Coffeehouse Thread

68 posts

Job's vendetta to pull Galaxy S III from shelves?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Maddus Mattus

    , 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?

  • evildictait​or

    , 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.

    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?

  • Maddus Mattus

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

    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.

  • evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

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

    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.

    , 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

     

  • Ian2

    , JoshRoss wrote

    @JoshRoss: Because he's dead!

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

  • Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    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.

  • evildictait​or

    , 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.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @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.

  • JohnAskew

    , 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

  • evildictait​or

    , 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.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @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.

  • evildictait​or

    , 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.

  • JohnAskew

    , 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.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: fair enough, my only advice to you would be not to put all your eggs in the science basket. People sitting behind a desk cooking numbers and forging theories tend to be detached from what is going on in the real world. That's also why I made the remark about the lack of imagination.

    @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.

  • JohnAskew

    Patent reform should include some type of vetting to prevent patent trolls from pre-emptive crap.

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

  • JohnAskew

    Somehow, smart phones are affordable.

    Somehow, cars are affordable.

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

    You are totally wrong, again.

  • Maddus Mattus

    , 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.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @JohnAskew: It's never the system's fault, always the lousy execution,.. There is always talk about reform, the problems may shift a to another area, but the fundemental issues remain.

    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!

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.