Amazing what you can buy win with gobs and gobs of money lawyers.

So that means that HTC and Apple only have what like 10 active patent trolls going against each other?

/that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

ha-ha-guy: /that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

That it is.

The modern cell phone industry is probably the best argument against the patent system as a whole, and software patents in particular, that could possibly be made.

HeartBurnKid: ha-ha-guy: /that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

That it is.

The modern cell phone industry is probably the best argument against the patent system as a whole, and software patents in particular, that could possibly be made.


... because there have been no innovations in cell phones over the past two decades?

HeartBurnKid: ha-ha-guy: /that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

That it is.

The modern cell phone industry is probably the best argument against the patent system as a whole, and software patents in particular, that could possibly be made.

This.

Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: ha-ha-guy: /that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

That it is.

The modern cell phone industry is probably the best argument against the patent system as a whole, and software patents in particular, that could possibly be made.

[www.nationalreview.com image 399x420]
... because there have been no innovations in cell phones over the past two decades?

Bolded the relevant modifier that you seem to have missed.

Software is protected by copyright. Patents are a costly, superfluous redundancy.

There are no good guys to root for in the tech industry. I would say that I hope both companies litigate other out of business, but someone needs to make the stuff that both helps and hinders my productivity. Grrr.

twat_waffle: Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: ha-ha-guy: /that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

That it is.

The modern cell phone industry is probably the best argument against the patent system as a whole, and software patents in particular, that could possibly be made.

[www.nationalreview.com image 399x420]
... because there have been no innovations in cell phones over the past two decades?

Bolded the relevant modifier that you seem to have missed.

Software is protected by copyright. Patents are a costly, superfluous redundancy.

No, software isn't well protected by copyright. A single copy of a software program is protected, but reverse engineering it isn't. Patents are crucial.

And you act like that "relevant modifier" is so important... You're saying software hasn't advanced over two decades?

Theaetetus: twat_waffle: Theaetetus: HeartBurnKid: ha-ha-guy: /that entire industry is one litigious little clusterfark

That it is.

The modern cell phone industry is probably the best argument against the patent system as a whole, and software patents in particular, that could possibly be made.

[www.nationalreview.com image 399x420]
... because there have been no innovations in cell phones over the past two decades?

Bolded the relevant modifier that you seem to have missed.

Software is protected by copyright. Patents are a costly, superfluous redundancy.

No, software isn't well protected by copyright. A single copy of a software program is protected, but reverse engineering it isn't. Patents are crucial.

And you act like that "relevant modifier" is so important... You're saying software hasn't advanced over two decades?

Whether or not software advances is irrelevant. The point remains that software is eligible for patent protection.

As for your spurious argument about reverse engineering...

The reverse engineering of software in the US is generally a breach of contract as most EULAs specifically prohibit it, and courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law; see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies.

See? No need for software patents.

Besides, a "single copy is protected"? Do you know how copyright works? The ORIGINAL SOURCE is protected. All copies must be licensed by the creator of the original source. I can't go and make a copy of the Harry Potter books and sell them because I could be guilty of criminal copyright infringement. It doesn't matter that I am selling a copy of a copy. All that matters is that the words inside the book are protected by copyright, just like the individual lines of code in software are.

I suggest that you actually do some research on the issue. You something.

Doh! HTML fail...

I meant to say this:

You may learn something.

And now I will be enabling preview.

twat_waffle: Whether or not software advances is irrelevant. The point remains that software is eligible for patent protection.

Au contraire. The most cited reason for why software shouldn't be patentable is that software advances are stifled, and the justification for why software should be patentable is to encourage innovation.
If software innovation has continued, then those reasons are shown to be questionable, and the justification is strengthened.
And it is.

Saying it's irrelevant merely makes one wonder if you're backing away from the central questions.

As for your spurious argument about reverse engineering...

The reverse engineering of software in the US is generally a breach of contract as most EULAs specifically prohibit it, and courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law; see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies.

Unfortunately, my friend, the world is quite a bit larger than the US.

See? No need for software patents.

See Russia? See India? See China?
Need for software patents.

Besides, a "single copy is protected"? Do you know how copyright works?

Let me guess... after this, you're going to continue working on your (hopefully) prize-winning lecture entitled "teach your grandmother how to suck eggs"?

The ORIGINAL SOURCE is protected. All copies must be licensed by the creator of the original source. I can't go and make a copy of the Harry Potter books and sell them because I could be guilty of criminal copyright infringement. It doesn't matter that I am selling a copy of a copy. All that matters is that the words inside the book are protected by copyright, just like the individual lines of code in software are.

I suggest that you actually do some research on the issue. You something.

How is that any different from what I said? The original source - WHICH IS A SINGLE COPY, BY DEFINITION - is protected. All copies OF THAT SINGLE COPY must be licensed by the creator OF THAT SINGLE COPY. You can't go and make a copy of the Harry Potter books and sell them, but you absolutely can go and write your own book about a boy wizard who's friends with an incompetent ginger and a sexy, smart brunette. You can even rewrite Romeo and Juliet, but set it in New York and replace rival families with rival gangs and call it "West Side Story".
As I said, copyright protects the single - i.e. original - copy. Not any rewrites. UNLIKE patents.

Anyways, I suggest before you go mansplaining about some topic you clearly know nothing about, you check who you're talking to. It'll save you looking stupid.