Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   Samsung: Whether or not we ripped off Apple's tech, Apple stole it to begin with   (bgr.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Samsung, Apple, SanJoseMercuryNews, ipad app, Mitsubishi  
•       •       •

2561 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Aug 2012 at 1:51 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-14 01:55:54 PM  
You mean the technology of shaping a phone like a rectangle with rounded corners, with a large touch-screen in the middle of it?

Wow. Regular Edisons you are.

The patent system is broken. PTO examiners are overwhelmed and will rubber stamp anything. The end result is that everyone loses in these massive, pointless tech lawsuits and patent trolling over "technologies" that are neither novel nor particularly useful.
 
2012-08-14 01:59:28 PM  
www.techfever.net

/hot
 
2012-08-14 01:59:43 PM  

indylaw: The end result is that everyone loses in these massive, pointless tech lawsuits and patent trolling over "technologies" that are neither novel nor particularly useful.


well, not the lawyers
 
2012-08-14 02:00:05 PM  
Patents have nothing to do with who invented it first. Once you realize that, the author's entire argument is bunk.
 
2012-08-14 02:03:03 PM  

WalkingSnake: [www.techfever.net image 647x401]


Now I'm going to go all crazy-person and rebute myself with this:

myandroidchief.com

/also hot
 
2012-08-14 02:03:24 PM  
It's amazing! When you have a touch screen that replaces all the buttons, you no longer have to make room for buttons. Clearly what Samsung should have done was left a few buttons that don't actually do anything somewhere on the phone. That way they could maintain the look of the old phones, buttons and all, and it wouldn't look like they were stealing Apple's brilliant idea of getting rid of buttons that you no longer need.
 
2012-08-14 02:07:05 PM  
Ah, the "NO U!" response.
 
2012-08-14 02:08:01 PM  
Everything nowadays is stolen. Why the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached.
 
2012-08-14 02:08:29 PM  

russlar: Ah, the "NO U!" response.


Why not? It's a more effective rebuttal than most of anything seen in the Politics tab.
 
2012-08-14 02:11:46 PM  
The video presented clearly shows pinching to zoom windows not an entire screen, therefore Samsung is a bunch of doody heads.
 
2012-08-14 02:12:38 PM  

MrEricSir: Patents have nothing to do with who invented it first. Once you realize that, the author's entire argument is bunk.


That's only for recent patents in the US, as of just last year. With the stupid patent reform act that was passed.

The entire patent system needs reform. Patents are too easy to get when they shouldn't be due to prior art, obviousness, or non-novel ideas. Taking something from the non-digital world and applying it to the digital world should not be patented. Taking something existing, and patenting it because it is in a new form factor should not be patented. Design patents should not exist, let trademarks take care of that. Software should NEVER be patented. Let copyright cover them.

Apple and Samsung should both be smacked in this for their respective patent claims. I'd totally be in favor of BOTH of them losing all patents they tried to assert in this trial.
 
2012-08-14 02:13:17 PM  
WalkingSnake has covered it from both sides, now I suggest the rest of us back out of this thread slowly.
 
2012-08-14 02:14:32 PM  

The Bestest: russlar: Ah, the "NO U!" response.

Why not? It's a more effective rebuttal than most of anything seen in the Politics tab.


Also: it's true; if IBM had done patent-trolling in 70s, Microsoft and Apple would've never existed in their current state.
 
2012-08-14 02:15:58 PM  

indylaw: The patent system is broken.


Fark's USPTO shill will be along shortly to 'set you straight' on this matter with some... uh.... solid.... "arguments". Or empty rhetoric, whatever, he get paid either way.

It's like a one-man climate change denier, but you know, patents.
 
2012-08-14 02:31:15 PM  
No way Apple would ever rip off ideas and claim they thought of them in the first place. There is no denying they were the first to make a gui and use a mouse on a desktop until M$ came along and ripped off their idea and made a bajollions dollars.
 
2012-08-14 02:31:17 PM  
Let's not bicker and argue over who killed copied who.
 
2012-08-14 02:38:35 PM  

WalkingSnake: WalkingSnake: [www.techfever.net image 647x401]

Now I'm going to go all crazy-person and rebute myself with this:

[myandroidchief.com image 635x463]

/also hot


So you mean that if one doesn't cherry pick tone's data, it tells a different story? You don't say! Shh don't tell the fanbois who assert that Apple is the only company capable of incorporating a touch screen into a rectangular phone
 
2012-08-14 02:38:46 PM  

redpanda2: WalkingSnake has covered it from both sides, now I suggest the rest of us back out of this thread slowly.


I'll take that advice...
 
2012-08-14 02:42:20 PM  
I think I read this in a Jon Sanford novel.
 
2012-08-14 03:39:27 PM  

WalkingSnake: WalkingSnake: [www.techfever.net image 647x401]

Now I'm going to go all crazy-person and rebute myself with this:

[myandroidchief.com image 635x463]

/also hot


Looks like that's the thread, thanks for all the hard work!
 
2012-08-14 03:39:32 PM  

grimeystubs: No way Apple would ever rip off ideas and claim they thought of them in the first place. There is no denying they were the first to make a gui and use a mouse on a desktop until M$ came along and ripped off their idea and made a bajollions dollars.


They also invented smartphones, mp3 players, tablets and television
 
2012-08-14 03:43:48 PM  

indylaw: PTO examiners are overwhelmed and will rubber stamp anything.


90% of patent applications are rejected. So that rubber stamp doesn't say what you think it does.
 
2012-08-14 03:44:34 PM  

Rwa2play: The Bestest: russlar: Ah, the "NO U!" response.

Why not? It's a more effective rebuttal than most of anything seen in the Politics tab.

Also: it's true; if IBM had done patent-trolling in 70s, Microsoft and Apple would've never existed in their current state.


You know, IBM did file for a patent on patent trolling back in 2010...
 
2012-08-14 03:46:27 PM  

redpanda2: WalkingSnake has covered it from both sides, now I suggest the rest of us back out of this thread slowly.


He has rather successfully demonstrated how stupid all those myriad photoshops are.
 
2012-08-14 03:46:38 PM  
If Apple "stole" this tech, why aren't THEY getting sued?

Or is Samsung seriously saying "OK, yeah we copied the iPhone, but some other shiat we didn't know about until we googled it was kinda similar, so that makes our blatant rip offs OK"?

Hell, Microsoft is licensing iOS patents and entering into "no-cloning" agreements with the Surface. Apple also offered licenses to Samsung that would have meant this lawsuit would never have happened:

Link

Google told Samsung they were copying iPad, and were ignored:

Link

Samsung also has a long history of blatantly copying the competition:

Link
 
2012-08-14 03:47:34 PM  

grimeystubs: No way Apple would ever rip off ideas and claim they thought of them in the first place. There is no denying they were the first to make a gui and use a mouse on a desktop until M$ came along and ripped off their idea and made a bajollions dollars.


That's what always gets me (Yeah I know about Xerox PARC, who doesn't?).

So Apple tards say MS "stole" the tech from Apple and made a gazillion dollars?

That's actually what stings, isn't it? That they got rich, right? XD

But even better (or worse?). Chinese fakes copy a lot of stuff yet you never see anyone getting richer than the original, right?

Why was MS able to do it? Oh because they made great products and had a better business plan? Surely you jest.
 
2012-08-14 03:49:34 PM  

Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected.


Umm.. NO.

You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected, but that data shows that last year, 51% of patents applied for were granted. Any more false data you wish to present?
 
2012-08-14 03:53:28 PM  

tgambitg: MrEricSir: Patents have nothing to do with who invented it first. Once you realize that, the author's entire argument is bunk.

That's only for recent patents in the US, as of just last year. With the stupid patent reform act that was passed.


The change to first-to-file has nothing to do with that, and all it does is remove an expensive interference proceeding that was used twenty times per year.
Twenty. Out of 500,000 applications. It's not a big change.
And the requirement that the applicant is the inventor is still there.

The entire patent system needs reform. Patents are too easy to get when they shouldn't be due to prior art, obviousness, or non-novel ideas.

You shouldn't list those three things as if they're related. Obviousness and novelty are legal conclusions, like "guilty", which must be supported by prior art evidence, like "witnesses". What you said is like saying it's too easy to put people in jail when they shouldn't be due to innocence and murder weapons. It's just nonsensical.

Taking something from the non-digital world and applying it to the digital world should not be patented. Taking something existing, and patenting it because it is in a new form factor should not be patented.

Good thing no one does that, then.

Design patents should not exist, let trademarks take care of that.

Trade dress and design patents are complimentary and design patents fill in a gap that trade dress can't protect by definition: new products.

Software should NEVER be patented. Let copyright cover them.

Copyright is inadequate to protect software. See, for example, Tiny Tower.
Copyright is only useful when your specific embodiment of a work is the desirable one. People want Katy Perry's "Firework" rather than Jim Bob's "Firework". People want "The Avengers" rather than "The Famous Super-hero League". People want "Iron Man" and not "Man of Tungsten". But that's not true in software, where people don't care whether they're playing Tower Defense Game A or Tower Defense Game B.

The worst part is that this whole "use copyright, not patents" argument exists only to harm small developers whose work can be easily reverse engineered by big developers.
 
2012-08-14 03:53:40 PM  

tgambitg: Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected.

Umm.. NO.

You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected, but that data shows that last year, 51% of patents applied for were granted. Any more false data you wish to present?


If we limit it to Design Patent grants (which are a huge part of what Apple is suing with) you get 30,467 applied for, 21,356 granted, which is a 70% grant rate, which is getting closer to that 'rubber stamp'.
 
2012-08-14 03:55:50 PM  

tgambitg: Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected.

Umm.. NO.

You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected...
Any more false data you wish to present?


So it's not false? Great, thanks. Glad you agree.
If they're initially rejected, they're not "rubber stamped," since that term implies immediate acceptance without substantive examination or rejection.

If you thought that by saying "90% of patent applications are rejected," I meant that 90% of patent applications are abandoned, then my apologies for your confusion between those different words with different meanings.
 
2012-08-14 03:57:22 PM  

tgambitg: If we limit it to Design Patent grants (which are a huge part of what Apple is suing with) you get 30,467 applied for, 21,356 granted, which is a 70% grant rate, which is getting closer to that 'rubber stamp'.


Design patents are also a lot more narrow than utility patents. Saying that narrow patents are granted at a higher rate than broad patents is a reasonable and good thing, I'd think.
 
2012-08-14 03:59:47 PM  

Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected.

Umm.. NO.

You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected...
Any more false data you wish to present?

So it's not false? Great, thanks. Glad you agree.
If they're initially rejected, they're not "rubber stamped," since that term implies immediate acceptance without substantive examination or rejection.

If you thought that by saying "90% of patent applications are rejected," I meant that 90% of patent applications are abandoned, then my apologies for your confusion between those different words with different meanings.


So now you're changing your initial statement? You said REJECTED. Not, initial rejection and granted later, REJECTED. I proved you wrong. Quit twisting words.We all know you are heavily invested for some reason in the patent system, but it is BROKEN. It is not being used for its original intended purpose. Patents were not meant to be used as weapons.
 
2012-08-14 04:05:01 PM  
most pc and phone manufacturers are shiatty
 
2012-08-14 04:09:25 PM  

tgambitg: So now you're changing your initial statement?


Yes, I am. You've caught me. I'd like to publicly acknowledge that I am changing my statement from:

Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected. So that rubber stamp doesn't say what you think it does.

to:

Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected. So that rubber stamp doesn't say what you think it does.

You said REJECTED.


Yep. Though I didn't shout it.

Not, initial rejection and granted later, REJECTED.

Those both mean the same thing. Examiner picks up the application. Examiner takes out his rubber stamp. Examiner rubber stamps it "REJECTED". The Examiner sure isn't rubber stamping them "ALLOWED," is he?

I proved you wrong. Quit twisting words.

Yes, I said "rejected" when I meant "rejected". Clearly, I am twisting words and attempting to deceive everyone, and you've "proved me wrong".
By which I mean "have explicitly agreed with me."

We all know you are heavily invested for some reason in the patent system, but it is BROKEN. It is not being used for its original intended purpose. Patents were not meant to be used as weapons.

Actually, yes, they were. That was the explicit purpose in allowing monopolies - preventing others from performing the same process, or making the same machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter.

Are there areas for reform? Absolutely. And if you weren't busy calling me names, I'd be happy to have a rational discussion like an adult with you about what those areas are, and how such reform should be enacted. But instead, you're acting like a spoiled child, so I'll treat you like one.
 
2012-08-14 04:11:14 PM  
 
2012-08-14 04:11:18 PM  

tgambitg: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected.

Umm.. NO.

You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected...
Any more false data you wish to present?

So it's not false? Great, thanks. Glad you agree.
If they're initially rejected, they're not "rubber stamped," since that term implies immediate acceptance without substantive examination or rejection.

If you thought that by saying "90% of patent applications are rejected," I meant that 90% of patent applications are abandoned, then my apologies for your confusion between those different words with different meanings.

So now you're changing your initial statement? You said REJECTED. Not, initial rejection and granted later, REJECTED. I proved you wrong. Quit twisting words.We all know you are heavily invested for some reason in the patent system, but it is BROKEN. It is not being used for its original intended purpose. Patents were not meant to be used as weapons.


It's not worth it.
 
2012-08-14 04:12:20 PM  
Sweet. I want to smoke weed, and believe that the Drug War has cost America and its assets immeasurable damage over the years. I can even provide tangible proof, with all sorts of graphs and stats, and I have by most estimates, half of the populace on my side. The Drug War, by any measurement that does not include massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, is an abject failure and needs to be overhauled and/or thrown away.

Still can't smoke weed, because it's against the law. Seems like there's an analogy here somewhere.
 
2012-08-14 04:14:15 PM  

emocomputerjock: tgambitg: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus: 90% of patent applications are rejected.

Umm.. NO.

You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected...
Any more false data you wish to present?

So it's not false? Great, thanks. Glad you agree.
If they're initially rejected, they're not "rubber stamped," since that term implies immediate acceptance without substantive examination or rejection.

If you thought that by saying "90% of patent applications are rejected," I meant that 90% of patent applications are abandoned, then my apologies for your confusion between those different words with different meanings.

So now you're changing your initial statement? You said REJECTED. Not, initial rejection and granted later, REJECTED. I proved you wrong. Quit twisting words.We all know you are heavily invested for some reason in the patent system, but it is BROKEN. It is not being used for its original intended purpose. Patents were not meant to be used as weapons.

It's not worth it.


You're right. But I hate it when he comes in and does his threadshiatting. You present evidence to refute his claims and he calls you names. Or he just adjusts his claims to say he didn't mean that, or you are leaving out what he meant to say. He has an incredible amount of love for a horribly broken system that is hurting consumers the most.
 
2012-08-14 04:16:58 PM  

Oakenshield: Sweet. I want to smoke weed, and believe that the Drug War has cost America and its assets immeasurable damage over the years. I can even provide tangible proof, with all sorts of graphs and stats, and I have by most estimates, half of the populace on my side. The Drug War, by any measurement that does not include massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, is an abject failure and needs to be overhauled and/or thrown away.

Still can't smoke weed, because it's against the law. Seems like there's an analogy here somewhere.


Unfortunately, it takes over the top issues like this to get the reform needed. Everyone in the consumer electronics industry is twisting patents and using them in a horrible way, just like the drug war. The drug war doesn't have enough of an analog to get people calling for reform yet, mainly because of the palm greasing and money flowing to people to perpetuate it.
 
2012-08-14 04:17:06 PM  

This patent business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

 
2012-08-14 04:21:13 PM  

tgambitg: You present evidence to refute his claims


tgambitg: You might be correct in assuming that 90% are initially rejected


Psst: "refute" means "disprove", not "agree with"

Or he just adjusts his claims to say he didn't mean that, or you are leaving out what he meant to say.

I haven't changed a single word. You've tried to change what I've said, and I pointed out how (a) your version is not what I said, and (b) it's irrelevant since you've still agreed with my point.

It's a basic strawman argument - you've done quite well in showing that 50% of patent applications are eventually granted. Congratulations. That's not something I've disagreed with, so I'm not sure exactly who you're fighting with there, other than yourself.
What you've also done is confirm what I said - 90% of patent applications are rejected. They aren't just "rubber stamped".

He has an incredible amount of love for a horribly broken system that is hurting consumers the most.

For an alleged software developer, you have an odd interest in seeing that small developers have no protection. Which big company do you work for? Zynga?
 
2012-08-14 04:25:03 PM  
Theaetetus:
For an alleged software developer, you have an odd interest in seeing that small developers have no protection. Which big company do you work for? Zynga?

Software developer? I've NEVER claimed to be a software developer. You've got your wires crossed, man. I'm a network guy. I've dabbled in software in college, but I didn't like it so I never pursued it. I don't know where you got that idea, but once again, you're wrong.
 
2012-08-14 04:25:38 PM  

tgambitg: Everyone in the consumer electronics industry is twisting patents and using them in a horrible way, just like the drug war. The drug war doesn't have enough of an analog to get people calling for reform yet, mainly because of the palm greasing and money flowing to people to perpetuate it.


Have you noticed that, unlike copyrights, patent terms haven't been expanded for 150 years? It's because, unlike copyright where big corporations don't tend to infringe each other's work, companies are always wanting more term for their own stuff but less for every one else's. This creates a natural balance, which is why the patent term hasn't been expanded: the money and palm greasing is on both sides of the equation.
Compare that to the drug war, where all the money is on one side.
 
2012-08-14 04:26:35 PM  

tgambitg: Software developer? I've NEVER claimed to be a software developer. You've got your wires crossed, man. I'm a network guy. I've dabbled in software in college, but I didn't like it so I never pursued it. I don't know where you got that idea, but once again, you're wrong.


Fair enough. So, why this interest in crushing small developers by taking away their protections, a la Zynga and Tiny Tower?
 
2012-08-14 04:31:20 PM  

Theaetetus: tgambitg: Software developer? I've NEVER claimed to be a software developer. You've got your wires crossed, man. I'm a network guy. I've dabbled in software in college, but I didn't like it so I never pursued it. I don't know where you got that idea, but once again, you're wrong.

Fair enough. So, why this interest in crushing small developers by taking away their protections, a la Zynga and Tiny Tower?


Copyright and trademarks can protect well enough. Patents are not for mathematical equations. That's all that software is. No more, no less. They are extremely complex mathematical equations, but equations nonetheless. If someone slavishly copies your code, hit them with copyright violations. If they copy your look, that's a trademark violation. There is enough protection there already. You don't need software patents. You don't need design patents. How is that so hard to understand?
 
2012-08-14 04:40:53 PM  

tgambitg: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Software developer? I've NEVER claimed to be a software developer. You've got your wires crossed, man. I'm a network guy. I've dabbled in software in college, but I didn't like it so I never pursued it. I don't know where you got that idea, but once again, you're wrong.

Fair enough. So, why this interest in crushing small developers by taking away their protections, a la Zynga and Tiny Tower?

Copyright and trademarks can protect well enough.


Tell that to the Tiny Tower developers.

Patents are not for mathematical equations. That's all that software is. No more, no less. They are extremely complex mathematical equations, but equations nonetheless.

Yep, and that's why software isn't patentable. Machines, however, are patentable, and so are processes performed by machines. But pure software? Heck, no.

If someone slavishly copies your code, hit them with copyright violations... You don't need software patents.

So, regardless of how much time you work on implementing something, doing beta testing, fixing the UI and making it work better and be more intuitive, someone should be able to come along and just duplicate your end result without either doing that hard work or paying you a license fee... provided they don't actually copy-paste your code? Why is that reasonable?

If they copy your look, that's a trademark violation. There is enough protection there already. You don't need design patents.

No, it's not a trade dress violation unless you can prove that your trade dress was already distinctive and well known to consumers. So if you've got a brand new product, you're sunk.
Notice, for example, that Google got a design patent on its home page, long before anyone recognized Google as having distinctive trade dress.

How is that so hard to understand?

Pretty hard, apparently, since your suggestion removes all protection from small or indie developers and removes protection from new products. It's almost like you want to strip away any protection that would hamper a big company, while simultaneously letting their huge advertising budgets crush their competition through establishment of those same trade dress protections. Exactly like that, in fact...
 
2012-08-14 04:42:33 PM  

tgambitg: How is that so hard to understand?


You want life + 50 year protections instead of 20? And IIRC, copyrighting code would be less effective as it would be much much easier to bypass, you wouldn't have to change any functionality, just the names of things
 
2012-08-14 04:44:57 PM  
Sorry, was thinking in Canadian terms, in the good ol USA, that's life + 70

/For individuals
 
2012-08-14 04:58:09 PM  

the_sidewinder: Sorry, was thinking in Canadian terms, in the good ol USA, that's life + 70

/For individuals


And trade dress is potentially infinite, compared to a mere 14 years for a design patent.

the_sidewinder: And IIRC, copyrighting code would be less effective as it would be much much easier to bypass, you wouldn't have to change any functionality, just the names of things


Yeah. If the code is not exact - if names are changed, for example - then the copyright owner has to explicitly show that the code was copied verbatim and then modified. Independent creation of an identical program isn't infringement. And showing that explicit copying would typically require hard drive forensics and depositions from the programmers... both of which are likely in Russia, China, or India and are unlikely to ever respond.
As I said, copyright is great where the exact work is the desirable one and a knockoff simply doesn't have the same consumer appeal, as in movies, books, and music. Video games? Software programs? Not so much.
 
2012-08-14 04:59:42 PM  

Theaetetus: tgambitg: Theaetetus: tgambitg: Software developer? I've NEVER claimed to be a software developer. You've got your wires crossed, man. I'm a network guy. I've dabbled in software in college, but I didn't like it so I never pursued it. I don't know where you got that idea, but once again, you're wrong.

Fair enough. So, why this interest in crushing small developers by taking away their protections, a la Zynga and Tiny Tower?

Copyright and trademarks can protect well enough.

Tell that to the Tiny Tower developers.


Did they copy it line for line? No? They can complain all they want, but they were not copied. Imitated, yes, but not copied. Clones have ALWAYS been in the software market. Otherwise we'd still be using things like Lotus 1-2-3 for spreadsheets, or Mosaic for web browsing. Differentiate your product in software, make the customer want it, and you will do well. If not, you flounder.

Patents are not for mathematical equations. That's all that software is. No more, no less. They are extremely complex mathematical equations, but equations nonetheless.

Yep, and that's why software isn't patentable. Machines, however, are patentable, and so are processes performed by machines. But pure software? Heck, no.

If someone slavishly copies your code, hit them with copyright violations... You don't need software patents.

So, regardless of how much time you work on implementing something, doing beta testing, fixing the UI and making it work better and be more intuitive, someone should be able to come along and just duplicate your end result without either doing that hard work or paying you a license fee... provided they don't actually copy-paste your code? Why is that reasonable?


It's still software. That's why it is reasonable. They still have to code, they still have to test, they still have to design the UI, without copying the code. If they copy the code, hit them. If not, well... differentiate and make yours better than the competition.

If they copy your look, that's a trademark violation. There is enough protection there already. You don't need design patents.

No, it's not a trade dress violation unless you can prove that your trade dress was already distinctive and well known to consumers. So if you've got a brand new product, you're sunk.
Notice, for example, that Google got a design patent on its home page, long before anyone recognized Google as having distinctive trade dress.


Excuse me. I used the wrong words. I mean Trade Dress. Which is protectable without patents. See the Lanham Act. As far as your second point, Google shouldn't have been granted that patent. It falls under trade dress, and trademarks. This is why the patent system needs reformed. A home page look is not a process. The way a piece of electronics looks is not a process. These are trade dress items, and as such should not be patentable. We obviously have fundamental disagreements on this issue. So do a lot of people. Which is why there is such uproar over this specific case.

How is that so hard to understand?

Pretty hard, apparently, since your suggestion removes all protection from small or indie developers and removes protection from new products. It's almost like you want to strip away ...


Nice putting words in my mouth and trying to make me look like the bad guy here. Who is acting like a spoiled child now? Small and indie developers are subject to the same market forces as everyone else. If they are 1:1 copied, they have recourse. If they are mimicked, they ahve to option to be the better product, or die. Not everyone is guaranteed a win. It's impossible.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report