Apple added a bunch of new products to the never-endinglist of Samsung things they want taken off store shelves for infringing on their patents. The new list includes the following:

• Samsung's Galaxy S III running the latest Android software (which recently passed the iPhone in global dominance)
• Samsung's Galaxy Note 2
• Samsung's Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wifi
• Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 10.1
• Samsung's Rugby Pro
• Samsung's Galaxy S III Mini

iWin

Because you know, seuing your competitors out of business is what drives innovation!

And we need our ideas protected, becuase there are so few ideas out there!

Constitutioned monopolies at work

With your perspective, the buyers of inventions with deep pockets can ALWAYS go around the inventor. They would have no legal recourse, either.

So you, inventor, go unpaid and your product yeilds profits to the deep-pocketed-pirate-corporation.

Nice plan if you're rich and immoral... like Ford was with this deal, and all of Wall Street every day...

Rule of Law is a concept that needs to be understood completely before patents can be demonized.

But keep in mind we are talking about a company that sits on $120 billion dollars of cash, money that mostly doesn't belong to the engineers that actually made the product. This is not David vs Goliath here, this is Goliath vs Goliath.

Since Apple relies on core component that only Samsung can provide, any fines subjected to them will return to themselves when the next time Samsung adjust the price for Apple when negotiating the next supply contract.

6 hours ago, cheong wrote

@GoddersUK: No. The point here is just to take it off shelves.

Nope, the point was to extract a license fee. Documents from the US case show that Apple offered Samsung a deal before the case begun. Samsung refused so stuff went legal. 

http://www.techspot.com/news/49768-microsoft-licensed-apple-tablet-patents-samsung-refused.html

The important thing to note is that Apple doesn't appear to be as interested in the money as it is in the 'non-copying' clause.

Since Apple relies on core component that only Samsung can provide, any fines subjected to them will return to themselves when the next time Samsung adjust the price for Apple when negotiating the next supply contract.

They can get components; the problem is getting them in sufficient quantities. What Apple is finding is that they need two or more suppliers to get the same yields as Samsung. The supply of screens will be handled by Sharp and Panasonic (I think Sharp are already doing the new In-Cell screens), the chips will be made by TSMC and Global Foundries.

And in the end it's not Samsung or Apple that has to fork over the bill, it's us.

49 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew: Ideas are not worth protecting. We have billions and billions of ideas each day, it's not like they are a scarce commodity.

And in the end it's not Samsung or Apple that has to fork over the bill, it's us.

The USA was created by people who catagorically rejected the status quo royal EU model that you're today promoting.

All ideas belong to the king. Mad 'King' Mattus.

You knucklehead.

Do you know any Brouns? Say hi to Lude. It's been 35 years...

2 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

The USA was created by people who catagorically rejected the status quo royal EU model that you're today promoting.

All ideas belong to the king. Mad 'King' Mattus.

You knucklehead.

Do you know any Brouns? Say hi to Lude. It's been 35 years...

Now where did I promote the EU model? I'm not in favor of any model.

All ideas do not belong to me, to Apple, to Samsung or whomever. Ideas are free to be shared and implemented by anyone. To put an ownership on a pattern of firing neurons in your brain is ludicrous and leads to the very excesses we are discussing here today.

I don't feel the need to protect an owner of an idea, because it leads to the excesses you see before you today! And how many life saving and life changing ideas are kept from us, because otherwise some multinational would go belly up?

Patents do more harm then good and we would be better off without them.

1 day ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Constitutioned monopolies at work

...

Ideas are not worth protecting. 

...

Now where did I promote the EU model? I'm not in favor of any model.

...

Patents do more harm then good and we would be better off without them.

For such a staunch libertarian, you are starting to sound like a dirty hippy.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew: Ideas are not worth protecting. We have billions and billions of ideas each day, it's not like they are a scarce commodity.

And in the end it's not Samsung or Apple that has to fork over the bill, it's us.

I'm sure we've been through this before but - not all ideas are equal.

• Some are obvious, these deserve no protection
• Some are obvious next steps, these also deserve no protection
• Some involve design (in a non-engineering sense), for these we have copyright

• Some ideas take decades to develop, these deserve protection
• Some idea take billions of pounds to develop, these deserve protection

Why?

Because if they weren't protected nobody would develop them. There would be no new computer chips, no new drugs, no new materials etc... It's not really the ideas you're protecting, but the substantial investment of time, money, resources, people, etc. used to bring them to fruition you're protecting.

Yes, in some cases, the patent system is abused. There are patent trolls. There are those who use patents to try and crush competition. Patents are granted that clearly shouldn't be valid.

Yes, the patent system needs (urgent and substantial) reform.

But, NO, the concept of a patent is not bad. It's not fundamentally broken. We need them.

17 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

• Some are obvious, these deserve no protection
• Some are obvious next steps, these also deserve no protection
• Some involve design (in a non-engineering sense), for these we have copyright

• Some ideas take decades to develop, these deserve protection
• Some idea take billions of pounds to develop, these deserve protection

Who is to judge wich category my idea falls in?

Because if they weren't protected nobody would develop them.

Source? Examples?

Imagine if Ford, Cheverolet, Cat, etc. etc. all had to develop their own unique way of operating their vehicles (because the way we operate them now is covered by patents), that would seriously hurt our choice in vehicles and not to mention driving up the costs significantly across the entire automotive industry.

The same principles apply with the iPad and the Galaxy Tab.

If SamSung is forced to do things differently, the price will go up and usuability will go down. And it's not like they are hurting iPad sales.

So, at what cost do we want to keep protecting ideas?

7 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Source? Examples?

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_2061.pdf

Conclusion
The patent system has emerged as the central institution for asserting intellectual property rights in many crucial fields of science and technology. From an economic point of view, patents offer a second-best solution to the market failure arising from the publicgood nature of knowledge. As such, the patent system contributes to solving a problem but comes with shortcomings of its own, mostly because it creates market power positions that can adversely affect the economic performance of the system. In fact, for most of the nineteenth century, the patent system was under considerable criticism by the same economics profession that now provides the most valuable insights for its defense. This change is due to the increased appreciation for the critical role that innovations play in stimulating economic growth. The possibility of protecting discoveries through patents,for example, is credited for bringing about crucial technical improvements in the industrial revolution (Dutton 1984). 

As noted, the ex post inefficiency of the patent system is viewed as the necessary downside in providing enough inducement to undertake desirable R&D projects. The size of the inducement depends on the length and scope of the patent right. Ideally, such an inducement should be proportional to the cost of the R&D project, which means that the length, breadth, and height of a patent should be tailored to each particular innovation. In addition to the cost of the project, such a tailored patent should also reflect the particular market conditions of the new product and/or process. Clearly, the patent system does not do that, and arguably it cannot do that. These limitations suggest that continued efforts are required to improve the workings of the patent system. A solid understanding of its complex (and sometime subtle) economic implications, which we have tried to review here, should prove useful in this endeavor.

7 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Imagine if Ford, Cheverolet, Cat, etc. etc. all had to develop their own unique way of operating their vehicles (because the way we operate them now is covered by patents), that would seriously hurt our choice in vehicles and not to mention driving up the costs significantly across the entire automotive industry.

Automobile companies do have contend with patents (and not only that - have always had to contend with patents - Ford was not born before Patent Law took effect in the USA). And there is no shortage of different automobiles in the marketplace, and no shortage of innovations in that market either.

If SamSung is forced to do things differently ... usuability will go down.

Source? Examples?

Automobile companies do have contend with patents (and not only that - have always had to contend with patents - Ford was not born before Patent Law took effect in the USA). And there is no shortage of different automobiles in the marketplace, and no shortage of innovations in that market either.

I don't agree, innovation has grinded to a halt. There have been no major innovations, just very slight improvements. The car we drive today doesnt differ much from the basic car 50 years ago.

I do wonder why Ford doesnt battle GM in courts as hefty as Apple and SamSung?

Source? Examples?

It's a prediction, not a statement of fact.

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: Interesting reading, thanks! Will shoot holes in it later

I suggest you write your holes into a paper and submit it to an economics journal.

Also, deciding that you're going to try and "shoot holes" in a document because you disagree with its conclusions demonstrates your commitment to not ever changing your mind in the face of evidence.

I don't frankly care whether you agree with the document or not. I'm just pointing out that you stating that there is no evidence for the opposite of your point-of-view whilst failing to submit your own evidence and dismissing or "shooting holes" in evidence that disagrees with your position is both immensely unscientific and quite hypocritical.

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I don't agree, innovation has grinded to a halt. There have been no major innovations, just very slight improvements. 

https://www.google.co.uk/?tbm=pts#q=automobile&tbm=pts

I do wonder why Ford doesnt battle GM in courts as hefty as Apple and SamSung.

https://www.google.co.uk/?q=ford+patent+lawsuit

1 day ago, JoshRoss wrote

@JoshRoss: Because he's dead!

I heard he might be coming back for just one more thing?

I'm just pointing out that you stating that there is no evidence for the opposite of your point-of-view whilst failing to submit your own evidence and dismissing or "shooting holes" in evidence that disagrees with your position is both immensely unscientific and quite hypocritical.

I did not claim such a thing, stop misrepresenting my arguments.

My claim is that it's doing more harm then good.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

My claim is that it's doing more harm then good.

Which you are not backing up with the same level of evidence you are demanding from others (in this thread I can quote you as saying "Source? Evidence?" when presented with conjectures - yet you provide none for your own).

If you bothered to think for a moment that some of the silly things we have at the moment like patent laws were put there for a reason, you might realize that abolishing them might actually be worse than doing nothing. And if you bothered to investigate other people's opinions from time to time, you might found out they are occasionally right.

But for heaven's sake, please stop using "gut feelings" to dismiss researched evidence that contradicts what you "think", and instead try and understand that science and reasonable discourse is done not by trying to discredit your opponent's evidence, but providing your own, more credible evidence.

Science is not common sense, and it's not based on gut feelings - it's evidence based. And that's a good thing. It's one the reasons we have planes that fly in the sky, computers in our offices and why we've discounted the effect of child-sacrifices as a major deciding factor in the quality of our harvests.

You presume that I don't do any reasearch, I do a lot, from both sides. That's why I did read the article you posted, it brings up some interesting points, but the writers lack imagination. They can only come up with a system where the government rewards inventors. Then a patent system is indeed the best option.

There is a third option, wich they have not considered. For somebody to copy a succesfull idea, it first has to become succesfull. So the fruits are allready plucked from the effort. If the fruits are allready plucked, there is no need to protect it.

It's my conclusion after much delaboration that patents are; constitutioned monopolies on ideas that aim to benefit the holder of the patent at the expense of everyone else. That their effect is to crippling competition, preventing startups from emerging in existing markets and that prevent innovation. 

How is this for evidence;

When did Samsung started to copy from Apple? Was it as soon as the iPhone and iPad hit the shelves? Or was it when Apple already had a major share in the smartphone and tablet market?

It took three generations of iPhones for Samsung to catch up. Plenty of time for Apple to pick the fruits from their ideas, no patents needed. iPhone is fast becomming the new Windows Mobile. Lack of competition stifles innovation. And what exactly is Samsungs crime? Providing a cheap alternative to an iPad?

So, based on this evidence, patents have been used, in this example, as protection for Apple to hold on to it's market share at the cost of the consumer.

7 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor:

You presume that I don't do any reasearch, I do a lot, from both sides. That's why I did read the article you posted, it brings up some interesting points, but the writers lack imagination. They can only come up with a system where the government rewards inventors. Then a patent system is indeed the best option.

There is a third option, wich they have not considered. For somebody to copy a succesfull idea, it first has to become succesfull. So the fruits are allready plucked from the effort. If the fruits are allready plucked, there is no need to protect it.

It's my conclusion after much delaboration that patents are; constitutioned monopolies on ideas that aim to benefit the holder of the patent at the expense of everyone else. That their effect is to crippling competition, preventing startups from emerging in existing markets and that prevent innovation. 

How is this for evidence;

When did Samsung started to copy from Apple? Was it as soon as the iPhone and iPad hit the shelves? Or was it when Apple already had a major share in the smartphone and tablet market?

It took three generations of iPhones for Samsung to catch up. Plenty of time for Apple to pick the fruits from their ideas, no patents needed. iPhone is fast becomming the new Windows Mobile. Lack of competition stifles innovation. And what exactly is Samsungs crime? Providing a cheap alternative to an iPad?

So, based on this evidence, patents have been used, in this example, as protection for Apple to hold on to it's market share at the cost of the consumer.

What I bolded above is objectionable. It fails the test of history.

Ford went around the guy who invented variable speed windshield wipers. They were not deployed on ANY car at the time of his presentation to Ford except his own car as prototype.

Ford stole his idea. Put their engineers to work and copied the idea and was the first car manufacturer to offer the feature and it was a very big hit for the car company at the time.

This is proof that your assert is wrong. Not sorta wrong, totally wrong.

- and already only has one L

12 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

How is this for evidence;

When did Samsung started to copy from Apple? Was it as soon as the iPhone and iPad hit the shelves? Or was it when Apple already had a major share in the smartphone and tablet market?

It took three generations of iPhones for Samsung to catch up. Plenty of time for Apple to pick the fruits from their ideas, no patents needed. iPhone is fast becomming the new Windows Mobile. Lack of competition stifles innovation. And what exactly is Samsungs crime? Providing a cheap alternative to an iPad?

So, based on this evidence, patents have been used, in this example, as protection for Apple to hold on to it's market share at the cost of the consumer.

That's not evidence.

That's just you stating your opinion that patents are broken because Apple sued Samsung. You then state a series of opinions disguised as facts (Samsung took three generations to catch up, that Apple had protection in that time not due to patents, that Windows Mobile has no innovation).

For you to "beat" my evidence of a paper written by someone who actually studied patents, you need to show me a paper by someone with equal or better knowledge of economics (which will be judged by an independent third party - I propose any university publication or peer reviewed economics journal) showing clearly that patents are a net drain on the economy, rather than a net gain.

I don't frankly care whether they have imagination (and you're the first person I've ever heard try to use "lack of imagination  as a means of ad-hom discrediting a study) but what I do care about is that they have actually bothered to study the area - which means any argument off the top of your head does not count. It needs to have been actually written down after a study and then submitted for review in an economics journal or university publication.

What does not count as evidence are any number of circumstantial cases you care to mention (which do not reflect patent law as a whole, and are subject to the "cherry picking" bias) nor any "common sense" arguments (because if it's common sense it should be easy to find studies that prove it for you) nor any "patents have negative effect X therefore patents are bad" arguments (because they fail to take into account any positives. We're looking for total net benefit to the economy if you're suggesting that patents should be abolished).

Come back with that, and then you might be able to claim that you're using evidence.

Until then, not so much.

That the guy made billions of dollars for the simple invention that you and I could come up with?Without actually making a car with intermittent windscreen wipers?

If you went on to protect every little idea that goes into making a product like a car, nobody would be able to afford to drive one. Competition is what is driving the cost of manifacturing a car down, to prevent it is to drive the cost up.

@evildictaitor: by that notion, we should halt all discussion and merely post links to papers.

This is moving the yardstick to Mars, as I can never fulfill this requirement.

16 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: by that notion, we should halt all discussion and merely post links to papers.

This is moving the yardstick to Mars, as I can never fulfill that requirement [of providing evidence for my crazy opinions].

Conjectures that don't stand the gaze of scrutiny are unhelpful, and are not how society progresses. It progresses through study and reason and discussion of evidence. That's what science is.

That's not to say that you're not entitled to your opinion. It's just that I tend to find that informed conversations are more interesting - and tend to have more useful conclusions. And I get annoyed with people who claim to have the backing of science and evidence when they clearly don't.

21 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew: What would you rather have seen then?

That the guy made billions of dollars for the simple invention that you and I could come up with?Without actually making a car with intermittent windscreen wipers?

If you went on to protect every little idea that goes into making a product like a car, nobody would be able to afford to drive one. Competition is what is driving the cost of manifacturing a car down, to prevent it is to drive the cost up.

@evildictaitor: by that notion, we should halt all discussion and merely post links to papers.

This is moving the yardstick to Mars, as I can never fulfill this requirement.

The guy never made billions, but he sued and won against Ford. Patents act to save this court cost. He made a prototype and was betrayed by profiteers. That's immoral in my book, far past unethical.

Patents are everywhere and the world has not stopped. You lack evidence to prove otherwise.

Rule of Law is a concept that you do not understand Maddus, that or you throw it under the bus unwittingly with your knee-jerk, ankle-deep talking points.

@JohnAskew: my question was, what would you like as an alternative? Not what the outcome was.

Would you also like to pay the guy who invented the wiper in the first place, so he can make his billions? What about the guy that invented lights to illuminate the license plate? Or the self cancelling indicators? Got to be worth billions also?

We would end up going nowhere, as we would be impossible to pay everybody for their contributions in the finished product that we call a car.

I understand the rule of law fully and so does Apple and Samsung. That's why they are using it to fortify their position in the market, rather then bring the next best product to market.

That's about all I can think of to improve what is today quite functional and beneficial to us all.

Somehow, cars are affordable.

And both carry the type of patents that you say makes product unaffordable.

You are totally wrong, again.

15 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

Somehow, smart phones are affordable.

Somehow, cars are affordable.

Affordable, yes, as cheap and as good as could be, no.

All this patent business does not add value to the end product. So the end product is not as good as can be, lawyers and fines got to be payed.

Same with drugs. The reason they are so expensive can also be attributed to the constant legal battles big pharmaceuticals play out. It's also the reason you cant have small time operators. The costs outweigh the risks, unless you are big enough to bear those costs.

For a guy that hates big corporations like WallMart, you are sure advocating the regulations that springs them to life.

And both carry the type of patents that you say makes product unaffordable.

You are totally wrong, again.

I'm saying that it makes the product more expensive then it should have been, prohibits competition and does not drive innovation. Nowhere did I claim that it would make products unaffordable, unaffordable products don't exist by definition.

Can you own an idea?

Even if two, or more, people come up with it simultaniously and independant of one another?

Did Bell really invent the telephone? Did Edison really invent the lightbulb? Or where they the awardees of the patent? Why did they win and their competitors lose? Courts picking winners and losers, how is that a fair? Let the market (us) decide!

18 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

...as cheap and as good as could be, no...

...patent[s do] not add value to the end product.

... So the end product is not as good as can be...

The reason [drugs] are so expensive [is because of] legal battles big pharmaceuticals play out.

[patents are] the reason you cant have small time operators.

The costs [of patents] outweigh the risks.

I'm saying that [patents] makes the product more expensive then it should have been

[patents] prohibits competition

[patents do] not drive innovation.

The case of the S3 being pulled from the shelves is evidence of preventing competition. That competition should happen in the marketplace, not in the courts.

That it prohibits innovation is clearly demonstrated by the fact that you have to do things different, not neccesairly better. Innovation is taking existing ideas and improving on them, patents prevent that.

That patents do not add value to the end product is obvious, you can't do anything with them. They do present value to the patent holder for all the reasons mentoined above, but add value to the end product, no,..

18 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Android devices could be cheaper and of better quality if they didnt have to pay Microsoft.

Same with drugs, ... it can put the resources [into] ... R&D. 

patents are ... clearly ... costs.

The case of the S3 being pulled from the shelves is evidence of preventing competition.

That it prohibits innovation is clearly demonstrated

[patents prevent] taking existing ideas and improving on them.

you can't do anything with [patents].

[patents add no] value to the end product

18 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Restating your opinions and pretending they are facts is not proof or evidence.

Those are not opinions but basic economic and social concepts, no citation needed.

Now, if you have any beef with any of the examples I've given, feel free to provide a counter argument.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

For instance, Android devices could be cheaper and of better quality if they didnt have to pay Microsoft. Same with drugs, if a pharmacutical doesnt have to pay lawyers, it can put the resources to better use, R&D for instance. Companies are constantly in search in improving their efficiency, meaning adding value for customers and reducing overhead costs, patents are a clearly overhead costs.

Sorry, I haven't read most of the preceding discussion so what I'm about to say may be completely irrelevant, but:

If pharma companies (for instance) didn't have access to patents they could spend millions or billions (depending on currency and drug) bringing a drug to market - doing R&D, clinical trials, accounting for costs for potential drugs that never made it through - only to have the final product, the fruits of that investment, manufactured for next to nothing by generics manufacturers with no R&D overhead. No patents = No innovation.

On a related note, I came accross this, which I think can be described as utter madness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

Costs of drug development are primairly driven by the need to adhere government regulations, not because of the R&D costs. With simple adjustments, whole new drugs can be created. Those costs are actually quite low compared to the administrative burden of bringing a drug to market.

In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection. Otherwise, as you so rightly conclude, no new drugs would come to market. But to mark these innovations as a result of patents, is the world upside down.

Lift the regulatory burden and you have no need for patents in the drug industry. Patents are anti business, dispite the fact that they are being marketed as pro business by businesses that own them.

41 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@GoddersUK:

Costs of drug development are primairly driven by the need to adhere government regulations, not because of the R&D costs. With simple adjustments, whole new drugs can be created. Those costs are actually quite low compared to the administrative burden of bringing a drug to market.

In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection. Otherwise, as you so rightly conclude, no new drugs would come to market. But to mark these innovations as a result of patents, is the world upside down.

Lift the regulatory burden and you have no need for patents in the drug industry. Patents are anti business, dispite the fact that they are being marketed as pro business by businesses that own them.

You are an anarchist, then. Without trials and regulations, corporations can easily poison us in error. Now what? Blame whom? The consumer, according to your ankle deep philosophy.

Government is good, not bad.

Rule of Law is good, not bad.

Anarchy is bad, not good.

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Those are not opinions but basic economic and social concepts, no citation needed.

If "patents are bad for the economy overall" was a basic economic and social concept, it would never have been introduced. 

And if was a basic economic and social concept, it would be easy for you to cite them. For instance, the wikipedia article on patents would probably say something like "Patents are clearly bad for the economy - that's why no modern economy uses them.".

Since the status quo is that "patents are good for the economy overall" (since we have them), you need to provide compelling evidence (with emphasis on both compelling and evidence) that society should mobilise to abolish patents because the benefits of an economy without patents clearly outweigh the downsides.

Just stating that patents suck and saying completely unresearched ramblings at the level of "yeah, but it's, like totally obvious" doesn't suffice. You need to demonstrate that you understand why patents were introduced (so you don't make things worse by throwing away something with minor problems that was introduced to avoid bigger problems that you're ignoring) and that your alternative is better.

As it is, you're just repeating the same tired old lines of "patents are bad", "government is bad", and calling for the abolition of a series of laws that are firmly built into the behaviours of the markets without actually bothering to decide whether the markets would be better or worse off without them based entirely on "it's, like, totally obvious dude" level of study.

35 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

You are an anarchist, then. Without trials and regulations, corporations can easily poison us in error. Now what? Blame whom? The consumer, according to your ankle deep philosophy.

I'm no anarchist, I'm pro army, police and courts of law.

The market will weed the poisoners out. Just think of all the cheap newage cancer medication we would have at our disposal!

Government is good, not bad.

Rule of Law is good, not bad.

Anarchy is bad, not good.

Government, when in place to protect the freedom of it's citizens, is good. Government, when in place to protect the interest of wealthy corporations, is bad.

For Rule of Law, replace government with rule of law in example above.

There has never been a form of anarchy, humans have always huddled in communities, communities with people with the same set of values.

I believe it's at the hart of how you want to run a society and solve it's problems.

When one posts things like this Apple v.s. Samsung, it's bound to end up into a discussion about the system.

While I let myself get suckered into these discussions too often, I agree with you there. It helps me to really look deep into myself and look for solutions to these complex problems.

Solution for me would be, just to limit the amount of replies.

You do realize that all that money spent there is not spent on adding value to the economy? It just produces paperwork.

24 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@davewill: excellent question and observation,..

*snip*

When one posts things like this Apple v.s. Samsung, it's bound to end up into a discussion about the system.

*snip*

Fair enough.  The original subject matter definitely is in our realm of work whether we like it or not.

Addendum: Although it would be cool to work out the triple elimination brackets (with unlimited wagers) for the indian leg wrestling.

8 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: These and numerous other court cases are not enough to change your mind?

No. Because cherry picking individual patent lawsuits that got to court doesn't tell you whether patents in general are bad for the economy any more than looking at investment banks going bust in 2008 tells you that investing money is bad for the economy, or that looking at personal injury court cases allows you to conclude that ladders should be made illegal.

You do realize that all that money spent there is not spent on adding value to the economy? It just produces paperwork.

Well maybe we should close down the courts and scrap all laws - since obviously the entire legal system provides no benefit to society other than to produce paperwork.

Or maybe you're ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that patents getting to court is an unfortunate consequence of research being tradeable in an open and free market, and that the benefit to society of that market existing dwarfs the cost of protecting it.

For someone who claims to be all for the free market, demanding that existing free markets be closed down and that their products be treated as owned by society and having no tradeable value sure is a funny way of showing it.

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@GoddersUK:

Costs of drug development are primairly driven by the need to adhere government regulations, not because of the R&D costs. With simple adjustments, whole new drugs can be created. Those costs are actually quite low compared to the administrative burden of bringing a drug to market.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those regulations exist for very good reasons (related to both safety and efficacy). I also think you underestimate the amount of science involved in bringing a drug to market. First you have to understand the biochemistry of the disease, then you have to come up with a target molecule you think will work, then you have to figure out how to make the molecule, then you have to see if it works on a lab level (computer models/test tube reactions), then animals, then move into people where you have to move through many stages of clinical trials. You have to pay for all the drugs that never make it. Even if Pharma companies spent nothing on marketting and the minimum on lawyers and admin drug R&D would be neither cheap nor quick.

In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection. Otherwise, as you so rightly conclude, no new drugs would come to market. But to mark these innovations as a result of patents, is the world upside down.

Well what form of protection do you propose.

I never said that the innovations were the result of the patents (of course the patents are the result of the innovations) BUT that the patents provide the motivation to get on with the innovation. A tree isn't the result of the fruit grown on it, but it is probably the reason why someone's growing the tree.

Lift the regulatory burden and you have no need for patents in the drug industry.

Without regulators we can't trust the pharma companies to be honest nor their products to be safe and effective. It would be like homeopathy, except that bad drugs could actually kill you - unlike small bottles of water.

And you haven't answered the question where will the money to develop drugs come from? The only way we could eliminate patents in R&D intensive industries would be to nationalise them and have all R&D taxpayer funded... (then "stuff" would be cheaper but taxes would be higher... and you probably couldn't integrate such a system into the global realm of IP then (until the new world order comes into force and can make everyone do it ), unless the government essentially owned the patents on everything and licensed them globally and they were only available free in your country).

Patents are anti business, dispite the fact that they are being marketed as pro business by businesses that own them.

Patents are designed to encourage business and individuals to release information, leading to the benefit of society. The bargain is simple - tell us how you do something; spend time and money inventing something useful and you can exclusively reap the benefits of that for a set period of time. They benefit society as a whole - and they're a much better method of doing business than their alternative (trade secrets).

(I'm not saying that (certain aspects of) modern patent systems aren't anti-business or anti-society - they most certainly are. But the concept of a patent in general isn't.)

You are forcing others to pay for your idea, while they might have come up with the same idea by themselves.

If you take away the patent, how much is the idea worth? Nothing.

How much is a guy worth that comes up with ideas? He's priceless,..

Are you sure we are better off? Delaying the release of new drugs by decades? Drugs that can save lives today? Rejecting perfectly good drugs because they made a clerical error? Driving the costs of these drugs through the roof, just because there might be a few bad men? I hope you are sure, because I am not.

I apologize if I misrepresented your argument,.

I do not propose any form of protection. Like I've stated before, you can't copy everything, you only copy the succesfull ideas. And if these ideas are succesfull allready, fruits have allready been plucked. That's how you pay for R&D. Apple is a very good example, it made billions being innovative, it has stopped doing that and strated protecting it's marketshare. Would be interesting to see where they go from here.

Regulation does not drive product safety, the market does. Market changed first, law followed.

I agree with you on the concept of the patent, the idea is nice. The real world application not so, so I am against.

34 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: A free market, is free of coercion. And a patent is nothing more then a coercion.

Free markets are not free of coercion, they are just free of regulation. You can still dump shares, create ponzi schemes, perform insider-trading, double-selling, market manipulations and construct monopolies in a "free" market (unless the market is infinitely big and has infinite liquidity, but in real life that doesn't happen).

You are forcing others to pay for your idea, while they might have come up with the same idea by themselves.

No - you are forcing them to pay for using your idea (with emphasis both on using and on your idea).

The patent system discounts the possibility that someone else came up with the same idea because for an idea to be patentable it needs to be

* A new idea (you can't claim permanent ownership - only temporary ownership of it)
* That you invented (i.e. it can't be public domain)
* Within certain restricted fields (e.g. you can't patent musical sequences)
* An invention (you can't patent abstract concepts like minimalism)
* Non-obvious to an expert in the field (which in practice is the experts brought out as witnesses by your competitors during trial - not patent office lawyers)
* Stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

So since nobody else came up with the idea themselves, you are strictly only preventing people from taking your ideas and selling them without your permission.

If you take away the patent, how much is the idea worth? Nothing.

How much is a guy worth that comes up with ideas? He's priceless,.

Without patents, he is a guy who comes up with lots of ideas which are worth nothing, as you just clearly pointed out. ie. he is worth nothing.

Let me just put it like this.

If I were head of Microsoft and the US decided that patents were illegal, I would immediately fire everyone in the research department and start up a big department of people to reverse engineer my competitor's products. Because research is expensive and without patents it's much easier for Microsoft to wait for small companies to come up with ideas, then quickly copy them, slap a Microsoft sticker on them and watch all of the small companies go bust because Microsoft's sales department already has contacts in all of the firms that matter, because Microsoft is a trusted brand, and because Microsoft is pretty good at printing CDs already.

Or to put it another way, if patents were illegal, it would be much cheaper for Microsoft to be innovative by forcing small innovative companies out of business than by bothering to do research.

And then what would happen is that all researchers and research companies would leave your country and go to a different country where they can make money from doing research. And very quickly Maddus Mattus, your wall in Berlin won't be able to keep the population of your country from fleeing your borders and ... oh wait, this has already happened somewhere before?

How did that regime that thought ideas belonged to the people and that people shouldn't be rewarded for their talent or hard work turn out in the end?

37 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@GoddersUK:

Are you sure we are better off? Delaying the release of new drugs by decades? Drugs that can save lives today?

Yes, unless you want all the babies to have birth defects, yes.

Rejecting perfectly good drugs because they made a clerical error?

When did that happen?

Driving the costs of these drugs through the roof, just because there might be a few bad men? I hope you are sure, because I am not.

"a few bad men" = a profit focussed industry that will try and get away with as much naughtiness as possible. And even if they're weren't naughty we'd need to do all the tests anyway in case they were accidently producing unsafe or ineffective drugs.

I do not propose any form of protection.

Yes you did.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

In light of this, government has to grant some form of protection.

Like I've stated before, you can't copy everything, you only copy the succesfull ideas. And if these ideas are succesfull allready, fruits have allready been plucked. That's how you pay for R&D. Apple is a very good example, it made billions being innovative, it has stopped doing that and strated protecting it's marketshare. Would be interesting to see where they go from here.

Companies A and B each have £1 billion. Company A spends that on research for a new product (estimated market £1 billion)(let's say they develop a new material that combats current leakage in transistors). Company B does nothing. At the end of the research Company A have £0 and Company B have £1 billion. Company A start to sell the product, company B copies it. Company B has £1 billion left for a massive marketting campaign and gains 90 % of the market share. Company B is left with lots of money, Company A goes bankrupt. You create a climate where innovating is not economically sensible.

Regulation does not drive product safety, the market does. Market changed first, law followed.

That's just not true.

I agree with you on the concept of the patent, the idea is nice. The real world application not so, so I am against.

I don't really see how you can seperate those...

2 days ago, evildictait​or wrote

Free markets are not free of coercion, they are just free of regulation.

Let me correct it then, I want is Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Without patents, he is a guy who comes up with lots of ideas which are worth nothing, as you just clearly pointed out. ie. he is worth nothing.

No, he is priceless. Companies are always looking for creative people. What do you think the market value is of the guy that thought up the iPhone, or Kinect? Those people are priceless.

*snip*

I disagree. Microsoft would fire the lawyers and hire more inventors. Small companies would be able to compete, because the protection large companies have would go away.

Everybody wins! Especially the consumer, who ends up paying for the circus.

2 days ago, GoddersUK wrote

Yes, unless you want all the babies to have birth defects, yes.

Case from 1950, FDA was founded in 1906, so this is an argument against not for. Since the FDA was not able to do it's job.

When did that happen?

It happens all the time, you just don't hear about it.

"a few bad men" = a profit focussed industry that will try and get away with as much naughtiness as possible. And even if they're weren't naughty we'd need to do all the tests anyway in case they were accidently producing unsafe or ineffective drugs.

Nothing wrong with profit. And exploitation can only happen for so long, until people move away from that company. So if for instance Microsoft was exploiting it's customers, they would move to Apple. Microsoft would have to stop in order to survive.

Yes you did.

No, I said I can imagine you want protection from the same institution that is demanding from you to make a lot of costs.

Companies A and B each have £1 billion. Company A spends that on research for a new product (estimated market £1 billion)(let's say they develop a new material that combats current leakage in transistors). Company B does nothing. At the end of the research Company A have £0 and Company B have £1 billion. Company A start to sell the product, company B copies it. Company B has £1 billion left for a massive marketting campaign and gains 90 % of the market share. Company B is left with lots of money, Company A goes bankrupt. You create a climate where innovating is not economically sensible.

Then company A made a terrible investment decision, researching a product that could be copied so easily. And how would B know, that A's idea is worth copying? It would first have to become a success. Then A would end up with 90% market share and B with 10%, B would then have to get the product to market, use up it's billion dollars to catch up, while A already releases a new version. B would constantly trail behind A.

Imagine this, company A still spends it's billion, but government awards the patent to company B. Now company A is prohibited from even entering the marketplace.

That's just not true.

I don't see any concrete example in that link.

Let's take airbags for example. Cars have had airbags long before they were made compulsory. Same with safer fuel tanks.

People should be able to decide for themselves how safe their car should be. Just not the issues that can harm other parties. That's why I totally agree with things like; minimum stopping distance, turn signals, brake lights, etc. etc.

Government cannot come up with rules, just not with solutions. It has never provided one and on the occasion when they did pick one, they are often wrong. They are politically motivated, not motivated to pick the right solution.

I don't really see how you can seperate those...

The spirit of the law is something entirely different then the real world implication.

That's what is wrong with our current mindset, we focus too much on spirit and too little on real world implication. That's why we push for agendas that sound nice, but have a devastating impact. We need more common sense.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

No, he is priceless. Companies are always looking for creative people. What do you think the market value is of the guy that thought up the iPhone, or Kinect? Those people are priceless.

No. Worthless. I can't afford to pay $100m doing research which someone else can copy for $5m.

If there were no such thing as patents, Microsoft would have ploughed tons of cash into Kinect, but both the PS3 and the Wii would have a Kin3ct and a Wiinect. Customers won't be giving Microsoft any money for the Kin3ct or the Wiinect. Microsoft would have just spent a crap ton of money inventing awesome peripherals for their competitors, and would no longer have a competitive advantage over them.

Now when people want to buy Kinect Animals for their kids, they might buy a PS3 and Kin3ct animals, or a Wii and Wiinect Animals instead. After all, the Wiinect is cheaper because they didn't have to hire, train or trial the invention. They just had to copy Microsoft.

Inventing new things is much more expensive and time-consuming than reverse-engineering something else. That's why it took Microsoft decades and thousands of staff to build Windows XP, but why it took six guys in their basement to make Reactos.

I disagree. Microsoft would fire the lawyers and hire more inventors. Small companies would be able to compete, because the protection large companies have would go away.

Nope. They fire inventors and hire reverse engineers. Who wants some expensive inventors who give you hardly any competitive advantage when you can hire reverse engineers to push down per-unit costs?

InnovativeTech PLC and ReverseEngineers Inc both have a budget of $100m for a new phone.

IT spend $50m researching the phone, $40m building it and $10m on marketing.

RE spend $20m reverse-engineering IT's phone, $30m building it, $30m on marketing and $20m into dropping the price of the phone 20%.

Now do customers buy the phone that few people know about that costs $200, or do they buy the one that is functionally identical three months later that everyone knows about costing $160?

Here's a hint: customers buy the cheapest phone and are heavily influenced by marketing (i.e. the one from RE Inc).

What happens next? Well, IT fire all of their innovators and close up shop. RE laugh whilst taking the proceeds of InnovateTech's research all the way to the bank.

Microsoft would be first and allowed to reap the benefits of the idea, then competitors would be able to make cheaper versions, driving competition and consumer choice. If we want a Kinect-like device as a consumer now, we can only buy from Microsoft. That's a bad thing. Same with Apple and Samsung, consumer choice is hurt.

A comparison between company A and B makes for nice examples, but it's never just A and B, you have many players in the market!

Let's say company A is a copy cat. Companies B to Z make telephones. B to Z have R&D budgets ranging from $1m to $300m. Company A has to pick from the products of B to Z for ideas to copy from. How much is it going to spend trying to reverse engineer ideas from each individual company? How is company A ever going to have any market share if it constantly late in the market? It will have none, it will always be the cheap half baked version of a better idea. So while company A may survive, it will never be as successful.

You can see this in every aspect of the market. Innovative companies that do things differently lead the markets, not the copy cats. So no need to protect the innovative companies. They are protected naturally. Why do you think Microsoft started doing apps in the first place? Would you have them prohibited by doing so by law?

55 seconds ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: Can you give me a concrete example of $100m research project, that takes $5m to copy? And how fast can bring a copy of a $100m research project to market?

1. A drug to cure HIV-AIDS.

Finding the right protein: >$1bn. Determining what protein is the active ingredient in a given liquid using mass-spectrography <$5m.

2. Inventing the Office 2007 Ribbon.

Cost to make: >$50m

Cost to implement, given a working implementation: <$10k

3. Inventing Windows XP

Cost to make >$1bn

Cost to invent Reactos - a copy of Windows XP made by copying Windows XP, < $10m.

Innovative companies that do things differently lead the markets

That, right there, is proof that patents work.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Case from 1950, FDA was founded in 1906, so this is an argument against not for. Since the FDA was not able to do it's job.

The police don't catch all criminals, therefore we shouldn't have police.

It happens all the time, you just don't hear about it.

A concrete example please. I happen to be a chemist (as in a scientist, not a pharmacist; to be clear) and have never heard of this happening (that's not to say it doesn't; I'm not an organic chemist, so it's not in my field - but I think I would hear if it does happen).

Nothing wrong with profit.

When it coincides with the consumers interest. Which isn't nearly as ubiquitous a situation as many capitalists like to think.

And exploitation can only happen for so long, until people move away from that company. So if for instance Microsoft was exploiting it's customers, they would move to Apple. Microsoft would have to stop in order to survive.

Apple is great example of why what you just said isn't true. It also relies on consumers being aware of the exploitation. The way pharma companies can try and manipulate/hide trial data is somewhat like a rootkit hiding itself on your computer. Unless you're suggesting that everyone spends three years doing a statistic degree so they can read the papers and spot this you're living in fairy land...

No, I said I can imagine you want protection from the same institution that is demanding from you to make a lot of costs.

In that case I have no idea what you're trying to say here since, as far as I can understand it, you're contradicting yourself.

Then company A made a terrible investment decision, researching a product that could be copied so easily. And how would B know, that A's idea is worth copying? It would first have to become a success. Then A would end up with 90% market share and B with 10%, B would then have to get the product to market, use up it's billion dollars to catch up, while A already releases a new version. B would constantly trail behind A.

So you don't want any drugs? Or any new materials? Or any invention/discovery, really, since it's easy to repeat what someone else has already done. Any article in the scientific literature (or patent, for that matter) should contain information that any competent scientist could reproduce the work done. The fact is that once it's been done; it's easy to copy. There is no way to mitigate this; you can't bring out a "new version" of a drug (strictly speaking you can make some minor tweaks but it's essentially a whole new drug in that case and is treated as such). I would suggest you try and get some research experience. (From a business perspective what you say may be faultless; but it would mean that our technology stagnated - there would be no new invention or discovery - precisely the situation patents were introduced prevent.)

Imagine this, company A still spends it's billion, but government awards the patent to company B. Now company A is prohibited from even entering the marketplace.

And that's why R&D intensive companies guard their secrets very strongly.

I don't see any concrete example in that link.

Fine, let's try this one. The markets are pushing companies to do things that are illegal. The flogs the companies when they're caught off the straight and narrow (in theory, at least - I wouldn't pretend the justice system is perfect).

Let's take airbags for example. Cars have had airbags long before they were made compulsory.

I'm not aware they are compulsory (in the UK, at least). But I that's somewhat different. Anyone can stick something in a car and say it will make you safer and people will buy it. But how do we know the car manufacturers welding is up to scratch, for instance? The success of a specific safety feature on the market (even if it really does improve safety) doesn't mean that the less glamourous/well known/lay person identifiable safety issues are also supported by the market.

Same with safer fuel tanks.

I'm fairly sure that if a defficiency in the design or manufacture of your fuel tank results in your car exploding the manufacturer would be liable.

People should be able to decide for themselves how safe their car should be. Just not the issues that can harm other parties. That's why I totally agree with things like; minimum stopping distance, turn signals, brake lights, etc. etc.

Well I'm not a mechanical engineer. I've never welded in my life. I don't know which bits of metal are safe and which aren't. I am unable to decide for myself how safe my car is (and if you were to ask me should be the answer would (obviously) be "as safe as reasonably possible"). We all like to think we're competent to make such decision; the sad reality is we're not. (Also most safety issues overlap to others - if something breaks down in the middle of the motorway it will probably affect the other traffic; what about "innocent" passengers?)

The same applies to issues like drugs. I'm not a biochemist. I'm not a statistician. I can't possibly decide whether or not a drug is safe or analyse the outcome of a trial (let alone detect delibrate deception) - I have to rely on other people to do that for me. We call it regulation.

Government cannot come up with rules, just not with solutions. It has never provided one and on the occasion when they did pick one, they are often wrong. They are politically motivated, not motivated to pick the right solution.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Yes, governments are politically motivated and it can be a struggle to get a sensible, evidence based approach guiding policy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And a not-perfect policy is better than no policy (although a bad policy is clearly worse).

The spirit of the law is something entirely different then the real world implication.

Yes, but by that logic we would never have any rules. Ever.

That's what is wrong with our current mindset, we focus too much on spirit and too little on real world implication. That's why we push for agendas that sound nice, but have a devastating impact. We need more common sense.

On the contrast. Implementation has to be considered when drafting laws yes. But we can implement the agendas of patents and regulation in a way that is mostly beneficial. (I am not saying that is what the entirety of the current system is; but the principles are not inherently broken.)

Innovative companies that do things differently lead the markets

No that's an argument against. They are innovative at first, then use their patents to secure a place in the market at the expense of the consumer.

They are innovative at first, then use their patents to secure a place in the market at the expense of the consumer.

And then they are replaced by more innovative other companies.

Nokia used to be the top of the world for mobile phones. Now Apple is.

How did apple do it? Via Patents? No. By innovating the iPhone.

Claiming that the biggest companies are all non-innovative is just once again showing that you come up with an idea and then stick with it despite all evidence showing you clearly that you are wrong. And it's pretty tiring.

This is getting too long,. I'll just respond to the last argument;

But we can implement the agendas of patents and regulation in a way that is mostly beneficial.

Mostly beneficial to whom? As far as I can tell, the only person gaining from the patent is the holder at the expense of everybody else.

17 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

And then they are replaced by more innovative other companies.

Nokia used to be the top of the world for mobile phones. Now Apple is.

How did apple do it? Via Patents? No. By innovating the iPhone.

I've nothing but respect for Apple with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Kudos for them for inventing a whole new market.

But now that other companies want to move into that market, they are suing to keep their market leader position. This is nothing more then a government instituted monopoly at the expense of the consumer.

Apple should innovate to stay in the lead, not sue.

Claiming that the biggest companies are all non-innovative is just once again showing that you come up with an idea and then stick with it despite all evidence showing you clearly that you are wrong. And it's pretty tiring.

Pot, kettle, black. I suggest we give this a rest.

I don't think we should do away with patents but what we have now with the patent system is not the ideal situation.  If I have a patent and want to take on GE because they stole my idea,  I would have to come up with millions of dollars to fight GE and their army of attorneys.  Going to court is always a lose situation for the one without resources and money.  So as far a patents helping the little guy I do NOT believe this is true anymore. 

Patents do help larger corporations protect their ideas but they have abused the system in patenting everything and now it is used as a weapon in court rather than real ideas moving innovation forward.  

There is also a lot of patent lawyers filing lawsuits on patents they have purchased.   I think in order to file a patent lawsuit you need to have created a product using that idea in order to have patent protection.  Ideas without products are a dime a dozen and should not be protected.

1 hour ago, TexasToast wrote

If I have a patent and want to take on GE because they stole my idea,  I would have to come up with millions of dollars to fight GE and their army of attorneys.

No you don't. If it's clear you'll win, your lawyers will take their fee out of the expected settlement, often as no-win-no-fee.

That's why individuals routinely take the big businesses to court and win - even when the upfront legal cost of doing so often vastly exceeds the amount of cash that the individual has.

Ideas without products are a dime a dozen and should not be protected.

That's why you can't patent ideas. You have to patent inventions.