Author Topic: 'Suck it, Apple." - Judge Colin Birss (Read 14134 times)

BranDonk Kong · « **on:** July 18, 2012, 04:24:56 PM »

So, Apple lost another lawsuit against Samsung, and now a judge has ordered Apple to advertise in print and online that Samsung did not copy the iPad with the Galaxy TAB. Lookie here. Apple has been doing some absolute dick moves lately, sending faxes and letters (and 100 page files) to retailers telling them they can't sell Samsung's "infringing" products, and just flat out patent-trolling.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:31:57 PM »

Yeah, suck it Apple!

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2012, 04:39:21 PM »

I should point out thought that in the US, Apple WON its lawsuit and Samsung is banned from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1

So I wouldn't say Apple is patent trolling. These tech companies sue each other all the time (hell, Yahoo and Facebook sued each other, then reached a settlement that has them working together). This case is interesting in that a judge in one market ruled for Apple and another judge ruled for Samsung. And it is common in patent lawsuits to tell retailers not to sell the other product, Apple is not the first to do it.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2012, 05:06:46 PM »

No one said they were, and they're still complete assholes for doing so. Anyway, the Galaxy TAB has been gone from shelves for a long time anyway, the Galaxy TAB 2 10.1 replaced it a while back.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2012, 05:42:03 PM »

I don't see how they're assholes for doing what any other company would have done in their position. This is a symptom of our patent system being broken, nothing more.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #5 on:** July 18, 2012, 05:54:44 PM »

So, Nintendo would sue SONY for selling the PSP, since Nintendo had the first majorly successful handheld console? Toyota should sue Nissan for selling Sedans? Did Nintendo sue SONY for ripping off the Wiimote/Nunchuck with the Move controllers?

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #6 on:** July 18, 2012, 05:58:42 PM »

I'm not sure those are proper analogies to this situation.

But hey, speaking of our broken patent system and how it relates to Apple, they were recently awarded a patent for scroll bars.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2012, 06:00:12 PM »

That probably won't hold up in any lawsuit. They've successfully patented several things lately that have been around for decades.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2012, 09:54:43 PM »

Yeah, I think there is plenty of evidence of "prior work" so this wouldn't hold up in court.

Still, the fact that stuff like this can be patented is a perfect example of how broken and useless the patent system is. The patent system was designed to encourage innovation, and in the beginning that's probably what it did, but nowadays it just enables huge corporations to lock up a ton of **** and prevent anyone else from doing anything with those ideas. Now instead of encouraging innovation, it stifles it.

tendoboy1984 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2012, 11:21:11 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on July 18, 2012, 04:39:21 PM

I should point out thought that in the US, Apple WON its lawsuit and Samsung is banned from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1

So I wouldn't say Apple is patent trolling. These tech companies sue each other all the time (hell, Yahoo and Facebook sued each other, then reached a settlement that has them working together). This case is interesting in that a judge in one market ruled for Apple and another judge ruled for Samsung. And it is common in patent lawsuits to tell retailers not to sell the other product, Apple is not the first to do it.

Samsung still sells the Galaxy Tab on their website. Wouldn't this ruling also apply to any other Galaxy Tabs, since they all have the same basic design as an iPad?

Morari · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2012, 11:41:13 PM »

Quote from: NWR_insanolord on July 18, 2012, 05:42:03 PM

This is a symptom of our patent system being broken, nothing more.

Exactly, and software patents are among the most ridiculous. The patent system needs reform, and software patents need to be outright abolished.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2012, 02:54:15 PM »

I don't really understand why the patent office is so incompetent. The concepts seems pretty simple. "Oh you did it first? Here's your patent." What sort of out-of-touch idiots do they have working there where you can attempt to patent something like scrollbars? Any one with the slightest connection to the rest of the world would immediately know that that's a concept that has existed for a long time and someone can't just claim they invented it decades afterwards. Is there a patent for the wheel? Can I be the one to claim it? Obviously not because at some point the patent office was smart enough to realize that anyone coming forward claiming to have invented something so old could not possibly have invented it.

Software patents make no sense because software is intellectual property. Therefore it would fall under copyright law, not patent law. Can I patent notes of a musical instrument, the use of certain colours in painting, the general story structure of a novel? No and no one would ever suggest such an idea. It's about the specifics of what I wrote or painted. It's about how I arranged those general elements. Apple's software clearly in entitled to a copyright. No, I should not be allowed to make my own version of Garage Band that looks and acts exactly the same. It's just like how I can arrange guitar chords and vocal melodies and create my own song, but I can't take a Beatles song and just play the same thing and take credit.

What frustrates me is that the abuse of both patents and copyrights by corporations has created an idealogy that these things should not exist which ultimately hurts the little guy. The small independents writing songs, making movies, writing books, creating games and software - don't they deserve some ability to make a living off that work? But that won't happen without patents and copyrights and those have become almost dirty words these days.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2012, 02:57:45 PM »

Wasn't Microsoft being anti-competitive a factor that almost led to Apple's demise in the 90s? There is some irony in Apple now being anti-competitive, when the anti-competitiveness of someone else almost destroyed them... its just like how some people who were molested as kids later grow up to be molesters themselves.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #13 on:** July 19, 2012, 03:02:18 PM »

Quote from: Ian Sane on July 19, 2012, 02:54:15 PM

Is there a patent for the wheel? Can I be the one to claim it? Obviously not because at some point the patent office was smart enough to realize that anyone coming forward claiming to have invented something so old could not possibly have invented it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

Don't patents last 20 years? I guess we have about 9 more years to go before generic wheels can start appearing on the market.

:

Morari · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2012, 06:40:22 PM »

Quote from: Ian Sane on July 19, 2012, 02:54:15 PM

What frustrates me is that the abuse of both patents and copyrights by corporations has created an idealogy that these things should not exist which ultimately hurts the little guy. The small independents writing songs, making movies, writing books, creating games and software - don't they deserve some ability to make a living off that work? But that won't happen without patents and copyrights and those have become almost dirty words these days.

Copyright law, as is currently stands, is wrong. Take it from someone who actually does make a living off of his artistic endeavors. Rather than laying out the right method, I will instead just link to a previous post. You can find it here.

Patents are a different beast altogether. They should not ever cover a simply concept however. Software patents are dangerous and do nothing but hinder innovation. Of course, it's not too different than companies patenting concepts simply so their competitors can't use it. Unless you have a working prototype and intend to produce and actively market something, you should not be granted a patent.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2012, 06:59:37 PM »

You could argue patent law, but what makes you so cynical against copyright law? People who put the effort in to create something should be able to hold onto it for a long time without someone else stealing it. For those who want to release it into the public domain, they still can.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2012, 11:18:14 PM »

SAYS THE GUY WHO ONLY BOUGHT A PSP BECAUSE OF HOW EASY IT WAS TO MOD.

Sorry, but I will ALWAYS bring that up.

SixthAngel · « **Reply #17 on:** July 20, 2012, 12:29:13 AM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on July 19, 2012, 06:59:37 PM

You could argue patent law, but what makes you so cynical against copyright law? People who put the effort in to create something should be able to hold onto it for a long time without someone else stealing it. For those who want to release it into the public domain, they still can.

If "hold it for a long time" you mean my entire lifetime and then 70 years after my death.
Of course it will actually be longer than that because Mickey is about to reach the that mark soon so they will go back to congress and get it extended again so Disney Corp. can still make tons of money from the ideas a man they never met and when it is renewed will have died before anyone who works at the company was even born.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #18 on:** July 20, 2012, 01:07:05 AM »

There is no reason copyrights should be extended beyond the lifespan of the author. But if it absolutely must be, I think the lifespan of the author plus 20 years would be more than reasonable. That would give the author's heirs plenty of time to cash in. But the problem is once you start extending copyrights beyond death you run into the problem of lobbyists continually trying to get those copyrights extended to the point that they are practically indefinite, and that is clearly not how the copyright system was originally intended to be. Should you be able to profit from your works? Yes. Should your offspring be able to after your death? Maybe... but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

And in the case of Disney, its not like they haven't taken more than their fair share of stuff out of the public domain. A large chunk of their animated children's movies are ripped off of Grimm's Fairy Tales and stuff like that. I think its time Disney repaid the favor. If you take from public domain, you should eventually give back to it as well.

ETA: BTW, +1 goes to Brandogg for reminding us about TJ and his PSP. May we never forget.

oohhboy · « **Reply #19 on:** July 20, 2012, 01:35:24 AM »

Quote from: Chozo Ghost on July 20, 2012, 01:07:05 AM

goes to Brandogg for reminding us about TJ and his PSP. May we never forget.

There is 911 joke in here but it's too crass.

I am not in favor of of having a copyright period after death. Copyright is too long as it is even if your still alive. I don't mind if you retain the monopoly to make a profit over the your lifetime of the work, but after a certain period other people should be able to use it in a non-profit uses. Plus a lot of heirs don't give a **** about a lot of these copyrights which end up languishing causing the works themselves to be lost since it is illegal to preserve them without seeking permission.

Software Patents are a joke. It's like patenting the letter "A" or the word "Th". Ridiculous.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #20 on:** July 20, 2012, 12:21:13 PM »

I think something where copyright lasts until the death of the creator or something like 50 years, whatever comes last, would work. If you wrote a successful novel and then died a year later, if you survived wouldn't you have supported your family with that money? If some 25 year old author with young kids dies in a car accident, should his family be hung out to dry just because he died young while someone else with a valuable copyright did not? I'm suggesting something where the estate would be cared for if the copyright holder died young, but otherwise it would just last during his life.

The problem comes about where a company owns the copyright and seems to hold it in perpetuity because their is no real individual whose life is tied with the copyright. Once again the corporate abuse of the policy, poisons the concept for the little guy. Who really cares if an individual author makes a living off his books? But a movie studio owning a film where everyone who worked on it is long dead? That gets people in a huff.

nickmitch · « **Reply #21 on:** July 20, 2012, 12:45:35 PM »

The problem is that Disney's business is still largely based around Mickey Mouse. Having that in the public domain would cause huge problems for them. Sure, Disney has tried to diversify a little but by buying Marvel and stuff, but losing Mickey, Donald, and all the rest would be pretty damaging. Imagine if it were Superman or Mario. The amount of knock offs would be insane. Disney happens to be the one at the forefront of it but only because it's getting to them first. every other company would do the same thing.

The problem with copyrights is that they were designed for people who are gonna die. Corporations exist with the intent of lasting indefinitely. When the rights transfer to a company, then you get a disconnect in the system.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2012, 02:18:04 PM »

Sometimes corporations die, but the copyrights they hold don't die with them. When corporations die their I.P. gets purchased by someone else (usually another corporation), so it never ends. A popular IP which gets locked up by a corporation for 100 plus years is a bad thing, but you know what may be even worse? When its a niche IP that they own but they don't do anything with. That really sucks if you happen to be a fan, because nothing is being done with it by the owners and no one else can legally do anything with it. There are a lot of old video game franchises that are like that. Someone owns them, but they don't do a damn thing with them, and at the same time no one else is allowed to either.

So I think if you aren't going to do a damn thing with something it should be fast tracked to public domain status. There should be like a period of 5-10 years where you can do something with it, but if you don't in that period of time then it should automatically become public domain. That way someone else has the ability to take it and run with it. But if you do something with it, then that should renew the copyright for it and so on until death.

A good analogy to this is the countout rule in wrestling. If you leave the ring, the Ref starts counting to 10 and if you don't get back in during that time you lose. But you can circumvent that rule by quickly going in and then leaving again. That will reset the countdown. Copyrights should be something like that. The moment you stop doing anything with it, the clock should start ticking, and you have until the time runs out to do something or else you lose it.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #23 on:** July 20, 2012, 05:06:55 PM »

Ah, the old "wrestling count-out" analogy. I don't know if anyone has watched the Disney Channel lately (**** you, I have 2 kids), but it's basically a 1/2 hour of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (which is a clone of Dora the Explorer, just like every other kid's show), and then horse **** that you would never imagine had anything to do with Disney.

nickmitch · « **Reply #24 on:** July 20, 2012, 08:34:47 PM »

A company that buys a copyright is different from one who develops and bases their whole business around it. Maybe the count-out rule could work with externally acquired copyrights.

I remember a whole ordeal about the film rights to Watchmen. That was pretty shitty, but at least the film got made. I'm not sure how you'd implement the rule in that situation. What constitutes doing something could either be too wide to be effective or too narrow and force crap.

News:

Author Topic: 'Suck it, Apple." - Judge Colin Birss (Read 14134 times)