Administrator
|
This is so weird:
http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=24064
.. I think the whole patent thing has gone way to far. But, hey, maybe they DID steal? -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Not a lawyer nor an economist-would love to here a explination for how this even came to court.
Seriusly round cornered icons are patentable? (If I had the money right now i'd consider getting one of the phones apples complaining about) This does strike me as a bad move apple in terms of the parts and the US phone ecology. They were at one point using samsungs american plants to manufacture the i(name here) stuff. I hope they have someone else ready once the current stock runs out. Unless MS pulls out of the portable market- sooner or later woudn't MS decide attempt to compete (more?) with the iphone? What wories and amuses me is that it looks like the only way for MS and Apple to compete with inovations from google and others is to team up- and when they stop inovating sue them-instead of competing on a even playing field. Other peoples thoughts on this? On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: This is so weird: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Intellectual property, at the end of the day, is worth what you're willing to spend to defend it. Ideas abound, and the reason to have patents on everything (including icon design, the motion of fingers on a surface, or one-click purchasing) is, in part, to block others from doing it. This creates path dependencies, as Brian Arthur might put it, and can set standards. Espionage occurs in many forms - whether Samsung did it deliberately or not is a matter for the court to decide, which this ruling did. As noted, Apple didn't win everything, and was countersued by Samsung, which suggests that whoever was first (in the US, at least) had the better chance of prevailing. Apple's been clear about protecting its intellectual property and it has the resources to do so. Does this stifle or reward innovation? Which is the better aim for society and its laws? I believe these are open questions. - Claiborne -
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
There is some discussion on groklaw about this verdict and some interviews given by jury members.
Some pretty entertaining questions. -- rec --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Great Groklaw post. Personally I'm sick of Apple. I feel about it now the way I used to feel about Microsoft. I hope the verdict is reversed as requested by Samsung. If it goes to the Supreme Court it will provide an opportunity to fix some of the distortions in our current patent system. But I have no idea whether the Supreme Court will take advantage of the opportunity. Is Scalia pro-Apple or anti-Apple? How about Roberts? It may come down to the sort of computer the Supreme Court justices own. Since Apple portrays itself (or at least used to portray itself) as a rebel, perhaps the conservative Supreme Court will be inclined not to support them. In any case, I hope so. It's too bad it comes down to this sort of personal preferences, though. But that seems to be the way our Supreme Court operates these days.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: There is some discussion on groklaw about this verdict and some interviews given by jury members. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
The plot thickens: The jury foreman describes (in a youtubed interview) his solution to the "prior art" problems which consumed the first day of jury deliberations: the prior art didn't run on the same processor as Apple's art, so it couldn't be prior art! Once he'd persuaded the rest of the jury of this doubly wrong (doesn't matter which, if any, processor the prior art runs on, and Apple's phones do run on the same ARM processors as Samsung's) misinterpretation, the rest of the verdict was a piece of cake.
There was an interview with Walter Isaacson on CSPAN last night about the biography, Steve Jobs, Apple, etc. Very worth watching if you get a chance. -- rec -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Ugh. But can you appeal the thinking of a jury?
On Aug 29, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Before answering, think 'OJ Simpson'.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Joshua Thorp <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |