Anyone know of a good source for ​Apple/​Samsung court case (1 ​bababaillio​n)?

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?

@cbae: Good point.  They should have struck a deal where both could keep on making money.  Now Samsung is going to sue Apple for 4G LTE.   It keeps going like any war. 

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.

@cbae:

The problems of permission culture are well documented.

@evildictaitor:

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

Moved from the other thread. Maddus' position doesn't extend much beyond cheerleading for the free market and railing against government no matter what the topic is, so I got confused about that the topic really was when I posted.

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.

@evildictaitor: Betcha you are stealing, without you even knowing it.

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.