Apple's anything. Apple can protect their own damn products through a court of law - like they just did in a patent court for example (at Apple's expense). All government does is provide and secure the marketplace. After that, companies are on their own.

A) Yes they do, with patents they guarantee that a good idea potentially yields more then without the patent. So they are reducing the investment risk and increasing the ROI. Why do investors always ask if you patented something? And why do their eyes roll to dollar signs when you answer that question with yes? Guaranteed income because we have no competition!

B) No, if some other inventor thinks up something different but looks like his original sloppy not so good invention, he can still use the arm of the law to force the other inventor to pay up.

C) That's the one regulation I am for, because it benefits all parties. The only one it doesn't benefit is the copycat.

Patents provide and secure the marketplace of ideas, just like stockmarket rules provide and secure the marketplace of company shares and the sale-of-goods-act provides and secures the marketplace inside a shop.

Government created markets rarely work. They only work as long as there is the force of government backing it. If they strike or change the law your investment can become worthless overnight. In normal markets you have time to adept, as they tend to move more slowly.

Government doesn't subsidize, or discriminate in the patents market. If you have an idea, patent it. The value of the patent is what the market decides.

It discriminated against SamSung in favor of Apple,.

The value of the patent is not weighed in the brilliance of the idea. The value is how much can I sue for or how long can I protect the product I invested in from competition.

It's not just a protection of the Apple brand and the product that they call an iPhone, it's a patent on rounded corners, buttons, applications, layout,.. Basically the whole burger and the temperature you put the grill on.

No - it's a patent on stuff that looks and behaves like an iPhone on a device that basically amounts to an iPhone.

Windows Phone looks a lot different to an iPhone - and they've never been sued by Apple over it.

I'd argue that Windows' Phone's live tiles is actually a really neat innovation - an innovation that wouldn't have been necessary had Microsoft been able to just copy the Apple 4x4 grid of rounded icons.

Apple having the patent on their 4x4 grid of icons on a smartphone doesn't just protect Apple's innovation of laying out the screen like that (let's remember the PDAs before it were miniature desktops and the nokia phones had hideous text menus or circular scroll menus - when the iPhone came on the market the 4x4 desktop with side-scrolling pages was unique in the market) - but not only did Apple protect their innovation, they encourage their competitors to innovate themselves.

As a consumer, I win - I now have the choice of choosing the innovation from Apple (4x4 with side-scrolling to get to apps) or the innovation from Microsoft (the live tiles and vertical scrolling).

And if it was up to Apple, I would not be able to buy a Galaxy SII anymore.

I'm sure that's the case. But in the world we currently live in, Apple doesn't set the law.

Government created markets rarely work. 

The patent market isn't a government "created" market. It's a government "enabled" market.

The government aren't giving artificial value to ideas - people want to be able to buy and sell them - the government is merely enabling people to trade the items that they want at the prices that they want.

It discriminated against SamSung in favor of Apple,.

No it didn't. The government didn't decide the outcome of that case.

The value of the patent is not weighed in the brilliance of the idea. The value is how much can I sue for or how long can I protect the product I invested in from competition.

The value of the patent is whatever the market decides is it's value, Maddus. The government doesn't tell Apple to patent things. It doesn't tell Microsoft what the value of Skype's patents are, or tell Motorola to sell patents to Google at $15 each.

Big damages are only awarded for big infringements. Apple got $1bn not because their idea was really clever - but because Samsung swindled $1bn of value from Apple by stealing their research and incorporating it into their product without asking or paying Apple for it.

If I made the evildictaitor-phone that looked like an iPhone, Apple could sue me for it. But unless my phone happened to sell hundreds of millions of units, Apple would only get a small amount of money out of me for it, because my infringement would be small compared with Samsung's.

The value of the patent is whatever the market decides. Get this through your head. It is capitalism that drives the patent market, not the government. And the government preventing patents is the same as the government closing down the market for patents.

You can't have it both ways. If the government are a big pile of idiots who get in the way of market capitalism, how come you keep wanting the government to intervene to close down the market?

6 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Monopoly on making Happy Meals and on restaurants with a yellow M in the front yard. They do not have the monopoly on making hamburgers.

*snip*

That's because you cannot patent foods. You can only patent a method for making food or the recipe, which brings to mind the concept of a "trade secret". Coca-Cola has been protecting its trade secret on the Coke formula for over a century because filing for patent protection requires that you reveal the formula. That's the price that you pay for your 20-year "monopoly". Instead, Coca-Cola locked its formula in a vault and hasn't let any trade partners or joint ventures even take a peek. Sure, they let independent bottlers produce the end-user product, but the Coca-Cola corporation is the sole distributor of the syrup.

Yes, PepsiCo has been able to rise to prominence despite Coca-Cola's corporate "isolationism" in protecting its Coke formula, but that's only because it's fairly easy to reverse engineer an adequate simulation of flavor of soft drink.

But imagine something like drugs, which are far more difficult to reverse engineer. If we didn't have a patent system that gives companies a small window in which to be sole distributor BUT forces them to reveal their trade secrets, then every pharmaceutical company would lock up their formulas in a vault like Coca-Cola does. Imagine Bayer being the only manufacturer of aspirin for over a century? Today, I can buy a bottle of aspirin for less than a dollar. How much would it cost if Bayer still had a monopoly on aspirin?

The choices are: what you call "government-sanctioned" monopolies for a fixed period of time OR "corporate isolationism-based" monopolies to perpetuity. Which scenario do think stifles innovation?

Dude, I'm not saying that there should not be a market for patents under capitalism, that's all fine and dandy. I'm saying their should not be patents to begin with.

I'm saying that they do not do the job they were set out to do. They have a serious hurtful impact to our economy. So it's time to get rid of them.

Protecting your product is FINE. Preventing anyone using the concepts used in the creation of your product by law is NOT.

If I made the evildictaitor-phone that looked like an iPhone

That would be fine. If your phone was better then the iPhone and sold more units, that would be fine also. It would motivate Apple to drop prices and start innovating. Now they can hang back, release version 5 with little to no innovation and watch their bank account reach $300 billion. That number alone proves my entire point. In a free capitalist system, no one would be able to make such high profits, because competition would keep prices low.

26 minutes ago, cbae wrote

That's because you cannot patent foods. You can only patent a method for making food or the recipe, which brings to mind the concept of a "trade secret". Coca-Cola has been protecting its trade secret on the Coke formula for over a century because filing for patent protection requires that you reveal the formula. That's the price that you pay for your 20-year "monopoly". Instead, Coca-Cola locked its formula in a vault and hasn't let any trade partners or joint ventures even take a peek. Sure, they let independent bottlers produce the end-user product, but the Coca-Cola corporation is the sole distributor of the syrup.

Yes, PepsiCo has been able to rise to prominence despite Coca-Cola's corporate "isolationism" in protecting its Coke formula, but that's only because it's fairly easy to reverse engineer an adequate simulation of flavor of soft drink.

Thank you for proving my case that patents are not needed.

But imagine something like drugs, which are far more difficult to reverse engineer. If we didn't have a patent system that gives companies a small window in which to be sole distributor BUT forces them to reveal their trade secrets, then every pharmaceutical company would lock up their formulas in a vault like Coca-Cola does. Imagine Bayer being the only manufacturer of aspirin for over a century? Today, I can buy a bottle of aspirin for less than a dollar. How much would it cost if Bayer still had a monopoly on aspirin?

The choices are: what you call "government-sanctioned" monopolies for a fixed period of time OR "corporate isolationism-based" monopolies to perpetuity. Which scenario do think stifles innovation?

Then don't make them reveal their secrets.

I have no objection to trust medical companies to do their own testing. It's in their best interest to make a drug that works, in those circumstances. Now it's only in their best interest to meet regulations.

And reverse engineering a drug, is peanuts. It's the same as reverse engineering a hamburger.

Getting past the FDA is the hassle.

53 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: 

Dude, I'm not saying that there should not be a market for patents under capitalism, that's all fine and dandy. I'm saying their should not be patents to begin with.

If there are no patents, where is the market for ideas?

That would be fine. If your phone was better then the iPhone and sold more units, that would be fine also.

 

What if my phone isn't better. It's just cheaper because I have a company that is identical to Apple's in every way, sans research department. I keep my costs marginally lower than Apples (by not spending money on expensive research), and therefore produce iPhones at slightly cheaper prices than Apple.

The only way Apple can compete with me, is for them to cut their costs down to my levels - i.e. to scrap their R&D department too.

That's not motivating them to innovate - it's motivating them not to.

In a free capitalist system, no one would be able to make such high profits, because competition would keep prices low.

Why would capitalism stop people making profits?

And reverse engineering a drug, is peanuts. ... Getting past the FDA is the hassle.

You've stated several times on this thread and others that you want to scrap that too.

Under your system, Glaxo will have a board meeting about a new AIDS drug that they are developing. It's got a 10-year research cycle and will cost them $7bn. To recoup the cost in 10-years they'll have to price the drug at $10,000 a pill for ten years.

The Glaxo chairman points out that within a year of launch, Cheap-o-pharm, Glaxo's biggest competitor will have copied the drug and will sell it at the cost of the pill - not the cost of the research - so roughly $10.

Glaxo has two choices - either they can push ahead and try and charge $10m per pill in the first year - but frankly that's unlikely to work - or they can cancel the research because they won't make the $7bn back before cheap-o-pharm has their copy of the drug in the stores.

Result: Glaxo cancels their 10-year research cycle. Society doesn't get an AIDS drug in ten years time costing $10,000, and they don't get one in 20-years costing $10 either.

If Glaxo had patent-protection, they could keep the research program going, they'd be employing people in the US, pushing drug-science further (which leads to indirect medical benefits elsewhere), gets a return on their investment if they succeed (and they don't if they fail - yay capitalism) and society gets an AIDs pill. Sure it's expensive in the short-term to pay for the cost of the research that made it - but it's also cheap in the longer-term because the patent expires!

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Thank you for proving my case that patents are not needed.

No, I showed how protecting through trade secrets creates a monopoly. The Coca-Cola corporation has a monopoly on the formula for Coke and has a monopoly on the distribution of the syrup. If the formula was protected by patents, they could license the manufacturing of the syrup to the bottlers, and the prices would be lower.

*snip* 

Then don't make them reveal their secrets.

What are you arguing now? Are you arguing that patents shouldn't make companies "reveal their secrets" and at the same time arguing to abolish patents? Your arguments are truly nonsensical.

I have no objection to trust medical companies to do their own testing. It's in their best interest to make a drug that works, in those circumstances. Now it's only in their best interest to meet regulations.

And reverse engineering a drug, is peanuts. It's the same as reverse engineering a hamburger.

Yet nobody knows the exact formula for Coca-Cola that's still locked up in the vault.

Getting past the FDA is the hassle.

That's a different issue entirely. Quit muddling the argument every time you find yourself losing.

6 days ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cheong: I really love the Chinese worker mentality,.

I love the fact that they have largely free trade.

I just hope you don't make the same mistakes we did, relying to much on government.

The sad thing is the current Chinese has started copying foreign rules on IP aspects without recognising the value of traditional system.

Although IP laws are usually only enforced on foreign business only, quite a lot of companies and researcher are start applying patents, who knows whether some time later some of them will launch "patent war" against themselves.

22 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC:

You ask me what patent create what monopolies, the verdict is a clear example of how Apple has a monopoly on creating devices that even remotely resemble an iPhone.

And your last remark is a clear example of how inventors and investors are protected at the expense of the consumer.

"a monopoly on devices that even remotely resemble the iPhone"?

My, that was desperate.

Every smartphone "remotely resembles" the iPhone, but Apple isn't taking every smartphone manufacturer to court.

Or perhaps what you're really asking for is for the government to make it easier for you to buy cheap knock-offs?

So let's try again. 

Which patent has created which monopoly?

47 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

Which patent has created which monopoly?

Asked and answered.

If you have an objection to the answer other then; 'that was desperate' I'm happy to debate it with you.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Asked and answered.

Competitors to the iPhone in terms of just the OS (not even the hardware) include Google Android, Windows Phone and RIM's Blackberry.

So Apple doesn't really have a monopoly in the smartphone market.

So Apple doesn't really have a monopoly in the smartphone market.

I didn't claim they have a monopoly on the smartphone market, I claimed that they have a monopoly on making devices that resemble aspects of the iPhone.

I didn't claim they have a monopoly on the smartphone market, I claimed that they have a monopoly on making devices that resemble aspects of the iPhone.

That's not a monopoly, any more than McDonald's "monopoly" on big yellow Ms outside their restaurants and calling their burgers McCheeseburgers, or Gucci's "monopoly" on handbags with a Gucci logo on them, or James Cameron's "monopoly" on selling Avatar DVDs.

Anyone who wants to innovate and bring new ideas and products into the Smartphone market can do so. Apple doesn't have any kind of monopoly whatsoever.

11 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

That's not a monopoly, any more than McDonald's "monopoly" on big yellow Ms outside their restaurants and calling their burgers McCheeseburgers, or Gucci's "monopoly" on handbags with a Gucci logo on them, or James Cameron's "monopoly" on selling Avatar DVDs.

The yellow M, McCheeseburgers, Gucci's logo, Avatar are trademarks. They identify a manifacturor or a product made by a manifacturor and are covered by copyright.

Something entirely different that a patent on sorting through your voicemail messages in an interactive way. That's a institutioned monopoly. I cannot make a phone with the same functionality, so Apple has a monopoly in making phones with that concept.

I would be something entirely different if Gucci would hold a patent on a bag, or McDonalds on an hamburger.

Anyone who wants to innovate and bring new ideas and products into the Smartphone market can do so. Apple doesn't have any kind of monopoly whatsoever.

Not if they remotely resemble something that Apple has a patent on.

And since they can patent anything they like, without proving that they can actually do it, you are bound to run into a brick wall the minute your device hits the market.

That's why you have lawsuits all over the place, like the one in this thread.

But by all means, continue to defend patents, sooner or later the system will collapse in on itself.

17 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

The yellow M, McCheeseburgers, Gucci's logo, Avatar are trademarks. They identify a manifacturor or a product made by a manifacturor and are covered by copyright.

What difference does it make they're trademarks? We're talking about "government-sanctioned monopolies" as you call them, and trademarks are equally " government-sanctioned monopolies" as patents. In fact, in the US, trademarks are issued by the same evil monopoly-sanctioning gubmint organization that issues patents.

37 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

The yellow M, McCheeseburgers, Gucci's logo, Avatar are trademarks. They identify a manifacturor or a product made by a manifacturor and are covered by copyright.

Well, since we're already on a crusade against patents, why not abolish trademarks as well? All of your arguments against patents (that they are protected by law, that they are intangible and that they limit your competition's ability to do as they please) all apply equally to trademarks.

Hence if your arguments against patents are valid, then trademarks should also be abolished. After all, why should McDonalds have a "monopoly" on McCheeseburgers? Or Gucci have a "monopoly" on bags that say Gucci on them?

Not if they remotely resemble something that Apple has a patent on.

Actually, only if they exactly match something Apple has a patent on.

And the fact that Blackberry and Microsoft and Google are all able to make smartphones that don't stomp on Apple's patents shows that actually Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smartphone market and that there is plenty of room for new innovators in the smartphone market if someone wanted to join in.

And since they can patent anything they like, without proving that they can actually do it, you are bound to run into a brick wall the minute your device hits the market.

They can't patent anything they like. They can only patent inventions. If you invent something different, Apple can't stop you making it.

That's why you have lawsuits all over the place, like the one in this thread.

I've been in the technology industry for a while, and none of my products or any small company that I've ever worked for has ever been sued for patent violations.

How?

Because we invent our own damn stuff. That makes us free from lawsuits, and makes our products better than the competition's. Yay capitalism.

@evildictaitor: Like I said, TradeMarks benefit all parties involved at no ones expense, save for the wannabe copy cats. Trademarks protect consumer, investor and employee. A trademark does not limit competition in any way shape or form, patents do. Patents just protects the investor and the employee at the expense of the consumer, patent bad!

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smartphone market

I do not and have never claimed they have a monopoly on the smartphone market.

They can't patent anything they like. They can only patent inventions. If you invent something different, Apple can't stop you making it.

Yeah, something different then a graphical user interface.

Because we invent our own damn stuff. That makes us free from lawsuits, and makes our products better than the competition's. Yay capitalism.

Can't squeeze blood out of water.

Try building an app that reaches the top 10 iPhone apps.

47 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: TradeMarks benefit all parties, patents just two out of three, big difference.

How so? My company is Apple Records, and I want to use an apple as my logo, but this other company sued me and won a trademark infringement case even though my company pre-existed that other company by 8 years. How does this benefit all parties?

*snip*

I do not and have never claimed they have a monopoly on the smartphone market.

*snip*

You're right. Your statement was actually much broader than that. You said that patents create government-sanctioned monopolies. So I guess Apple, the entire company, is an monopoly that has exclusive rights to producing tablets, notebook computers, desktop computers, and portable media players in addition to smartphones.

This is why you should tone down the hyperbole.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

And since they can patent anything they like, without proving that they can actually do it, you are bound to run into a brick wall the minute your device hits the market.

How exactly would one go about patenting something without knowing how to do it? The patent fundamentally describes how to do it.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Like I said, TradeMarks benefit all parties involved at no ones expense, save for the wannabe copy cats. 

Like Patents.

Copyright prevents your competitors from stealing and reproducing your product at knock-down cost, without paying for the creative cost of creating the content.

Trademarks prevent your competitors from stealing and reproducing your brand at knock-down cost, without paying for the cost of maintaining the brand.

Patents prevent your competitors from stealing and reproducing your research at knock-down cost, without paying for the cost of performing the research.

Patents don't limit what your competitors can do any more than trademark protection limits what they can do. Any problem has multiple solutions. If Apple has patented the way their desktop on the smartphone looks - design a different one.

Apple haven't patented graphical user interfaces. They've patented their graphical user interface. If you want to sell a smartphone, research and build your own UI, don't piggyback off Apple. We need a marketplace full of new ideas, not just thousands of crap copies of Apple's iPhone.

It's not hard to make a new UI - in fact that's exactly what Microsoft did, and now customers have more innovation in the market to choose from.

If you like Apple's 4x4 rounded-corners side-swiping app-goodness, buy an iPhone (or at least give Apple money for inventing that interface). If you don't want to, invent something different and cool like live-tiles. That way, your customers get something different rather than just a crap copy of an iPhone, and you don't have to give Apple any money.

All in all, customers get more choice because of patents, and companies aren't commercially punished for innovating by having all of the costs of research and not being able to enjoy the benefits of being able to use their ideas exclusively.

3 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Everyone wins.

It's actually everyone wins except Maddus, apparently. That's why he's so pissed at the patent system.

That's fine and dandy for creative works like music and art. But not allowing people to build on top of the software of others, you force them to reinvent the wheel. This does not encourage innovation, it encourages waste. And I don't like waste.

10 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@evildictaitor:

That's fine and dandy for creative works like music and art. But but not allowing people to build on top of the software of others, you force them to reinvent the wheel. This does not encourage innovation, it encourages waste. And I don't like waste.

Having a patent doesn't mean "not allowing". It means "not allowing without permission".

you force them to reinvent the wheel.

No - you encourage them to invent something different. If after 20 years it turns out that the only road to get to where you want is with this invention, then you can use it without asking. But until then, patents encourage you to try out other solutions. Who knows - perhaps your idea will turn out to be better.

Nobody thought they could beat Apple's swooshy-design on the smartphone (that's why Google just copied it), but who knows - perhaps Microsoft's live-tiles are better? And if not - perhaps something entirely different will arrive and shove both of them out of the way for how awesome it is.

Patents just stop you from copying your competitors' new inventions. You can still copy their old ones (patents expiry) and in the meantime you can invent your own ones.

Software is a creative work. There is no need for you to copy your rivals. There are many ways to solve a problem. Invent a new one yourself instead of copying everyone else. In this economy you need to pull your own weight instead of dragging behind the people who are innovating.

If I want to build a better robot it would be helpful to build ontop of ASIMO instead of raw servos. But, I can not because of patents and copyrights. 

Improving on the work of others is not a bad thing, it's actually the definition of innovation.

Imagine if you had to program everything by yourself in machine code and use no libraries.

If someone makes a library and lets you use it, that's great. But you don't have a "right" to use libraries where the author didn't give you permission to use it.

If Microsoft want to make you a language (C#) and a library (.NET base libraries) for free - that's great and very kind of them. But that doesn't give you the right to steal other libraries (like Telerik controls) for free.

You can make your own libraries though

18 minutes ago, Bass wrote

Imagine if you had to program everything by yourself in machine code and use no libraries. All software developers build on the work of others because it is fundamentally better that way.

If I want to build a better robot it would be helpful to build ontop of ASIMO instead of raw servos. But, I can not because of patents and copyrights. 

Improving on the work of others is not a bad thing, it's actually the definition of innovation.

But patents don't preclude improving on existing patented inventions. You just need to get permission to produce the improved invention. If your improvement is worthwhile enough for the owner of the original patent to license, you can do a cross-licensing deal in order to get permission. Wouldn't that scenario be sort of like a 2-company open source project in which participation by both parties is obliged rather than just hoped for?

The problem is greed and overblown egos.   Then you have enablers like the attorneys who want to make their money.  In the end a compromise is the only solution.  Samsung is just too big to take what the court decides in one particular case.   Apple will be cutting a deal soon.   Also,  the Apple story is going to get old and another Iphone does not improve that much on the old one.  It is becoming a commodity.  Samsung knows how to engineer the device and that is worth alot too.  Apple gets credit for some of the ideas but not all of them.  In the end I see a cross license deal.  Samsung pays some money but not over 1 billion.

The problems of permission culture are well documented.

It's not hard to make a new UI 

Do you work in IT?

That's HARD, very very HARD.

You know what even makes it harder?

That you have to work around current patents for doing things.

That makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE.

9 hours ago, Bass wrote

Improving on the work of others is not a bad thing, it's actually the definition of innovation.

And with patents you can't.

But evil considers this stealing.

I guess he does write everything in machine code. Or is that stealing an instructionset from Intel?

Do you work in IT?

Yep.

That's HARD, very very HARD.

Not really. It just requires you to think a little bit about how your users will want to use your app.

There are lots of unpatented and licence free UI designs and components that you can use if you don't want to make your own.

Stealing someone else's design that they didn't let you use is never the only option.

I guess he does write everything in machine code. Or is that stealing an instructionset from Intel?

I do actually write quite a lot of machine code. But that's not because of patents.

Most of my code is written in C# - patented by Microsoft and provided to me licence free. That's fine. I often use the Ribbon UI (patented but licence free), I use buttons and progressbars (out of patent), and I design my own UI components.

What I don't do is steal my competitors UI designs and concepts that aren't licence free. And the reason is simple: Because (A) that reduces my program's uniqueness, (B) forces me to be "behind" my competitors, (C) puts me at legal risk and (D) because frankly I don't need to. My components are better

51 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: Where does it say in a democracy that it is based on four year terms?

When did I say it has to be based on four year terms? The point is that when you vote in democracies, the winner stays for a set period of time (i.e. "term") without any competition (until the next vote), and the loser disappears (until the next vote). That doesn't happen in business when you "vote with your money". It's a stupid metaphor. Stop using it.

*snip*

They already do, that's why we have this court cases. Only difference is, is that you can build on each other's ideas, instead of constantly reinventing the wheel.

Patent court cases aren't all that common relative to how many products exist in the world. Most companies obey patent laws.

The reason why so much copying CAN happen as it does now is because in most case, you can still copy legally. Not everything in the world is patented. If you invent something, nobody puts a gun to your head to patent it. Patents also expire. And there's also this concept called "licensing deal".

If you don't want to do any of these things, feel free to steal whatever the hell you want. You can't get sued unless you get caught. Go right ahead.

*snip*

Yes they would, they do it now, despite copying from each other.

You see SOME differentiation now because companies are forced to innovate because of patents AND because not all patents are so broadly-defined. 

You can differentiate with price, added value, etc. etc.

How can you differentiate on added value when your competitor could just legally copy whatever value you added? Your competitor would be able to go to your OEM and say "I'll have what he's having" and just slap his logo on the product that you designed and engineered.

Differentiate on price? So businesses will be forced to engage in a race to the bottom? Great for the consumer. Terrible for business owners. Why even go into business then?

By eliminating patents, you just turned every known business model into a pure marketing contest. It's already bad enough now with the patent system that we currently have, and you want to eliminate what little mechanism we have to foster innovation.

*snip*

No, they can compete on whichever facet they want.

They can now, but not in your Fantasyland scenario.

8 minutes ago, cbae wrote

When did I say it has to be based on four year terms?

are you out of business for a 4 year term before you can run again

The point is that when you vote in democracies, the winner stays for a set period of time (i.e. "term") without any competition (until the next vote), and the loser disappears (until the next vote). That doesn't happen in business when you "vote with your money". It's a stupid metaphor. Stop using it.

Yes it does, no more money(votes), no more company.

Patent court cases aren't all that common relative to how many products exist in the world. Most companies obey patent laws.

The reason why so much copying CAN happen as it does now is because in most case, you can still copy legally. Not everything in the world is patented. If you invent something, nobody puts a gun to your head to patent it. Patents also expire. And there's also this concept called "licensing deal".

Like I said, patent is a monopoly where you can force the other party to either pay up or bury them in court cases. Call it a "licensing deal", I see things for what they are.

If you don't want to do any of these things, feel free to steal whatever the hell you want. You can't get sued unless you get caught. Go right ahead.

I write LOB apps and try and stay out of the app business as much as I can.

I have released two apps into the WP7 store, but am reluctant to dive into the snake pit that Windows8 apps will eventually turn into.

You see SOME differentiation now because companies are forced to innovate because of patents AND because not all patents are so broadly-defined. 

That does not count as innovation in my book. Innovation is improving on existing ideas and coming up with better alternatives. Just coming up with alternatives because you can't improve on existing ideas is just doing stuff differently regardless if they are an alternative.

How can you differentiate on added value when your competitor could just legally copy whatever value you added? Your competitor would be able to go to your OEM and say "I'll have what he's having" and just slap his logo on the product that you designed and engineered.

iCloud, iTunes, etc. etc.

Differentiate on price? So businesses will be forced to engage in a race to the bottom? Great for the consumer. Terrible for business owners. Why even go into business then?

It's their choice to do a race to the bottom. If they think they can sustain a higher price in the market because of added value and quality of the product, they don't have to compote solely on price.

By eliminating patents, you just turned every known business model into a pure marketing contest. It's already bad enough now with the patent system that we currently have, and you want to eliminate what little mechanism we have to foster innovation.

So, it's up to government to foster innovation, because us consumers simply just hate it?

I would like to believe Apple is selling massive amounts of products because they innovate and because consumers value those innovations, rather then that they are backed by a government that fosters innovation.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip**snip**snip*

You don't seem to know what "has to" means. I said "When did I say it has to be based on four year terms?" It can be a 1-year term, 2-year term, 4-year term, etc. I used "4-year term" just as an example, like our US presidential terms. The point is that in real democracies, the winner of elections serve "TERMS". That's the operative word, but you play dumb and argue about the "4-year" part.

This is exactly what you do. It's clockwork. When you know your argument has utterly failed, you start splitting hairs. I've pointed this out to you time and time again, yet it doesn't sink in. You're more interested in getting the last word instead of actually winning the debate.

Yes it does, no more money(votes), no more company.

Reading comprehension problem. I said just because one company makes less money than another company doesn't mean the company that makes less money has to go away. The company making less money can continue in operation making less money than the company that makes more money. 

In a real democracy, if you lose an election by even one vote, it's "Buh-bye. See ya! Don't come back until I've served my term, be it a 4- year or 6-year or 2-year term." 

Again, it's a stupid metaphor. Stop using it.

*snip*

Like I said, patent is a monopoly where you can force the other party to either pay up or bury them in court cases. Call it a "licensing deal", I see things for what they are.

No, you see things in distorted Fantasyland ways and far from reality.

As a consumer, you should expect to have to pay to buy, rent/hire, or use a product. If it's not priced to your satisfaction, don't pay. Go look for another product, or go ahead and steal it. Go right ahead. Nobody is physically stopping you. You don't go to jail unless you're caught.

As a company wanting to license somebody else's invention, you should expect to have to poay as well. If it's not priced to your satisfaction, go look for another invention to license. Or go ahead steal it. You want it for free, but nobody is forcing you to pay. So steal it. You can't be sued unless you're caught.

*snip*

It's their choice to do a race to the bottom. If they think they can sustain a higher price in the market because of added value and quality of the product, they don't have to compote solely on price.

When everybody copies from each other with no penalty, there can be nothing "added", by definition. Race to the bottom is the only possible end result in your Fantasyland if companies truly desired differentiation and the only means to differentiate is on price. The truth is that if anybody can copy anybody, nobody would even try differentiation. It would be far easier to just keep the price the same as your competition, spend nothing on R&D, and just put money into marketing to trick people into thinking your product is different when it's really not. Yay, free market!

So, it's up to government to foster innovation, because us consumers simply just hate it?

It's up to government to prevent theft of inventions so that innovation can happen. Just like it's up to the police to prevent robberies so commerce can happen.

I would like to believe Apple is selling massive amounts of products because they innovate and because consumers value those innovations, rather then that they are backed by a government that fosters innovation.

I would like to believe Apple is selling massive amounts of products because they innovate and because consumers value those innovations rather than that they steal those innovations from another company and claim them as their own.