Apple Corporation is Bad for Technology

[TimG]

But we havent determined whether the need for ANY of this stuff is legitimate AT ALL. Unless you believe that getting rid of IP law would stifle innovation theres really no point in talking about specifics.

I thought it was obvious: there are classes of products that cannot be protected by keeping them secret because using them requires that they be divulged. Eliminate IP and you eliminate all incentive to develop these classes of products.

If patents and copyrights are not resulting in more innovation and invention than there would be without them, then theres no justification for them to exist.

You are contradicting yourself. How can trade secrets exist without copyright or patents? The fact is theft happens and in your no IP world companies would lose everything if a rogue employee published their secrets. With IP protections they can protect their secrets even if they are divulged by malicious parties. Edited August 30, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

You are contradicting yourself. How can trade secrets exist without copyright or patents? The fact is theft happens and in your no IP world companies would lose everything if a rogue employee published their secrets. With IP protections they can protect their secrets even if they are divulged by malicious parties.

Trade secrets exist without copyright or patents all the time.

I thought it was obvious: there are classes of products that cannot be protected by keeping them secret because using them requires that they be divulged. Eliminate IP and you eliminate all incentive to develop these classes of products.

Ok... its obvious that certain attributes of certain products cannot be kept secret. BUt that does not mean that the advantage the origionator has is not sufficient to motivate innovation. They still get first movers advantage. Back to the subject at hand.... even if Apple did not own a single patent on the Iphone they still would have made massive profit and recovered development costs thousands of times over because they are the first mover, and they introduced a game-changer.

[TimG]

They still get first movers advantage.

There is NO first movers advantage. It is a bunch of hype invented by stock peddlers. Look at the evidence. Who came up with the first smartphone? Not apple. Who came up with the first mouse driven UI? Not Microsoft. Who came up with the first Internet search engine? Not Google. History is littered with the remains of 'first movers' who were crushed by late comers.

When it comes to Apple it is true that they would have been successful but that success means nothing if their ideas are immediately stolen and imitated. They deserve copyrights on their software and trademarks on their logos. The only part which I question are some of their patents but that does not mean that all patents are useless.

If you want evidence of the importance of patents look at the drug industry. We already see that R&D in drugs for the developing world is insignificant because the drug companies cannot get any ROI (even if their patents are protected the potential customers have no money). So we see that R&D is largely focused on drugs on developed countries. Take away patents and you can bet R&D would drop further. Drug companies would put their money into other things with a greater ROI and that may not even be drug R&D.

Edited August 30, 2012 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

When it comes to Apple it is true that they would have been successful but that success means nothing if their ideas are immediately stolen and imitated. They deserve copyrights on their software and trademarks on their logos. The only part which I question are some of their patents but that does not mean that all patents are useless.

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas" - Steve Jobs

They have always been worse than Microsoft, they are just better at hiding it.

If anything the recent patent ruling pushes smartphones toward Windows 8 and away from Android, a travesty in the tech world.

[Handsome Rob]

When it comes to Apple it is true that they would have been successful but that success means nothing if their ideas are immediately stolen and imitated. They deserve copyrights on their software and trademarks on their logos. The only part which I question are some of their patents but that does not mean that all patents are useless.

Some of these patents are on rounded rectangles, square icons in a grid and interactions like pinch/tap to zoom.

Not withstanding the complete rubbish of the rounded rectangles.

Square icons in a grid is like Ford patenting red cars and Chevrolet Blue. Square icons in a grid has been the standard for every consumer UI made in the last 15 years, every single one would infringe.

Pinch to zoom is like using a steering wheel to steer, tap to zoom a gas pedal to go faster. It's retarded to be able to patent a way of interacting with something. If they patented a cheaper way of executing it, or a better way of measuring it using screen sensors (Like the new LG screen that Apple will take credit for), they might have a point.

That's not even starting on the prior art, like Jeff Han demoing multi-touch in 2006, and calling the technology "not new" while Steve Jobs claims to have "invented it" a year later.

Is Apple entitled to proper patents? Yes. Should any of these patents have ever been granted? No. Should they have ever have been validated by the court? No. Is the jury foreman a retard? (Jesus watch that interview). Yes. Will they stand up to appeal? In a pigs eye.

Just like:

Samsung confirmed it will sue Apple immediately if it releases an LTE device. This seems directed squarely at the new iPhone as currently the iPad does sell with LTE on board. Obviously, this legal case is just a start of a huge change, not the end of anything.

They obviously have a patent on LTE devices that never should have been granted.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Handsome Rob

[cybercoma]

a travesty in the tech world.

It could be good for Canada. If they play their cards right, RIM might be able to take advantage of the situation.

[Handsome Rob]

It could be good for Canada. If they play their cards right, RIM might be able to take advantage of the situation.

And jesus could walk again.

[Boges]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas" - Steve Jobs

They have always been worse than Microsoft, they are just better at hiding it.

If anything the recent patent ruling pushes smartphones toward Windows 8 and away from Android, a travesty in the tech world.

Well if that's the case.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.tikuwarez.launcher3&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImluZm8udGlrdXdhcmV6LmxhdW5jaGVyMyJd

Kinda ruins the whole Widget thing though.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Well if that's the case.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.tikuwarez.launcher3&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImluZm8udGlrdXdhcmV6LmxhdW5jaGVyMyJd

Kinda ruins the whole Widget thing though.

OH SHIZ

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.suckga.iLauncher2&feature=related_apps#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEwOSwibmV0LnN1Y2tnYS5pTGF1bmNoZXIyIl0.

Billion dollar lawsuit incoming poor chap who designed an iLook alike UI.

[Boges]

OH SHIZ

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.suckga.iLauncher2&feature=related_apps#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEwOSwibmV0LnN1Y2tnYS5pTGF1bmNoZXIyIl0.

Billion dollar lawsuit incoming poor chap who designed an iLook alike UI.

Who downloads that launcher?

I can understand the Windows Phone one because you might like the simplicity of the OS but the phones available running it are limited. As people can see from the thread I started months back, I wrestled with the decision myself.

But you'd assume deciding to buy an Android Phone means you reject Apple outright.

[dre]

There is NO first movers advantage.

Sure there is. The Iphone is a perfect example of that. Apples made billions of dollars by being the first one to bring an innovative new class of product to the market, and they would have made that money even if they never held a single patent.

When it comes to Apple it is true that they would have been successful but that success means nothing if their ideas are immediately stolen and imitated. They deserve copyrights on their software and trademarks on their logos.

They would have still made billions and billions of dollars and recovered their development costs many times over. That doesnt mean "nothing".

If you want evidence of the importance of patents look at the drug industry. We already see that R&D in drugs for the developing world is insignificant because the drug companies cannot get any ROI (even if their patents are protected the potential customers have no money). So we see that R&D is largely focused on drugs on developed countries. Take away patents and you can bet R&D would drop further. Drug companies would put their money into other things with a greater ROI and that may not even be drug R&D.

Seems like what youre really saying is that drug companies will focus R&D efforts around products they can sell to people with money, and that patents dont change that. In any case Im not saying there isnt some cases where IP results in more innovation. Im saying that as a whole that conventional wisdom is questionable. Theres a real debate to be had on whether its worth having the government enforce IP rights, and the massive cost of maintaining that system and the massive ammounts of money spent on patent litigation.

[TimG]

Sure there is. The Iphone is a perfect example of that. Apples made billions of dollars by being the first one to bring an innovative new class of product to the market, and they would have made that money even if they never held a single patent.

Apple was no "first mover". It was not the first smart phone. All they did was market their produce well. Sounds like you have circular definition of "first mover". i.e. whoever wins is defined to be the "first mover".

Seems like what youre really saying is that drug companies will focus R&D efforts around products they can sell to people with money

That is not what I said. I said R&D dollars are based on the expected ROI. Take away patents and the ROI goes down which means fewer dollars invested. Its basic economics.

[dre]

Apple was no "first mover". It was not the first smart phone. All they did was market their produce well. Sounds like you have circular definition of "first mover". i.e. whoever wins is defined to be the "first mover".

Silliness. The first mover doesnt necessarily mean the inventor of something or the first person to market a product.

In marketing, first-mover advantage or FMA is the advantage gained by the initial ("first-moving") significant occupant of a market segment.

And thats exactly what Apple was as far as touch screen multimedia phones.

That is not what I said. I said R&D dollars are based on the expected ROI. Take away patents and the ROI goes down which means fewer dollars invested. Its basic economics.

Thats only looking at part of the picture. In most industries more is spent on patent litigation than product development. So the patent system eats up a lot of resources that could be used for product development. It also raises the bar for entry, and its also used as a mechanism for big companies to destroy small ones.

Small companies simply cannot afford to patent their ideas, and they cant afford to sue infringers, and they cant afford to defend themselves from a lawsuit even if they are in the right.

For small companies, however, simply fighting a patent suit can be financially ruinous. That's why many are willing to settle, even if they believe they did nothing wrong. It can be cheaper to settle a case or agree to licensing terms for, say, $100,000, rather than fight, said Christopher Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an investment banking firm that focuses on intellectual property. Seems unfair, but often heading into the courtroom is a roll of the dice.

"What happens in that courtroom is that it's a very technical presentation to a jury that has no technical background," said Marlett. "In a lot of these cases, the juries say this is above my head, and the judgment goes to the lawyer they like the most. That introduces great risk into the equation."

This is a huge industry that eats up billions of dollars all of which could have been invested in some kind of productive enterprise. And its getting bigger fast, with more patents being issued then ever before, over more and more frivalous ones as well.

Edited August 31, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

And thats exactly what Apple was as far as touch screen multimedia phones.

So you simply fabricate whatever narrow market segment you need to support your assertion. It an illusion created by hind site. RIM owned the market for smartphones til 2007. Apple rolled over them. Apple was not the 'first mover'.

Thats only looking at part of the picture. In most industries more is spent on patent litigation than product development. So the patent system eats up a lot of resources that could be used for product development.

The patent system is broken. But that is not an argument against patents. There is evidence that some patents do encourage innovation such as in drugs. Without patents fewer drugs would be developed because no one would invest the money required without the ROI that patents provide. Edited September 1, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Apple is now launching another legal attack against Samsung and American consumers. This one will include Samsungs Galaxy S3 which IMO is a much nicer phone than the Iphone.

This one will target pretty much all the rest of samsungs devices, that apple claims infringe against the following patent...

721 -- unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image

Performing a gesture on an unlock image This ones a beauty, and it should allow Apple to go after every single android device ever made

Edited September 1, 2012 by dre

[dre]

The patent system is broken. But that is not an argument against patents. There is evidence that some patents do encourage innovation such as in drugs. Without patents fewer drugs would be developed because no one would invest the money required without the ROI that patents provide.

Thats an assumption based on conventional wisdom. We dont really know if its true or not. We know that there is huge demand for medicine and drugs, so based on market economics there WILL be a supply side. It just might look a little different, and it would probably be a lot more competitive.

Edited September 1, 2012 by dre

[MiddleClassCentrist]

But you'd assume deciding to buy an Android Phone means you reject Apple outright.

I know someone who ended up with a Galaxy Nexus because it could:

Text, Call, Browse Web, Download Apps, Play Games (ETC, most of what anyone does) and it was free on the plan vs the expensive iPhone option.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Apple is now launching another legal attack against Samsung and American consumers. This one will include Samsungs Galaxy S3 which IMO is a much nicer phone than the Iphone.

This one will target pretty much all the rest of samsungs devices, that apple claims infringe against the following patent...

Performing a gesture on an unlock image This ones a beauty, and it should allow Apple to go after every single android device ever made

... exactly everything that is wrong with the patent system. You shouldn't be able patent a general idea to broadly... it needs to be specific.

Edited September 1, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[bleeding heart]

Thats an assumption based on conventional wisdom. We dont really know if its true or not. We know that there is huge demand for medicine and drugs, so based on market economics there WILL be a supply side. It just might look a little different, and it would probably be a lot more competitive.

Good point. The idea that drug manufacturers would simply "go on strike" and stop producing, Atlas Shrugged style, is preposterous.

As Kevin O'Leary said, "I'd be a commie if I could make a buck at it."

Edited September 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

... exactly everything that is wrong with the patent system. You shouldn't be able patent a general idea to broadly... it needs to be specific.

In wading through the dozens of patents involved in this litigation, Im having a really hard time seeing any valid patents at all.

Iv been an iphone user since the 3GS! I think its a good product... but Im not sure I can continue to use apples products if they keep attacking consumers using patents that never should have been granted. It seems clear that Apple, the patent office, and the courts have designs on eliminating samsung from the market COMPLETELY.

[dre]

Good point. The idea that drug manufacturers would simply "go on strike" and stop producing, Atlas Shrugged style, is preposterous.

As Kevin O'Leary said, "I'd be a commie if I could make a buck at it."

Thats the thing, is its hard to contemplate how things would work in the absense of the patent system. A drug company for example would have a much shorter window before their competitors could follow with similar products. It would only be a couple of years. Tim claims that reduced duration of this window in which a company has an effective monopoly will result in less profit and less investment. But on the other side of the coin, it might just cause them to move much quicker and sell way more units during this initial period, and make their profit faster.

[TimG]

Thats an assumption based on conventional wisdom.

It is an assumption based on observed facts today. i.e. drug companies simply refuse to develop drugs if there is not a sufficient ROI such is the case for drugs targeted at the developing world. We are also seeing drug shortages because drug companies decide that producing certain drugs is not worth their effort given what governments are willing to pay.

It is a fact that eliminating patents will reduce investment in drugs. It may not stop all drug R&D but the effect would be real and measurable.

[dre]

It is an assumption based on observed facts today. i.e. drug companies simply refuse to develop drugs if there is not a sufficient ROI.

No its an assumption, that drug companies could not realize a "sufficient ROI" during a shorter window of monopolization.

You are also not considering the entire other side of the value proposition. Even IF there was a significant reduction in R&D investment (again thats debatable), you still need to balance that with the fact there would be more competition, lower price points, and much greater access.

We are also seeing drug shortages because drug companies decide that producing certain drugs is not worth their effort given what governments are willing to pay.

That has nothing to do with the patent process.

[TimG]

No its an assumption, that drug companies could not realize a "sufficient ROI" during a shorter window of monopolization.

You are deluding yourself. Someone has to pay the 100 millions that it takes to get drugs through the regulatory process. No patents means no one pays and the money goes elsewhere.

you still need to balance that with the fact there would be more competition, lower price points, and much greater access.

There is nothing to balance. Money would not be invested in new drug R&D so any competition would simply lower the price of existing drugs.

[dre]

You are deluding yourself. Someone has to pay the 100 millions that it takes to get drugs through the regulatory process. No patents means no one pays and the money goes elsewhere.

There is nothing to balance. Money would not be invested in new drug R&D so any competition would simply lower the price of existing drugs.

You are deluding yourself, and ignoring the fundamentals of the market place.

You are also ignoring the way drugs really get developed and where most of the money comes from.

Drug discovery is the process by which potential drugs are discovered or designed. In the past most drugs have been discovered either by isolating the active ingredient from traditional remedies or by serendipitous discovery. Modern biotechnology often focuses on understanding the metabolic pathways related to a disease state or pathogen, and manipulating these pathways using molecular biology or biochemistry. A great deal of early-stage drug discovery has traditionally been carried out by universities and research institutions. Public funding accounts for 80% of the amount spent on basic research for new drugs and vaccines in the United States

80% of the funding for research into new drugs and vaccines comes from the taxpayer. So even if private investors completely stopped investing in the incredibly lucrative industry the most you would see is a 20% reduction in R&D investment, but anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that investment WONT stop, because there is huge demand and people are willing to pay great sums of money for the products.

Yuu arent taking into account what would happen in the absense of the system. If there WAS a reduction in private R&D dollars maybe it would be offset by increased public investment and more research grants, and more work being done in universities.

There is nothing to balance.

Theres a whole lot to balance. The patent system and the concept of government backed monopolies has a whole host of negative consequences associated with it as well as positive ones. Unless you look at all of them, its impossible to know if IP laws have a net positive effect on society or not.

Edited September 1, 2012 by dre