decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple Must Sue | 119 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple Must Sue, But So Too Must It Innovate And Soon
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 05:25 PM EST
I agree! Patents often protect your inability to further
innovate. You get your patent on rectangles with round
corners, and then you are all set for years without any
further innovation. Meanwhile, all he non-patent holders have
to innovate to stay in business.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Must Sue, But So Too Must It Innovate And Soon
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
The concept goes like this: If someone spends
money on R & D, comes out with a new product, and
everyone else just copies the end result immediately,
without having to spend on R&D, it's not fair and
in the end no one will do the R&D, because you
then can't get your money back that you invested.
Folks who didn't do R&D then benefit from your
investment, and you don't get the full benefit
that you worked for.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patent "rights" and patent "protection"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 07:15 PM EST
Semantics are important. It is informative to see how people
use terms that have very favorable connotations to describe
the ideas they favor, and use other terms with negative
connotations for their opponents' ideas.

The repeated use of the term "patent rights" in this article
is a good example. Who could be opposed to "rights"? But
the actual function of a patent does not grant any rights to
anyone. It rather limits the expressive and economic rights
of the rest of society, all premised on the bargain of
eventual societal benefit. Likewise, copyright "protection"
is prevention of the creation of copies. It doesn't protect
the original, because the act of copying doesn't do anything
to the original.

Similarly, downloading unauthorized copies becomes "internet
theft", and prevention of gay people from getting married
becomes "defense of marriage".

All of these terms are intellectually dishonest. They
should be avoided just as Stallman refuses to use the term
"intellectual property".

DSB

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Must Sue
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST
This headline sounds far too much like:
"The Beast Must Die!"
Spare us all the melodrama. Apple was not compelled to sue
over anything because what it is suing over is trivial
design details. There are no technical innovations in any of
patents apple is asserting so there certainly isn't any
reason that they had to sue. Motorola does have reason to
sue Apple for standard essential patents but it was Apple
who turned to the courts over look and feel rather than
basic functionality.

Apple is the bad boy here. "They're my toys, all mine! Mine!
Mine! Mine!" is just childish.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )