I love Apple computer, I have been all Apple all the time since 1984, with two regrettable exceptions when I had something PC too. When I think of the time and money I saved because I was on a Mac and not a PC, well, the mind boggles. For those of us who actually have to produce or lose, Apple is the only way to go.
Apple won a billion dollar patent suit against Samsung. The fight will go on worldwide. Here are some comments from both sides:
“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products.
Just so. Samsung has it exactly right. Note Samsung is arguing consumer choice.
The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right”
O! Please! This from the company that stole graphical user interface from Xerox. Note Apple is arguing victimhood. Samsung loses a billion serving customers, and Apple is a victim?
Your products delight customers, Apple, mission accomplished. Those who buy Samsung instead are not your customers, thus they are literally none of your business. Samsung "costs" Apple nothing because because no one buying Samsung would have bought Apple. And Apple produced nothing tangible that Samsung sells, and in natural law, property is tangible. And since it is almost impossible to buy a phone without comparing phones, Samsung has it right: consumers know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung.
The reason I am not in charge of Apple is because this is what I would do right now: I'd announce that all of the patents Apple "won" in the case were henceforth open-sourced, and Apple would not be collecting on the billion that Samsung workers, who poured their heart and soul into making whatever Samsung sells, had earned. And announce every patent Apple owned was now open-sourced.
Why not? IBM has done something similar, to good effect.
Then let market competition reign, until capitalism does finally crash into chaos, and the spontaneous order of anarchy emerges without intellectual property rights.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Apple won a billion dollar patent suit against Samsung. The fight will go on worldwide. Here are some comments from both sides:
“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products.
Just so. Samsung has it exactly right. Note Samsung is arguing consumer choice.
The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right”
O! Please! This from the company that stole graphical user interface from Xerox. Note Apple is arguing victimhood. Samsung loses a billion serving customers, and Apple is a victim?
Your products delight customers, Apple, mission accomplished. Those who buy Samsung instead are not your customers, thus they are literally none of your business. Samsung "costs" Apple nothing because because no one buying Samsung would have bought Apple. And Apple produced nothing tangible that Samsung sells, and in natural law, property is tangible. And since it is almost impossible to buy a phone without comparing phones, Samsung has it right: consumers know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung.
The reason I am not in charge of Apple is because this is what I would do right now: I'd announce that all of the patents Apple "won" in the case were henceforth open-sourced, and Apple would not be collecting on the billion that Samsung workers, who poured their heart and soul into making whatever Samsung sells, had earned. And announce every patent Apple owned was now open-sourced.
Why not? IBM has done something similar, to good effect.
Then let market competition reign, until capitalism does finally crash into chaos, and the spontaneous order of anarchy emerges without intellectual property rights.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
4 comments:
Hi John,
I was thinking of a way to sort of get rid of the patent regime.
Make an invention, patent it, and let anyone use that invention or part of it, as long as they agree that once they use it, every technology that they come up with that has any parts of my invention, will be open source to everybody.
Would this be legally possible? What about once they use my invention or part of it, they have to let everyone use any product they have ever made and/or patented and will make from now on? This sure would be amazing.
Sure, anything can be turned into a contract... and people are trying things along these lines... here is a larger argument...
http://hbhblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-intellectual-property-rights.html
Great! I guess this is the simplest method we can implement to weaken the patent regime.
Well, it's one complex method, since it will require so many more parts; but IPR will end by 1,000 cuts. Everything will help.
Post a Comment