Active Topics

 


Poll: Is this on or off-topic?
Poll Options
Is this on or off-topic?

Reply
Thread Tools
solarion's Avatar
Posts: 117 | Thanked: 32 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ USA
#81
Originally Posted by SubCore View Post
and where do you believe products come from?
Raw materials, work.

couldn't be the company's intellectual property by any chance, could it?
Nope. Patents and trade secrets help produce things, but they're not required (see also, generic drugs). Trademarks and salesmarks help in marketing and branding, but not in production.

Copyrights are another kettle of fish altogether, and, as with patents, can both help and hinder.

But products have been made and sold since the beginning of time, with and without patents, trademarks, salesmarks, copyright, etc. (Trade secrets are kinda different because they'd exist with or without government intervention in the free market).

not to mention IP itself can be sold as a product... as in "licensing" something
Yes, however I'd argue that patents trolls are worse than leeches. And obscenely long copyright extension is entirely counter-productive.

And you must also prove that patents and copyrights being sold as a product, in the form they are right now, is actually beneficial to society. IMHO, they're currently detrimental to progress. I'd like to think that giving up our rights (which is what we do to provide copyright and patents) should give us back something, not stop progress.
__________________
--
Umm, what?
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#82
Originally Posted by solarion View Post
Nope. Patents and trade secrets help produce things, but they're not required (see also, generic drugs).
Buzz! Poor example. Many if not most generic drugs start off as patented.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,491 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#83
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
I don't know how to answer the poll based on the ambiguous premise.
Nothing ambiguous about it, this is "on or off-topic"
 
sachin007's Avatar
Posts: 2,041 | Thanked: 1,066 times | Joined on Mar 2006 @ Houston
#84
I reallly hope apple loses and nokia uses alll that money for maemo. It would be great for maemo and open source.

Its a good thing that nokia waited for so long..... more handsets = more amount!
 
ossipena's Avatar
Posts: 3,159 | Thanked: 2,023 times | Joined on Feb 2008 @ Finland
#85
patents really are bad for global economy as whole(those only cap the amount of resources gain with new innovation). But on an other hand those patents help keeping motivation to spend money to r&d.
 
solarion's Avatar
Posts: 117 | Thanked: 32 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ USA
#86
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
I think you misunderstand. Go back to the later post where I included links; the second link references what I mean.

(oh, and I won't be confusing any IP protection mechanisms-- I'm well-versed in all of them )
This one:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...9&pageNumber=1

?

Regarding you confusing patents and trademarks: it's a common error I've seen, and I don't know you from Adam. You can assert whatever you want about yourself, and I have little ability to verify it. Hence, I take a prove-it stance.
__________________
--
Umm, what?
 
solarion's Avatar
Posts: 117 | Thanked: 32 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ USA
#87
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
Buzz! Poor example. Many if not most generic drugs start off as patented.
I see your point, although it's entirely open to debate (would the drug exist in the absence of patents isn't a settled question by any means)

How about a chair? Basic, wooden chair that's existed since the dawn of time.
__________________
--
Umm, what?
 
mikec's Avatar
Posts: 1,366 | Thanked: 1,185 times | Joined on Jan 2006
#88
To put this in perspective, Nokia would have to sell a Gazillion phones to make the same $200M of profit

oh yes the touch screen phone patents are next.

Mike C
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#89
Originally Posted by solarion View Post
This one:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...9&pageNumber=1

?

Regarding you confusing patents and trademarks: it's a common error I've seen, and I don't know you from Adam. You can assert whatever you want about yourself, and I have little ability to verify it. Hence, I take a prove-it stance.
Yes that link.

As to "proving it", my philosophy is 180 degrees off of yours: I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove it undeserved. Prevents inane entanglements, pointless aggravation and hair loss.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#90
Originally Posted by solarion View Post
I see your point, although it's entirely open to debate (would the drug exist in the absence of patents isn't a settled question by any means)

How about a chair? Basic, wooden chair that's existed since the dawn of time.
How about a tangent? Random, arbitrary line intersecting a random, arbitray point on a circle.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Reply

Tags
apple, intellectual property, lawsuit, nokia, nonsense magnet, patent infringement


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19.