Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the winner-will-win-wonga-in-the-form-of-won dept.
A Reuters story continues with news of the on-going litigation between Apple and Samsung:
Apple and Samsung return to federal court on Tuesday for opening statements in their latest patent battle, with the iPhone maker expected to present more detailed evidence in its attempt to win a U.S. ban on sales of several Samsung smartphones.
Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd have been litigating around the world for nearly three years. Jurors awarded the iPhone maker about $930 million after a 2012 trial in San Jose, California, but Apple failed to persuade U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to issue a permanent injunction against the sale of Samsung phones.A sales ban would be a far more serious threat to Samsung, which earned $7.7 billion in the quarter that ended in December. Samsung's mobile division, which includes smartphones, generated operating profit of 5.47 trillion won ($5.1 billion).
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:37PM
To bystanders: Since edIII can't be bothered to clarify it, and is no longer interested in this conversation, I'd welcome anyone who's better than I at comprehending his post to explain what possible meaning " the original purpose of the USPTO was to protect small time inventors from large monied interests that would take their hard work from them." can have which does not imply the small time inventors' hard work has invested them with some inherent right? Whether this conversation goes any farther or not, I'd much rather understand another's opinion than not. (Which is why you'll never see me post "I quit reading there" -- to me, if it's worth a response at all. it's worth reading the whole thing).
edIII:
Did you notice where you misunderstood me as suggesting you were a paid shill, and my response was not to flutter about in horror at the magnitude of your misunderstanding, but to explain in detail what I did mean? That's what normal people do when they're interested in intelligent discourse.
Not explicitly, but it was implicit in what I understood of your first justification. If I misunderstood it, an explanation would be welcome.
Yes, it's a mind-boggling contradiction -- yet I'm still not hearing an explanation of what you are "protecting" that comes from "hard work", if it's not an inherent right.
Well, I can't tell what it seems like to you, but "forbid" isn't hyperbole, because not only is that sometimes exactly how patents are employed (deny it to your competition so you have a competitive advantage), but the alternative, licensing it to others, is based on the idea that anyone who doesn't receive permission (whether in exchange for royalties, for permission to use some other patent, or any other arrangement) is forbidden from using it (with a few exceptions) -- while other regimes that grant control without the absolute power to forbid are possible (e.g. mandatory licensing), the US system does give a patent holder the right to refuse any licensing arrangement at any cost (again with a few exceptions).
But either way, "forbid" or "control", this is correct. But as you just said, "we grant a set of ... entitlements with the sole purpose of fostering innovation." -- they have nothing to do with hard work, nor with "protecting" any entity from any other entity.
If you can't or won't understand the difference between "the sloppiness of English" (suggesting that there is a problem with the language) and "the sloppiness of your English" (suggesting there's a problem with your language skills), it's no wonder we're having trouble communicating.
(See how, while criticizing you for misunderstanding, I was able to squeeze in an explanation of what I did mean? I know it's a waste of time, considering you've already written this discussion off, but habits are like that...)
From the guy who criticized my correct use of forbid as seeming like hyperbole, that's a bit rich.
userscript: Expand/Collapse buttons on every comment [userscripts.org]