|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
Economist usually say that competition is good. Some chauvinistic politicians
say "It is only good when we are winning" so Not in out backyard.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
And I have no idea what the framers wanted re: smart phones and touch screens.
Anyone who says they do is suspect, imo. In the end if Apple is successful then
corps will leave the US to Apple/M$ (god help us) and pursue the rest of the
world that now has the internet. Heck, we are dead as a society already and
broke to boot.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
In part at least because they are misnamed. They should be called design
copyrights.
They are NOT intended to protect "advances in the useful arts". They
are a sort of trademark, to allow a company to create a distinctive
"appearance" for itself.
That is what is so nasty about this Apple suit. They are using design patents
(which are supposed to cover pure art, as in the "looking pretty"
sense) to claim things which are functional, things which are inevitable if you
want your stuff to actually *work*.
So it is PURE anti-competitive. Claim that something (which is necessary) is
merely "pretty" and thus prevent your competition from using it.
Design patents are - like trademarks and that sort of stuff - *GOOD* - the
intent is to make sure the customer actually gets what they think they are
buying. But when they are ABused like this it's a disaster. Apple should be
sanctioned into bankruptcy for this, but I doubt the American system will even
fine them the proverbial two cents :-(
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
