|
| Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
What is your basis for charging antitrust? What actions by Apple do you believe
constitute antitrust?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
| The purpose of a patent IS to create a monopoly. Thats what is wrong about the
system. We have a double set of standards; patents good, monopoly bad. we as a
society need to choose.
---
The Investors IP Law: The future health of
a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are
currently litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
It's become apparent that most people are unsure about the details of this case,
even though it's a defining moment.
The most important thing to do is to spread the word and let as many people
know about what is going on.
Learn the history of radio, TV, cable, cellular service, and how the internet is
different, and how openness changed everything.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
They are certainly trying, and Microsoft is still just one or two steps away, no
matter how much we wish the charades of enforcement were doing their job.
Not sure which one is worse, though, between Apple without their benevolent
dictator who sort of understood responsibility, or Microsoft, who only ever had
someone who could sort-of play chess well.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
If anyone thinks Apple is going to stop with Samsung and not go after other
Android manufacturers with the overly general patents in their possession,
that person is delusional. It is obvious this is just the start. This will not
stop
with just Android either.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
"This will certainly happen, Apple cannot create a monopoly
using patents, thats not how the system is designed to work. "
Not true, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work. It creates an
limited-time period where the inventor has the right to exclude anyone else
from
using the disclosed invention.
Whether this model should apply to software is an open question; on the
whole I
think not, but on hardware (and not just electronics) it should, as R&D is
not
cheap. To let Joe Copycat use your idea without having to pay back those R&D
costs puts you at a disadvantage.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
