Apple vs Samsung - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Smilinvamp
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 03:57:56 am
content: Article:http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/08/24/apple-samsung-patent-battle-california.html?cmp=rssHi there,I was wondering is anyone else sickened but this verdict... I'd like to hear. Personally I can't believe this and to me it is non-sense. It is equivalent to something like Ford suing say Volks Wagon because Volkswagen but a round steering wheel in their cars. This is really disheartening to me. I tend to agree with Samsung's statement:"Samsung responded to the verdict in a statement issued from its Seoul headquarters, saying it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly.""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," Samsung said"I think this game was rigged!Thanks for listening.-Richard

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 04:25:06 am
content: Patent law is designed to give one company a monopoly - that's the point of granting patents. The law also protects others from being abused by those patents. This is how corporations do business - it may seem stupid, but for an alternative you really just need to look at ebay (for example) and the raft of crap asian clones that appear there.I really don't see the problem. One example: that "bouncy" thing when you get to the end of a folder list or the bottom of a document. OK, so either pay Apple two cents to license it, or find something else that is pleasing, like maybe a watery visual effect that makes it appear to ripple instead of bounce. Done, patent averted.Samsung's latest phone looks like an oversized iphone. Sorry, but this is coming from someone who hates Apple and loves his android tablet. But Google is going to have to get involved in this eventually, and that will be fun to watch.

author: EEMarc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 04:28:35 am
content: Somebody call the WHAAAmbulance. Samsung clearly infringed on Apple's patents in an illegal act to copy their revolutionary product. Instead of finding a different and possibly more innovative and legal solution, they simply copied. Now they are paying the price for that. Justice served.Patent law is designed to give innovative companies monopoly production for their intellectual property for a period of time to recoup their expenses and provide incentive for innovation. If everyone copied immediately, there wouldn't be the reward in place. Companies would be much less likely to take the risks that Apple did when it created the iPhone to begin with. This is especially true for "dug in" industries such as the telecom industry where existing companies want you dead for innovating. It hurts their ability to profit excessively while keeping with the status quo and not innovating.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 05:16:13 am
content: Nowdays patent law is used as a anticompetitive tool. You cannot design anything which does not infringe a patent somewhere held by somebody. There are patents for soldering 2 wires together.............

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 05:23:10 am
content: QuoteIt's funny that the opposite justice was served in South Korea. Maybe it's some form of misplaced corporate nationalism.I wish they would get rid of patents once and for all, I'm not sure that they do any good and all they seem to do is make big companies richer and lawyers richer. Consumers are the suckers caught paying for this charade. I would like to see some evidence that overall they increase innovation. I don't think I will because I don't think there is any.Have you read about design patents? In particular the design patents relevant to this case. They seem very dubious to me, especially when Samsung's defence is considered, that being there was prior art, and part of the prior art was some footage from 2001 a Space Odyssey....Apple, ...Lawyers, ... Anger

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 05:28:52 am
content: Samsung did not copy AppleIt's just Apple being a patent troll leading everyone to believe Samsung copied AppleCase in point1) Oversized iPhone? Really? how does such an ugly looking phone resemble the iPhone?2) Designing a phone's look is like making a rectangle, it's about how you want it.Okay so. A phone with curves and a wide button looks like a iphone? since when did the igadget have a WIDEEE button?3) they even like to say so that the memory options are a copy? Oh really? What's wrong with a phone having 16GB and 32GB?Resemble? I don't think soPS: i hate Apple

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 05:53:21 am
content: i think the greatest irony of this is, samsung manufacture most of the key components for the iphone, so if apple stepped on there toes a bit too hard, samsung could pull out and leave them stuck for months, (while there would be somethign in there contract about it, if apple pushed too hard i feel samsung could take the hit to kill off apples supply)

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 06:03:04 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on August 25, 2012, 05:53:21 amAside from the fact that samsung produces stuff for apple which if samsung cancels the deal, Apple probably won't have any other source(Would qualcomm supply? low chance. Nvidia? FAT HOPE)The funny thing is Apple claimed Samsung copied their transmission systems WTF we have RF people developing that for ages!

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 06:56:56 am
content: From thearticlethe OP linked:QuoteI think this situation is just as shitty as the "Buy It Now" button lawsuit against eBay.On the surface, I think the iPhone is a reasonably original tech as a final product, but there is a lot of prior art when you start looking at the implementation of its features on a case-by-case basis.This whole thing was about building patent arsenal.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 07:38:19 am
content: From small snippets of news info what I could gather was...The jury had a stack of papers with 700 points they had to keep in mind when making their decisions.They came back in less than 2 hours with the verdict and gave Apple money even on clauses they themselves considered invalid (aka Apple wasn't right). The judge had to substract the fines they incorrectly wrote in the verdict.I guess it shows how good the jury was and how careful it was to determine each issue.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 08:50:22 am
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on August 25, 2012, 05:23:10 amFor the opposite extreme, look at theshanzhaimovement in China. It's a sort of pseudo-OSHW where manufacturers will design products as clones, but then make many little changes to add features, decrease cost, or both. Because they're unregulated (or avoid regulations), the quality isn't great but on the other hand the lack of bureaucracy makes for very low cost and rapid changes, and a lot of innovation happens too; e.g. iPod nano clones have had video playback and recording, FM radio, voice recording, etc. long before the real product did, iPhone clones were almost always dual-SIM, expandable memory, removable battery, and not locked-down. While a lot of those features were far from perfect, I would say the ones making it possible were definitely innovating.Closer to EEs, much the same thing happened to the Hakko 936.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 09:16:55 am
content: I understand that one of the patents Apple have is on round corners, how the hell can you patent round corners, I know that they would not allow you to patent round corners here in the UK as there is prior art all around on round corners even if no one has taken out a patent on them. Watch out Apple will take out a patent on "electronics" if they have not already done so. Apple have also gone after people just using the word apple in their trading name a few years back there was one in the UK they went after "Apple Pi co." what did they make and sell, well it wasn't iPhone clones but pastries. I get the feeling that Apple think they own the world and the world owes them a living.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 12:03:07 pm
content: True?If I remember correctly the first company with this design wasn't Apple or Samsung. It was LG.Alexander.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 12:13:03 pm
content: Somebody at Apple must be taken outside and shot! No trial, no last breakfast and no flowers please.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 12:22:38 pm
content: my main though on patents that go to the obserd like very vague mechanisms, stylings and layout is that almost all of them can have prior works shown from before the company was made, look at some of the oem software installers from the early 90's and you see squares with rounded corners leading you to the installation of various applications, look back to some of the first digital mobile phones, and what do they have, round corners, a speaker at the top and a microphone down the bottom, with a power button in the top corner generally,just about everything can be shown as having prior work if you break down the underlying mechanisms enough, its like suing someone for using a for loop in place of an if statement, they can both perform the exact same task and even perform similarly, but are different, or using a belt drive in place of a gear to gear mesh on a dc motor, the outside functionality is very similar but the mechanisms can be considerably different, even cosmetically, using hard plasitc in place of glass alters a product, while i dont endorse cloning of products by only making 1-2 changes, i see limits to how far they should be held to, and if they want to patent branches of those basic mechanisms they should atleast be remotly specific, unlike the whole slate debarkle,my opinion on patents is, yes its ok if they are around 3-4 years, to allow your product to bloom, 10 years even is a more reasonable time frame,but if i now under the current system wanted to use machine code from a 1980's piece of kit, or even released parts in the hope of understanding it i am still in the wrong, and i would be close to my 130th birthday before it became public domain :/

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 12:48:36 pm
content: Quote from: EEMarc on August 25, 2012, 04:28:35 amNearly choked while eating a muffin :-) Any product Apple build in the last 15 years is just a collection of copies in a nice shiny package. The only innovation I can see is the packaging. The granted patents are far away from any innovation. They're similar to adding a fourth button to a mouse and are simply used to hinder competition. The patent system would work if you're able to get a patent only for real innovation.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 01:26:31 pm
content: Round corners... My Philips Diga had round corners!!!Alexander.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 01:44:07 pm
content: QuoteI know the ones with rounded corners are expensive, there's a patent on them.

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 02:01:43 pm
content: I won't comment on which side I'm on (although I'd really like to) because these threads quickly digress but I will say this:All in the name of halting progress...What makes anyone believe that they created any technology at all? What right does a corporation have to halt the progress of humanity? Individuals and companies have certainly 'discovered' technology but physics explains to us that these things already exist, we simply have to gain understanding to make use of them.Bottom line, if technology wasn't greedily protected in order to ensure the wealth of a few, the world would be a far better and more advanced place. Sharing technology can only lead to a better existence. This is all about money, period.I would go as far to say that if 'new' tech was given to a single entity for a short period for them to recover R&D costs (like pharmaceuticals) and then released to the rest of the world that would be acceptable but today's practices are absurd.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 03:08:20 pm
content: Quote from: StubbornGreek on August 25, 2012, 02:01:43 pmI totally agree with you!

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 03:31:09 pm
content: if i now under the current system wanted to use machine code from a 1980's piece of kit, or even released parts in the hope of understanding it i am still in the wrong, and i would be close to my 130th birthday before it became public domainI think you're confusing patent with copyright. Utility patents last for 10 years and can be renewed for 10 more. Witness, for example, the GIF which used the patented LZW compression algorithm. That algorithm lost its patent about 2006.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 03:40:10 pm
content: I get the impression that US patents are looser than patents here in the UK there is no way that any one could patent rounded corners or square corners here it would get thrown out at the first reading. Ford and General motors had better watch out in case Apple decide cars are a good market to get into as they will patent round wheels, wheels at each corner etc and then sue the pants of any one making cars like that.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 03:40:43 pm
content: Speak with my feet! Always have always will. Am never going to put a dollar near iTunes or any of the hippy circus.Apple make great hardware then taint the whole deal with a consumer policy that would do Scientology proud! Sure Samsung infriged 1)it was a Smartphone 2)It has a button bottom centre 3) it has touch selected icons. But hey if we go by that kind of metric. Apple should have their asses sued off for iPhones in black, clearly a catch up with Samsung.The whole patent thing is so out of touch it isn't funny, patent law was about protecting innovators and start-up inventors. Iw was never supposed to be a blunt instrument for lazy conglomerates like Apple and Microsoft.It clear these disputes are about nothing other than thwarting the release of competitor products. Speak with your feet. Make your next phone or pad anything but an Apple one.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 04:24:31 pm
content: You say Apple makes great hardware,sadly not.They are always too far behind!The previous time they released something faster than compeition was 1980Back when the iPhone 4S came out it was 6 months too late into the game!It started with the 1st Dual Core phone the LG G2x ( Optimus 2x ) followed by the Optimus 3D and then the Atrix 2then the Evo 3D + Sensation and the Galaxy S II including the Razr of course after that the Galaxy NexusSo many phones later Apple released their shatware that was too late ... And was beaten at the point of release(well technically Sony is too late into the game)

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2012, 04:27:16 pm
content: Half of the iPhone is made by Samsung....Alexander.

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 02:51:29 am
content: Quote from: firewalker on August 25, 2012, 04:27:16 pmYes, a good chunk of it at least. It struck me funny from the start that Apple would harass their supplier (and innovator of many things used by Apple, including their icon layout onscreen).The last time they played this game it really hurt them bad - I still remember my jaw dropping when I found out that Microsoft was acquiring all sorts of common shares (maybe it was preferred non-voting shares, can't remember) to keep Apple afloat. I wonder how MS made out on that deal when they liquidated.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 04:14:18 am
content: Quote from: T4P on August 25, 2012, 12:13:03 pmPissing on Steve Jobs grave is a good compromise:"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong... I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."These are not the kind of words that come out of creative minds that have confidence in their own abilities to innovate. The world is not that much better off because of him. Seriously, its not. But look what he has taken out of the computing eco-system by going thermonuclear.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 04:27:58 am
content: The good news is the jury screwed up making it likely their verdict will be overturned.http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390Screw ups like awarding Apple $200k for a patent they did not find to be infringed. Also, the jury foreman telling people that they did not wait for the jury instruction before reaching a decision are fertile grounds for appeal.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 05:43:59 am
content: Steve himself has admitted to succeed he had to copy bill gatesNow what?!

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 07:02:03 am
content: Quote from: T4P on August 26, 2012, 05:43:59 amIn fairness, they both copied Xerox. Also, Jobs was quoted as saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal."Hypocrisy at its finest, my friend.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 09:10:37 am
content: After reading the Groklaw link,it seems like somebody has calledQuoteAnd that they will keep calling it for years to come.The lawyers must be loving this, I would imagine lawyers are in higher demand than techs at these "tech" companies.I wonder who is going to foot the bill, maybe it's you and me.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 09:53:21 am
content: The only winners are the lawyers, the losers are everybody else.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 02:06:11 pm
content: Quote from: Smilinvamp on August 25, 2012, 03:57:56 amhehe me too.Quote from: StubbornGreek on August 26, 2012, 07:02:03 amAs probably one of the very few artists, if any? on EEVblog; i can can confirm this to be true!Quote from: T4P on August 25, 2012, 04:24:31 pmMy iPad is a delight to use; very responsive; clean and simple UI. All the other tablets I tried at the time were clunky and awkward. My view is Samsung/Android did/has ripped off Apple and deserve to get their knuckles rapped. But they all need (inc. patent attorneys) their heads banging together, if they can't play together in the playground!Quote from: StubbornGreek on August 25, 2012, 02:01:43 pmNot sure the parents of the Chinese student who sold his own kidney for an iPad2 would call it "progress of humanity"

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 02:53:28 pm
content: Samsung/Android DID NOT rip Apple off. It's the ones from Apple Camp who thinks so!Clunky and awkward? Excuse me. If it was the Samsungs i understand but the Acers were NOT clunkyPlus there were many more tablets back then!How about my friend's complaints that their iDevices have shit UI?

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 03:01:41 pm
content: Yes, not really related to Samsung and Apple, but I will say I LOVE my Iconia a200. It has amazing battery life on standby as well - I never shut it off and it seems to always be ready to go. I recharge it about once a week. ICS definitely not clunky.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2012, 03:22:17 pm
content: Quote from: poptones on August 26, 2012, 03:01:41 pmSo you love it don't you?I have been thinking of getting a A100 just because it has the 32GB but the XOOM 2 also has 32GB but i threw all tablet ideas out of the doorthen i remembered somebody close to me accidentally bought a "Flytouch 3" by accident though i warned them not to... at least i can use that POS to read datasheets but even my Sensation does that better ...

author: cookie
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2012, 01:49:50 pm
content: Samsung did not copy AppleAs far as I know, Apple just made other technique together, not having much its unique technology.The patent law is to protect own invention and creativity. . . . .

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2012, 02:27:50 pm
content: "Plagiarize plagiarize plagiarize that's why the good lord made yer eyes".Tom Lehrer.

author: baljemmett
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 01, 2012, 03:57:20 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on September 01, 2012, 02:27:50 pmHmm. That doesn't sound quite right; let's see if I can remember the metre:Plagiarise,Let no-one else's work evade your eyes,Why d'ya think the good Lord made your eyes?So don't shade your eyes, butPlagiarise, plagiarise, pla--but please, always be calling it 'research'.That looks more like itNow where did I put that CD...

author: sprocket
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2012, 06:59:35 pm
content: It's all a load of bull crap that lawers can make a buck on. And I do think Appel have been very good a pioneering gadets like iphone, ipads and such, but you tie youself down to a specific brand that decides whats good for you and whats not. So I'll never buy apple no matter how good they are.. I want to decide want I put on my phones and computers.And I think them trying to beat the competion in courts about some semi bogus violation of copyrights is silly. They should be innovation and beat the competion with awesome products like they used to do. If Apple is only able to come up with a few innovating products like the Iphone and ipad over the course of a decade, sooner or later some one will beat them. They cant live on the brand name for ever.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 12:12:11 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--StubbornGreek has said "Bottom line, if technology wasn't greedily protected in order to ensure the wealth of a few, the world would be a far better and more advanced place. Sharing technology can only lead to a better existence. This is all about money, period."--If there were no patent laws, would not companies (huge corporations, filty rich etc. in Socialist Speak) try to keep information secret, rather than publish and license?" The notion that if there were no patent laws people would go on innovating for purely altruistic reasons is naive. Ayn Rand's family left Lenin's USSR for good reasons, which indeed were born out by history."This is all about money, period."--What a cogent discernment. Give the man a Deerstalker Hat and a Calabash Pipe. So people who like to be paid for their work or their property in a fair manner, hate puppies an kitties and are bad bad people. Do I have that right? Why should an artist or an inventor create anything, if they have no right to their own creations. Case in point the flood tide of innovation that came about in the 70 years of the USSR, disinformation, the show trial, the three queue system, etc."I am no poet, but if you think for yourselves, as I proceed, the facts will form a poem in your minds."Michael Faraday 1791 1867Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 12:56:15 am
content: Quote from: baljemmett on September 01, 2012, 03:57:20 pmNow there is your problem right away. Tom was a purist and insisted on performing prior to the advent of the CD.Back on the Apple lawsuit thing it becoming obvious that the intent of legal actions various is more about raining on the parade of a competitors new release, than righting some wrong of stolen IP.Apple did not invent the push-button, Cadbury did not invent the Colour purple, a bunch of fat execs at Larrikin should feel ashamed their greed has taken a life. Sampling music for use in hip-hop is does infringe any copyright given that the end product is no way musical. Some runt of the Getty litter is not the owner of all photos of sport, of handy web icons.Copyright and patent law requires a massive over-haul if it is to perform its original intent of protecting actual inventors. The Chinese may have it right in ignoring copyright and patents altogether, its a more equitable regime than what we are seeing excreted from our courts.Apple can go screw themselves, iTunes is for mouth breathers and the barely skilled. While ever there is iTunes and Genius Bars in the equation I'll have little need for Apple's smarmy product experience.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 01:28:29 am
content: The notion that if there were no patent laws people would go on innovating for purely altruistic reasons is naive.Many in the open source community might disagree with you. Why do so many large companies contribute their resources toward linux kernel development? Linux desktop development? It's a shared IP pool that benefits everyone - so why do it?Sampling music for use in hip-hop is does infringe any copyright given that the end product is no way musical.Spoken like a true curmudgeon. You must have a fantastic Lawrence Welk collection.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 01:40:35 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 02, 2012, 01:28:29 amNo spoken by someone why clearly understands music seldom emanates from large speakers poorly fitted to tiny cars, or from white plastic ear-plugs regardless of what 80's HI-Fi manufacturers logo is imprinted upon them!QuoteYou must be a fan of Doof-Doof-Squeak and ill fitting trousers!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 02:12:46 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:"The Sgt person has little concept of community"--This seems to me to be an uncalled for non sequitur of a hostile and personal nature. But, I shall not run and tattle to the moderator. The solution to speech you do not like is more speech, within reason of course. I merely wish to note the apparent incoherence of the comment.--Would anybody care to guess who said the following?"** rest of inflammatory post deleted by moderator ** Take note! Your inflammatory post WAS moderated. You began any interaction with me on this forum by choosing sides with a NOW BANNED member.Your trolling is ignorant, self serving and unnecessary! I placed you on ignore and never wish any interaction with you! Not in any form. Not quoted text, not notifications by others. Read the forum T&C and comply!No further mention or reference of me,by you, in any form will be tolerated. Any mention whatsoever either directly or in the form of innuendo will be acted upon.I do not like you!Nobody sees you as funny or clever! You have proven yourself unable to understand or participate in friendly exchanges!Your refusal to waste bandwidth and reply in an incoherent manner shows a real lack of respect for other participants!You WILL NOT reference me in any further posts!You will not attempt to white-ant me or any other participant in further posts!None of these things are negotiable! Any further attempts by you to harass or interfere with others, or to buy into someone else's argument will be pursued to the fullest extent!I cannot be any clearer! This post has been saved for future reference."--This just in. The comment I quoted above, has now disappeared, but I am pretty sure I am not the only one who noticed it.“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 02:16:18 am
content: You must be a fan of Doof-Doof-Squeak and ill fitting trousers!My trousers fit as well as can be expected of a middle age man of my calibre.I'm a fan of creative expression. Music for most is like religion: it's what you arefamiliarwith that you "like." My friend in Austin who is just a few years older than me loves trance, but his comfort zone is very narrow - basically it's technological new age he likes and anything that remotely sounds like a synthesized brap puts him off.I'm from Detroit. Iwent to schoolalongside the guys who are credited with "inventing" techno music even though they basically repackaged what another DJ in town called "Electrifyin' Mojo" was already doing (They do give him credit, but still...) So Dereck, Juan... myself, we all grew up listening to the same stuff. They're a few years younger than me, so for them it was probably even more of an impression. So Yeah, I love techno. I'm from the birthplace of techno, so I think that makes sense. I love sampling. The Beatles did the same thing years earlier, only they had to use tape loops because there were no samplers back then. Dark Side of the Moon isfullof sampling, and it's the longest selling album in history to be on the top 100.Stuff being created today may sound alien to oldsters, but young peoplegrew upin a world filled with cheap chinese musical toys, talking greeting cards and christmas ornaments and videogames that emitted all sorts of aliased, undersampled and quantized distortions. These sounds are as "natural" in today's world as birds and falling leaves. So yeah, it excites me to hear young people doing creative things with these newfangled instruments.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 04:28:00 am
content: Dear Poptones:--Submitted for your perusal the dull unhip Louis Armstrong and his gang of plodding squares, otherwise known as the Hot Five moping their way lamely through the West End Blues.Still somewhat listenable despite a lack of profane declamations about cop killing, bitch slapping, and purple drank, all to quasi anapestic rhythms, while marching in place and calling it dance."All music is folk music. I ain't never heard a horse sing a song.""If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.""The memory of things gone is important to a jazz musician"Louis Armstrong 1901 - 1971Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 04:36:16 am
content: Yeah, my Mom used to listen to Louis Armstrong...Suddenly my 50 years doesn't feel so old. Thanks.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 04:54:24 am
content: Dear Poptones:--I feel all of my sixty five years brother. I miss the old Motown, Marvin, Ray, Aretha, ahhhhh."In the heat of battle, my father wove a tapestry of obscenity that as far as we know, is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan."Ralphie ParkerBest RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 06:26:14 am
content: This is the Motown I remember. Actually, I (we - Dereck May, Juan Atkins, Kevin Saunderson) were living in a middle class utopia called Belleville. That's really where "Detroit Techno" was born because it provided a safe meeting place for these creative forces - but Detroit is where the influence lies. every night at midnight brown, black, yellow, red and white people all around the area would gather around their radios for the meeting of Mojo's Midnight Funk Association. Although I have no desire to go back, I consider myself really fortunate to have grown up there, in that time.

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2012, 06:16:21 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on September 02, 2012, 12:12:11 amUm, good attempt at a troll...A) I didn't say that we should abolish the 'patent system' although, I do feel it needs a lot of reformB) I did say that "inventors" should get a period to bring their products to market without competition in order to recover R&D costsC) What is this ridiculous nonsense about juxtaposing the USSR to what I've said (as a proud, former US Marine I take a bit of offense here as nothing I've stated is communist).D) You can stick your Calabash pipe wherever you'd like. I run my own business and my intent is to make money. I am not talking about making a profit, I refer to suppressing progress in order to line your pockets with undeserved spoils born of abusing a system in place meant to protect from outright theft not shield attorney/greed-created warfare.E) I said nothing about kittens or puppiesF) The artist should create something first and foremost because he has a NEED to create and contribute to the world. The artist (as I've already stated) should have a chance to recover his/her efforts before it is released to the rest of the world (mind you, a reasonable amount of time) and finally, I have not created a scenario where the artist would be stripped of credit for the original work (IMHO the most important and historically relevant of all things).

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 09:08:09 am
content: What will happen if Samsung decides not to pay? The offending devices get baned in the US?Alexander.

author: dics
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 11:18:04 am
content: My understanding is they can have their devices banned even before the end of the trial (and all appeals).Someone please correct me if i am wrong

author: Architect_1077
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 02:23:50 pm
content: I tend to agree with patents, however I DO NOT agree with patent abuse. This is a clear case of patent abuse by Apple. Such abuses are only allowed because American patent laws are flawed and big companies can abuse those flaws. The same happens with American copyright laws. Flawed laws that are abused by big companies. All this is fixable but there is lack of political will to change it.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 03:47:05 pm
content: Samsung should take Apple to court in China, I watched top gear yesterday, they were in China looking at Chinese cars some of which were obviously copies, one in particular looked just like a BMW X5, apparently BMW took the maker to court and lost the Chinese judge saying that it was not a copy despite it looking just like one.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 06:23:00 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on September 03, 2012, 03:47:05 pmYeah i laughed during that episode ... There's a law in china (or rather no law) in which a local company that copies outside companies is okay, if the company X sued company Y the judge will slam the case shutBut if like Atten copies Rigol (which they did in the beginning), it is tough luck for atten

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 07:23:10 pm
content: The US was like this back in the day...

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 03, 2012, 10:50:37 pm
content: Quote from: poptones on September 03, 2012, 07:23:10 pmThe latest ruling for Apple is just like this!Lets see, top shelf bent lawyer, hand- picked jury of hayseeds and UFO sighters, the accused with foreign sounding name. Hell all that's missing is the bonfire and the KKK uniforms. The finest justice that too much money can buy. That's the iTunes tax you're paying at work, kiddies.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 12:33:36 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 02, 2012, 06:26:14 amDid you know any of them personally?

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 02:37:36 am
content: Only Dereck. He came by the book store where many of my friends hung out. They're not "friends," but I do have memories of Dereck and I know the sorts of influences that they were exposed to because one of the things we used to talk about most was music, and I know what we were listening to then. I don't recall exactly where Dereck stood on Kitaro, but I do still recall us having a conversation about him one day because that's what was playing on the radio.My best friend at the time owned the music shop in town, and so I as a young man knew many of the business owners in town through him (I met my future ex wife while hanging out in his store when she was just 13, her mom would bring her in to buy sax reeds). Anyway, it was a good time and place to grow up. We still had good art and music programs in the schools, and Detroit at the time was at this weird confluence of punk and "techno."I think it's a bit unfortunate the Belleville aspect of their development is not focused on more. Belleville is a freakingresorttown. That book store? It overlooked one of the longest man made lakes in North America, and sitting around a coffee table next to a window overlooking this lake is where we'd all sit and talk. Most of the documentaries focus on Detroit because that was the "big city" and it makes them look like they came from sort sort of urban "mean streets" existence, but the reality is we all lived in the same very safe town, went to the same very safe school, and their story is a great example of the real value of school arts programs.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 03:42:53 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on September 02, 2012, 12:12:11 amCompanies can't keep information secret as companies don't do the inventing. Individuals do. And the knowledge is in the heads of those individuals. What's more, as soon as a company manufactures and markets a device using an invention, they have made it public for anyone to examine (in other words, they have published it).QuoteHuh? It's not naive at all. Inventors invent because it's their passion. Inventors can no less stop inventing than musicians can stop making music. If we invent while working for a company, it is simply that our employer is our patron who pays us to invent things for them. But if we weren't working for someone else we would be working for ourselves, and we would still invent. It's in the blood. You can't not do it.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 04:42:14 am
content: That's all very naive and, really, kinda full of platitudes. I use open source software, I've written open source software, but I also know you can't put all that stuff in the same box. If companies can't keep secrets, where's the source code to Windows? Or even DOS3.3? The closest this ever came to happening was when some of the code to the early MS MPEG4 code was leaked and "DivX" was spawned from it. This sort of thing is half the reason the GPL even exists; compare the vast GPL community to the number of projects using BSD license.All sorts of laws are abused every day, but you can't paint the law with a wide brush simply because some seek refuge in its abuse. The GPL owes its power to Copyright law, and the GPL has helped motivate a great many people to contribute to an uncountable number of projects.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 06:21:13 am
content: Dear StubbornGreek, IanB & Poptones:--StubbornGreek being a Marine and a businessman (once a Marine always a Marine) has my respect and thanks for both his former and his present occupation. Its just that when folks start talking about greed and the wealthy few, I am pretty sure they are not quoting a Milton Friedman essay praising the Free Market. After SG said "Its all about the money", and I then mentioned the Calabash Pipe and the Deerstalker Hat, it was just a polite way of saying "No S**t Sherlock". When I mentioned the lack of innovation (although their spying was excellent) in the USSR, it was mostly to point out that when you remove incentive (I.E. Money) you get much less innovation. I have never understood the "Its just about the money" complaint. Both Apple and Samsung owe their stockholders (read Pension Funds and Mutual Funds) a sincere effort, not to give away the store. When folks start talking about the Wealthy Few, I get nervous that the Occupy Wall Street crowd might suddenly show up and start holding (Egads) Drum Circles, crapping on cop cars, and vandalizing local businesses. Every time some politician says she is going to punish the rich, the small business owner gets another haircut. So I wish SG well, and I hope as a business operator, he becomes one of the wealthy, even though he "didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."--IanB has said "Inventors invent because it's their passion. Inventors can no less stop inventing than musicians can stop making music. If we invent while working for a company, it is simply that our employer is our patron who pays us to invent things for them. But if we weren't working for someone else we would be working for ourselves, and we would still invent. It's in the blood. You can't not do it.--Now, while I agree with the notions about the human spirit that motivates creativeness, something like R. Stanley Wilson''s (HP Labs) Memristor takes hundreds of millions of dollars to invent, perfect and bring to market. The Banks and the Venture Capital firms already have enough Whiffenpoof dust, and are more interested in the Long Green, preferably by the Long Ton. True Wozniak invented the PC in a garage on a shoestring, but without Jobs, the revolution might have taken a decade of two longer.--I hope Poptones does not mind too much, that I agree wholeheartedly with his latest remarks.--I do not know a lot about Patent Law, but I am not so sure it is the laws that are bad, it may be the Courts (I.E. idiotic people). I remember reading about a Lawsuit where a woman won a large sum from her Doctor and the Hospital, because a CAT Scan destroyed her Clairvoyance. In another case a widow won a wrongful death award from a Lawnmower Co., because the Jury found that the starter rope was too hard to pull, and gave her husband a fatal heart attack. Thomas Edison said patents were worthless, yet he still racked up every one he could."All business sagacity reduces itself in the last analysis to judicious use of sabotage."Thorstein Bunde Veblen 1857 - 1929Best RegardsClear Ether

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 08:17:03 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 04, 2012, 04:42:14 amI hardly think they are platitudes when I speak from experience. When you examine patents closely, it happens that nearly everything that patented as an "invention" is nothing of the sort. Almost all patents are ordinary engineering and problem solving, plain and simple. When you have appropriate education and training, the solution to any given problem you might be faced with presents itself as a regular process of logical deduction and application of known theory.QuoteThat's rather the point. Windows isn't an invention, it is plain old software engineering. You can find the answer to your question in GNU Linux, which is a functionally equivalent operating system that does fundamentally the same things. There is no way Microsoft can keep the knowledge of how to write a desktop OS a secret since many people know how to do it and Linux is an illustration of that.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 09:46:37 am
content: You may speak from "experience" but your experience is no more valid than mine or anyone elses. And the argument you're (not) making is completely platitudinous (look it up). If what you said was true there would be no need for diversity; we would just need one coat hanger, one spoon, one model of car. You're not even acknowledging the purpose of patents, and on top of that you're ignoring an entire class of patents.Windows isn't an invention, it is plain old software engineering.That so simplistic as to be offensive, were it not so ridiculously naive. By extension, that meansallsoftware is "plain ol' engineering." Someone has toengineersoftware, but the rest of it is absurd. You say "inventors will invent because inventors need to invent" but that completely ignores the reality that many of those inventors would notsharetheir inventions if they knew others, who had more resources, would simply co-opt those inventions and resell them. Why need Microsoft invest all those Millions in "plain ol' engineering" when they can just redecorate Debian Sarge and call that the new Windows? Why buy out developers who create useful new tools when they can simply take that code and reuse it without consent? You're forgetting that the people who most have the resources to disassemble and reverse engineer other's work are those who already have the money to throw at the project. Without IP laws those "inventors" are completely unprotected from exploitation; we're all simply sharecroppers working for the man. There's a very good reason the GPL is so vastly more popular than the BSD license, and you're being intellectually dishonest with your refusal to acknowledge that.Why concern yourself with this sort of battle, anyway? When I write code I don't worry about whether my tool infringes on Apple's patent, or Microsoft's patent, or anyone elses, frankly. Who cares if Apple and Samsung and Google beat each other over the head with lawyers? No skin off my nose.But what really annoys me about all of this copyright BS is not the actual fights going on in court rooms, but the actual costs that are passed onto me.Like the windows tax? Manufacturers have a standard platform to build upon that is widely supported by ISVs, who in turnpaymanufacturers to put trial versions of their widgets on new machines, thus subsidizing the cost of a new prepackaged machine. I can recall putting together new machines and being offered "package deals" where I could get a shrinkwrapped copy of the latest Windows for like 25 bucks if I bought a motherboard, case and power supply all at once. I didn't care about that copy of Windows but I bought it anyway and then promptly resold it at a profit. And those monitors aremore affordablebecause they are produced in large volume, and they are produced in high volume because the manufacturer can design them to have a wide range of utility and thus be assured of selling them to a large and diverse user base.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 02:48:41 pm
content: Quote from: poptones on September 04, 2012, 09:46:37 amI didn't say that, you're constructing a straw man argument there. There is more than one kind of diversity, and more than one way to compete including price, quality, fit and finish, design details, functional efficiency, ergonomics, after sales support, and so on. More than enough to support a diverse market, and more choice for consumers too.QuoteQuite right, I don't acknowledge the purpose of patents. They are an anachronism from previous centuries that are out of place in the modern world. At present it's a bit like a race to the bottom. Since patent law is there and almost anything can be patented, companies are forced to patent everything they can just to stay in the game. The system inevitably favours big companies, makes it hard for small companies and more or less squeezes out individuals. And if there is one thing big companies are poor at, it is true innovation.QuoteIt isn't?QuoteBut that is indeed exactly the situation today. If you invent something while working for a company, you sign over that invention to your employer who gains ownership of it and may sell it to make a profit. You don't have to invent and you don't have to share, yet you do. Why?QuoteThey can't, of course. But it's not patent law that prevents that.QuoteAgain, nothing to do with patents.QuoteBecause as a consumer I'd like the opportunity to buy the best implementation of a device that someone can make. As it stands, many natural, obvious and good features are blocked by lawyers, forcing me often to make do with more expensive or sub-par implementations. Just like the situation with Apple and Samsung. How the heck can someone claim to protect a visual emulation of a sliding switch on a glass screen? There is prior art for that going back decades. Visual panel emulations have been part of my industry for as long as I can remember.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 05:36:39 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--IanB has again stressed the point that "If you invent something while working for a company, you sign over that invention to your employer who gains ownership of it and may sell it to make a profit. You don't have to invent and you don't have to share, yet you do. Why?--Wow! Many more of these astounding deductions, and I am going to run out of Calabash Pipes and Deerstalker Hats and start awarding Tweed Windbreakers. But I will play and try to answer the question. 1)Because they pay you. 2) If your job is to write (invent) software and you did not write any, they might notice. But nonetheless, there are a lot of people who are going to invent things, but they may not invent what you want unless you pay them. And if they want to invent anything, on their own time, that requires more than some floor space in a garage, a laptop and a soldering iron, they are going to need means. Which leads again to the unanswered questions.--I already pointed out that HP has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Memristor, and that Bankers and Venture Capitalists are interested in a return on investment and not more Whiffenpoof dust. Pharmaceutical companies spend Billions to develop new drugs. Now it is probably just carelessness, but IanB, so far, seems to have failed to provide an answer to the question; Why would these folks spend millions and billions of dollars with no hope of return.--I think I am beginning to see why a certain amount of the people on this forum hate Capitalism. The Educational System apparently was afraid to let them find out what it really is, and told them "it is evil, like those greedy businessmen that wear suits, and hate puppies and kitties. Now, after we finish the Whiffenpoof song, we will all stand and recite John Lennon's imagine.""Math is hard."Barbie Doll - 1959Best RegardsClear Ether

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 08:55:53 pm
content: I have no grief with patents, it's patent trolls and company's that employ them or behave in a like manner such that when an individual or another company having spent a fortune on research and development goes along to the patent office they find that a patent troll or company has taken out a whole list of all embracing patents that in a court can be made to look like they had the prior invention.

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2012, 10:26:10 pm
content: Your respect and thanks are appreciated (sincerely); I was a bit defensive - apologies.Its not the fiduciary responsibilities of corporate entities that I look to thwart, its the blatant abuse of our system that pains me. You mention pharmaceuticals in a later post and I commend you on an excellent example. Pharmaceuticals spend orders of magnitude more on R&D but they are only allowed to hold the market on their drugs for a short period (in order to recover those costs and allow them to gain a client-base which they'll 'mostly' retain) before they go generic. I've used this comparison before and I would completely support this kind of system within our world. It would force companies to innovate more aggressively, grow strong competition (even from the small business sector and individuals)... I hope you see my point.As far as taxing, I'm not going anywhere near that hornet's nest aside to say that this is not what this discussion is about and I have nothing against paying taxes.Also, sorry but it seems I'm a bit sluggish today - what did you mean by this?even though he "didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."Quote from: SgtRock on September 04, 2012, 06:21:13 am

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2012, 01:59:55 am
content: I don't acknowledge the purpose of patents. They are an anachronism from previous centuries that are out of place in the modern world.That's funny. Apparently everything that's ever going to be invented has been invented.Again, we're back to that "platitude" thing. This is one of the many trite assertions used by IP deconstructionists the world over. If anything, with technology advancing at the rate it has the need for IP protections is now more than ever.The open sharing of ideas possible with the internet ensures those strong IP protections don't overburden the individual. Although I own only one, all the patents and copyright issues in the world don't stop me from playing (or ripping) a DVD on my linux workstation in spite of the fact there are no properly "licensed" players. No one is stopping me from adding a widget to Nautilus that might have been inspired by some Apple or Microsoft widget simply because there is no practical way of stopping me from sharing my idea.You're forgetting that the people who most have the resources to disassemble and reverse engineer other's work are those who already have the money to throw at the project. Without IP laws those "inventors" are completely unprotected from exploitation...Again, nothing to do with patents.Wrong. It has everything to do with patents. Because apatentmeans disclosing how something works.No patentsmeans everything is kept secret as much as possible. And, as I already pointed out, it's the big players who have the most resources to disassemble and deconstruct black boxes. Who suffers? Our society.Pharmaceuticals spend orders of magnitude more on R&D but they are only allowed to hold the market on their drugs for a short period...The same period for other patents - except because it takes so long to get approval, these can actually last longer than the standard 20 years.

author: merlinb
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2012, 09:29:30 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 05, 2012, 01:59:55 amNo patents does not mean everything is kept secret. You can publish something without patenting it; in fact, it's a cheap way to protect an idea:If you publish something freely and widely then it is not in other people's interest to 'steal it', because they themselves cannot have exclusive rights. If there were no patents you would not end up with one all-powerful corporation that snaps everything up as soon as it appears, as you seem to suggest, because that corporation would havemorecompetition, not less. All the other fish, big and small, could also use thesameinventions quite freely. Improve on them, reinvent them, whatever.Big corporations exist because theyownstuff (inventions) that generate revenue. But if you eliminate that concept of sole ownership (patents), then you don't get to the point of having the big corporation in the first place.Even if ideaswerekept secret, eliminating patents could be good for us engineers because instead of companies paying lawyers to aquire other people's ideas, and to protect the ones they already have, they would instead be desperate to recruit talented engineers who could figure out how to copy competitors' non-disclosed products, and to make them better. And nobody likes lawyers...

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 04:38:51 am
content: Yes, it makes all the sense in the world for a company to spend millions developing a new product and then give it away for anyone to clone. I mean, just look how well that's working for China. Look how well it worked all those years for the Soviet Union.IP Laws are well proven to stimulate innovation.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 04:46:48 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 06, 2012, 04:38:51 amIn whose universe?Note that those "copies" pictured generally failed. I don't see what they have to say about anything except intellectual poverty.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 04:54:14 am
content: Quote from: merlinb on September 05, 2012, 09:29:30 amRemember too that you can't patent an idea, and that those "secrets" are actually not secrets at all. If you examine 100 patents at random, you would be hard pressed to find anything original or inventive in any of them. What you find all the time are well known concepts and designs that everyone else has known about and been doing for years.To successfully be granted a patent in the USA all you have to do is:a) Fill out the application correctly with all the right legalese,b) Make claims that nobody has previously claimed in other patents.There is no requirement to build your invention, to prove that it works, or to prove that it is original. It's purely a first past the post system where you can lay claim to a monopoly on anything nobody has thought to claim before.Here is an example that illustrates how the US patent system works:http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJI'm sure many people have seen this before, but if you haven't, you can use it as an example of how to obtain your own patent.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 05:01:11 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 06, 2012, 04:38:51 amExactly. Without strong IP protection where is the reward in innovating? Just copy what that guy did. Look how well that worked in the past. Have you seen anything innovative come from China? I haven't - they simply copy what the westerners have them making already.

author: merlinb
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 12:15:04 pm
content: Quote from: poptones on September 06, 2012, 05:01:11 amYou seem to be assuming that the sole motivation for innovating anything is money.* That may be the cultural approach currently encouraged in the US, but not everywhere. People are more complex than that. How many times have we read about famous inventors who had little interest in money, and even died in poverty and obscurity? People will do stuff regardless of money. Creating things is innate in human nature, even if the only reward is impressing other people, or just personal satisfaction. OS software, growing a rose garden, the world air-guitar championships, all are examples of great effort with little monetary reward.Also your argument begs the question:You say if there is no IP protection then you have no motivation to innovate, so you just copy someone else's work. But what wasthatperson's motivation for innovating the thing you're copying? Circular argument.Ifno onecreated anything, then there would also be nothing to copy, and everything would remain completely stationary. And that just isn't plausible. Are you saying nobody innovated anything before patents and lawyers popped into existence? Invention is like evolution- it carries on whatever environmental changes you try and enforce.*Another powerful motivator for innovation is trying to "make your life easier". If you think that no IP protection would halt innovation then you're presumably saying that our lives are already as easy as they can possibly be, in which case everything currently being innovated today must just be a more trendy version of stuff we already have. I don't think that's the case.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 12:54:21 pm
content: Dear Poptones:--I do not know why you bother. Obviously some of the folks on this thread are Anti Patent Law because it is a subset of the Private Property Laws, and it goes without saying that they would the be Anti US as part of the bargain. It seems to me that they are fanatical inasmuch as facts do not seem to matter, hence the absence of answers to a couple of questions still pending. Which I will repeat one last time.1) Why did citizens USSR invent almost nothing?2) I have repeatedly pointed out that HP has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Memristor, and that Bankers and Venture Capitalists are interested in a return on investment and not more Whiffenpoof dust. Pharmaceutical companies spend Billions to develop new drugs. Now it is probably just carelessness, but the B Brothers ,Ian and Merlin, so far, seem to have failed to provide an answer to the question; Why would these folks spend millions and billions of dollars with no hope of return?--Come on fellows, your thesis has been attacked, please have a go at answering the questions. Please do not just repeat your thesis statement again. We get it. "People will invent, even if they have no shoes or food ... you cannot stop them""We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."Benjamin Franklin 1706 - 1790Best RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 01:52:42 pm
content: This is silly, just saying the same thing over and over. Where did I assume the sole motivation is money? Weinnovatebecause there is great reward in it; Chinacopiesbecause they are able. It doesn't matter - until we live in a communist or socialist state where everyone gets free food and housing people have to earn income. Money doesn't have to be a prime motivator, but it is a practical necessity and therefore an equallyvalidmotivation.People will do stuff regardless of money.Yes, and teachers still teach despite the unappreciative parents, lazy and sometimes violent students, lack of tenure and shit pay and some doctors choose to work in clinics where they can only afford a Chrysler instead of a Mercedes. So what? Again I'll point you toward the economic boomtown that was the soviet union where the doctors all worked for the state and the quality of life they all enjoyed. I don't care to strip away theopportunityfor individuals to succeed just so that the Chinese can dump even more cheap knockoff crap on us.It doesn't matter anyway - patent here comes from Section 8 of the US Constitution, and you'd have better hope of revoking the first or second amendment than getting rid of patents and copyrights.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 01:59:56 pm
content: I'm actually not disapointed with the decision to make Samsung pay Apple US$1B for stealing their inventions. I never really considered the iphone to be all that innovative to be honest (it was just a matter of time before they migrated to full touch screens) but Apple did spend a fortune creating all the controls (hand gestures etc) and designing the operating system. It was a big risk for them and I'm happy that they had some balls to follow through with it.Samsung and the other companies don't want to innovate! They just want to sell a product that competes; they saw a market and they wanted in on it. However, as soon as Apple created a new and better technology than what was being offered before, they said, "shit, now we need to make something closer to that so we can continue to be in the game". Their thoughts were along the lines of, every day we go without a product that competes with the iphone, we are losing money; and we spent too much money getting ourselves positioned in this business to just give up. So, they flat out copy the iphone to get their own product out as quickly as possible, just changing the logo and making a few fine touches of their own to "fix" things that they didn't like about the origonal.Reverse engineering is quicker and easier than forward engineering.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 02:08:00 pm
content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_inventorsSome even from USSR.I have heard that the Chinese invented Spaghetti and Gunpowder, sadly the patent office wasn't open for business. I wonder if the Europeans invented them simultaneously or maybe just copied.Printing Press, Steam Engine, Wheel couldn't have been invented without patents.Democracy, Gravity? Were they inventions? Or just ideas, maybe they should've been patented too.Somebody invented the concept of Patents before the Patent office was opened.This idea that humanity somehow needs Patent Law is not provable, so don't pretend it is.Whilst it is provable that people don't need Patent Law to create inventions and it is certainly provable that Patent Law comes at a high cost.If you have a look at the history of patents you will see of plenty of cases where patents were abused. Patents were not really just about inventions but about monopolies. The making of Salt was patented in England.Section 8 of the US Constitution doesn't apply world wide, so that's not such a problem in most of the world.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 03:20:44 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on September 06, 2012, 12:54:21 pmThat is a statement without evidence or support.QuoteSo? Many researchers and companies have been looking into memristor technology since 1971. They are looking into it because it is an interesting area and it might be possible to build useful products out of it (although so far, any prospect of useful products is looking like Whiffenpoof dust). You have the assumption that they could only make useful products to sell if there was patent protection, while ignoring their difficulty in even making useful products at all.QuoteMaybe we would be better off if they didn't? The US operates a protectionist policy around medicine and medical technologies that causes Americans to have the highest cost of medical care of anyone in the world. We might all be better off if the government got out of the way and stopped making laws protecting big medical corporations from competition.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 03:32:01 pm
content: Samsung is one of the top patent holders in the world. In fact, they are second only behind IBM (which has a stated policy of striving each year to be the top new patent holder). Apple isn't even on the top 20.This is all about companies seeking out licensing deals and access to each other's portfolios.http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/09/update-on-apples-patent-lawsuits-with.htmlThis idea that humanity somehow needs Patent Law is not provable, so don't pretend it is.If you want to talk about old stuff, let's.The printing press was around a long time before Gutenberg, but Gutenberg's spin on it is the one that changed the world. Gutenberg was known to be secretive, and Gutenberg securedfinancingfor this invention through a banker. What was the banker's motivation to underwrite Gutenberg? Demonstrate that Gutenberg would have been successful with his invention if he had not been able tofinance developmentof it. "Monopoly" would have been practically enforced simply by the limited number of visitors to actuallyseethis new invention. While Gutenberg may not have had official protection of the thing itself, there was demonstrable reward in the competitive efficiency his invention provided him over other printers.So far as the steam engine... yes. Definitely. Watt was a zealous monopolist, and secured patent on his invention the second he had it perfected. He then spent the term of the patent preventing others from competing with him. Innovation of the steam engine was retarded for the duration of his patents in part because he refused to grant licenses to potential competitors.The Samsung lawsuit doesn't mean no one will be able to buy Samsung phones, it simply means Apple now gets a Billion dollars worth of access to Samsung's portfolio - exactlyoppositethe legalistic madness that followed patenting of Watt's steam engine.Those corporations that want to develop technology faster to keep up with the times will want to get into talks with other corporations who are on similar projects. Resource pooling and brainpower will be focused...Congratulations: you've just described the present state of capitolism.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 04:12:05 pm
content: QuoteIt's not about stealing "lines of code"... it's about stealing ideas! Samsung didn't steal Apple's code (only because they didn't have access to it) and thus their OS is not the same. However, the difficult part of engineering is the art, not the sceince. Apple thought up the little touches like making the page bounce back if the user took his finger off the screen before the next tab kicked in from momentum etc. and Samsung didn't want to take the time to THINK about how to do it differently, so they just did it the same way without considering Apple's patents.Don't bother arguing whether or not patends should exist in the first place; this is a case of Apple vs Samsung... not the people vs the United States of America or the international patent treaty. Strictly speaking, Samsung broke the law and they are paying dearly for it. If you think the law should be changed, that's another matter entirely.

author: merlinb
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 04:43:06 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on September 06, 2012, 03:20:44 pmI Agree with Ian.Sgt Rock, I think your reasoning is hampered by the same one-dimensional thinking that many, many people labour under: you are considering all possible changes only in terms of how they will upset the status quo.If we somehow eliminated patents overnight then yes, these companies would presumably stop spending billions on these projects (at least in the sameway) when the returns are potentially smaller. But do we need them to? Is the present system the ONLY viable way of working? Try to think instead about how the worldwouldoperate if IP protection didn't exist; the ways it would adapt. Not simply about the way it wouldfailto operate as it doesnow.Remember last year when they cured cancer and nobody noticed because the drug couldn't be patented?http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/05/scientists-cure-cancer-nobody-notices/

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 05:15:37 pm
content: The patents in mobile phones industry is like a pharmaceutical company patents the round shape of a pill.Alexander.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2012, 11:55:41 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on September 06, 2012, 03:20:44 pmIt is a sentence so poorly constructed as to be incoherent. No doubt extracted form a wordy clump of further incoherence. Two names immediately disproving such nonsense being Tesla and Sikorsky. In some minds(?) they could only have ever been inventive whilst on American soil. Statements such as that are just the insular xenophobic raving of the terminally inebriated.Patents have nothing to do with invention or inventiveness they were created as a legal tool to provide market protection and encourage commercial investment. As it stands now the patent system no longer performs its intention. It provides no advantage for protecting and encouraging the commercial activities of small organisations and inventors.Apple's use of patent and copyright law is nothing but an abuse of power and market position. Sure retaliatory law suits are equally perverse, and while Apple may not be the ones that pioneered such legal games they are certainly the organisation that have turned such behaviour up to turbo. These law suits are not about protecting invention or about limiting reverse engineering. Apple are using the courts primarily as a tool to disrupt the market release of competitors.Jobs statements and declaration of war against competitors were the words of a madman, the words of someone so full of self belief and self interest that they had lost a grip on reality.Sorry to burst your bubble America, but you don't hold world rights on production or creation. To my mind the Koreans have built a better mousetrap. You can patent a mousetrap you cannot patent mousetraps! I would be buying a mousetrap any time soon from any bunch of lunatics that have convinced themselves the mousetrap market is their own. Along similar lines I wont be buying anything from Apple.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 01:05:40 am
content: To my mind the Koreans have built a better mousetrap.You do realize, right - Samsung, is the second largest holder of US patents in the world, happens to be Korean?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 01:21:04 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 07, 2012, 01:05:40 amSo what? Holding patents and using them intended is not a problem. The whole Apple V Samsung thing is about misuse of patents. Neither party is looking particularly rosey in proceedings but I would say to Apple in the words of my dear departed grandfather "You started this! What the hell did you expect".Apple is using patent law as a tool to stifle the release of competitors products, that is a blatant misuse of the courts, which demonstrates Apple's lack of belief in the ability of their products to continue to succeed on merit alone.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 01:54:39 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on September 07, 2012, 01:21:04 amI think you're right. The tech-savvy Americans seem to me to be starting to realise that both are the same except one is dearer. And annoying them further is the maker of the dear one is telling them they can't have the cheap one. This is bad for Apple.I think it won't be long until Apple is viewed with the same disdain as Microsoft. They certainly seem to be following in their footsteps.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 02:25:37 am
content: I still think the law should be fair. This may sound like one of those, "duh, of course" moments, but many of you here are making the statement (whether you realize it or not) that patents should only protect small companies who don't already own a fortune. Yes, Apple is a behemoth, but that doesn't mean it should be entitled to the same treatment as small, independent companies. Statements like " The whole Apple V Samsung thing is about misuse of patents." make no sense to me... give me one specific example of how Apple misused one of its patents.The truth is, people WANT ipods and iphones and ipads etc. but don't want to be locked into Apple's terms. Samsung realizes this, and is trying to sell Apple's designs (not Apple's products) for slightly cheaper, or with slightly different specs etc. The simple matter of fact is that until Apple's patents expire, if you want that product, you DO have to agree to their terms! That's the whole point! There is nothing wrong with this. As an example, if you designed the first personal computer based on an FPGA instead of a microprocessor and made an OS that runs everything on a single clock cycle, you would want to patent it. Others would complain because they think it's a really good idea and it's unfair to patent a really good idea. TOO BAD!!!You come up with an origonal idea and follow through with creating it; do you think it's fair for some other comapny to just say, "thanks for the good idea, I think I will use it from now on"? When Apple created the circular capacitive touch wheel, everyone was mad because they couldn't use it also. Now, as soon as Apple creates a product using a full touch screen, everyone wants to use that... also. There comes a point where you have to say, "this is mine, you can't have it... suck it up!". At least for a period of time until the patent expires.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 03:16:21 am
content: Quote from: olsenn on September 07, 2012, 02:25:37 amIndeed it should be.QuoteRubbish, That is not what I am saying for one moment!QuoteWant to run that one by me again? Why should Apple be treated any differently?QuoteThat in no way preclude that the statement does not make sense.QuoteWell In this country Apple has taken action it knew had no chance of succeeding with the whole intent of creating delay and disruption to a competitors product launch. Nothing other than using the courts as a blunt implement for market advantage.QuoteThe truth is a good majority of people are unable to see the repercussions of Apple policy and are quite happy to pay well over the comparative odds to own Apple product. A further truth is that another group of people neither like or want Apple product at any price or simply prefer an alternative.QuoteBollocks! An Android phone is not an Apple design! It is not laden with Apple technology or invention. A different Mousetrap entirely. The fact both are designed to suit use by advanced primates with opposable thumbs in no way support the idea than one is a copy of the other.Did Apple invent the icon?Did Apple invent the touchscreen?Did Apple invent round corners?QuoteIf I wish to purchase an IOS phone perhaps, Apple hold no patent rights to the phone or the clever phone. The devices I prefer to purchase have nothing to do with those greedy hippies or their closed operating systems.Quotewhat is?Quotenothing wrong with what?QuoteWhat I would want is not necessarily what is right or what is reasonably, legally or morally en forcible. I'd want you to pay way too much for it and I'd want any competitors wiped out. That however isn't what would be fair or what the community would want or need.QuoteBollocks! The patent is to provide some protection on the design or method. A patent is not intended as a means of making all other or similar ideas invalid or unusable. I'd have patented a type of mousetrap not mousetraps in their entirity.QuoteYes I do! Apply you theory to the invention of the wheel. Should all further invention of rolling surface been withheld and licensed to Wheel Corp? Of course not. I can patent a type of wheel today, I cannot reasonably patent the wheel or the concept of wheel.QuoteNice theory, can you point me to where Apple is attributed as the designer of the touch screen? It's not Apple's to patent so any sucking up should be going on at Apple HQ.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 03:44:38 am
content: The people I've known who want itard devices don't give a shit about Apple's terms. Most seem to like the lack of choice.I think Apple's example gives us a chilling example of what the world would look like if we woke up one day and found out Scientology had displaced Christianity...

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2012, 06:16:26 am
content: Quote from: olsenn on September 07, 2012, 02:25:37 amA very long time ago capacitive touch screens were invented, why does people think Apple did?PS: HTC used capacitive screens way before iPhone was even thought of

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2012, 08:37:35 am
content: "Did Apple find inspiration for its iconic products in the simplicity of Braun designs from the 50s and 60s?"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200660/Did-Apple-inspiration-iconic-products-simplicity-Braun-designs-50s-60s.htmlBraun vs Apple ? :-)