Apple and Samsung's patent war: Can a settlement add up?
Summary: The developments in the Apple and Samsung patent litigation have spiked again. Do these moves point to an ultimate settlement. Maybe.
That never-ending Apple vs. Samsung patent war being waged around the world has flared up again with a bevy of developments that could point both sides to at least ponder a settlement.
Among the key developments:
- A U.S. judge denies Apple's permanent injunction request regarding Samsung. That same judge also denied Samsung's claims that it needed a new trial.
- In Australia, Samsung managed to keep private documents away from Apple.
- And now Samsung has dropped injunction requests against Apple in Europe.
Combine these developments with Apple's recent patent agreement with HTC---another Android poster child---and perhaps this war can be put to rest.
Meanwhile, Apple CEO Tim Cook told Bloomberg BusinessWeek that he hopes the Samsung litigation "works out over time." Cook is pragmatic and Samsung and Apple are great partners as well as competitors. That situation isn't sustainable over the long term.
With the latest courtroom developments, I'd argue that chances are looking better that the two will settle. Simply put, there's more money for both sides being partners.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
apple must stop suing
Apple and Samsung must go thermo-nuclear
Ethical companies???
For sure
Weedling Samsung spin...
FRAND ??? Could you explain that concept to Apple.
Do you even know what FRAND means?!?
It is not up to a single company to determine if a particular technology is a standard, and it is no single company's obligation to license patents with FRAND terms. Apple is hardly under any obligation to do so, especially when no one else is using their tech.
More to the point, first, they are NOT the only company that "demand everyone elses [sic] product access" whatever that even means, they are not the only company to "keep their own stuff" and they are certainly not "the only companies [sic] products connect to itunes".
As for your ad hominem, get a spelling checker before you start calling out others for their intelligence.
They should adapt the patent system
Solve crime by making it legal.
Because clearly no law can ever cause more bad than good
Is copying ideas a crime?
And please don't try to claim that the definition of crime is violation of law; otherwise one could "solve crime by making it legal".
Copying idea isn't a crime unless
In other words...
So if you're right, we could tighten up the patent system with the goal of making it much harder to commit a crime (your definition) and making it much more likely that the system will have the effect of encouraging innovation, instead of discouraging it, and you would have no objections.
Is there anything I'm misunderstanding?
I want that edit button back!
"Is there anything I'm misunderstanding?" Yes, all of it.
Second, your original point is not only absurd, it evinces a complete ignorance of the actual patent system. For instance, of course there is an intrinsic time limit. Said limit is specified directly in the statutes.
There is not an intrinsic time limit (that I'm aware of)
The original poster, like many others I've seen, called patent infringement a crime. That begs the question of whether it's inherently immoral to copy others inventions/ideas without permission (if so for how long?), or is it merely wrong because it's illegal?
So let me ask you. If there were no patent laws, would it be immoral to copy the work of living or recently dead inventors without permission? If so, then for how long? For extra credit, why?
Yes, it is
Second, you appear to also not know what the term "beg the question" means. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that involves assuming the original point. It does NOT mean "makes one immediately wonder the following".
Third, even if it did, it does NOT "beg that question". Not that it would be even remotely relevant, since what is illegal is NOT the copying, per se, but the making of money off the idea as if it were your own, money that might otherwise arguably have gone to the originator of the idea.
Fourth, the existence of patent law is irrelevant to the morality of the issue, so "if there were no patent laws" has no bearing on the discussion. No, copying is not immoral. Again, what is immoral is making money off that idea at the expense of the one who had it. For how long? That is a question that, in the absence of a legal framework (as necessitated by your ridiculous supposition) would be determined on a case by case basis, so there would be no clear number. A number could only be determined if you averaged over all possible occurrences.
Why? That depends on your personal philosophy. Since I am of the Utilitarian school, I would make a Utilitarian argument, that such theft harms not only the person whose idea was appropriated, but also society at large, as it undermines the motivation for future innovation. As such, and as it undermines societal advancement as a whole, as well as takes from the individual innovator, it can reasonably be determined to be an act of selfishness with anti-societal effects. Such acts are deemed immoral in most accepted moral systems.
Was this supposed to be some sort of silly trick question?
Plagiarism is usually considered immoral
It looks like you're trying to argue that people have a natural right to control their own creations (and you're certainly not the first), but that opens lots of cans of worms, as I hope you can see. The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not make such a claim. but instead *authorized* Congress to " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". If you take that view of it, then it's not a moral issue at all, but only a legal one.
You can of course, believe it to be a moral issue if you choose, but you're going to have to come up with a more coherent case than the one you've presented to persuade me of that.
Being that I am not particularly concerned with "convincing you"...
But that said, to address your post, yes, using other people's ideas for person profit has been around for ages, as has the feeling of righteous indignation at the act, as well as legal frameworks of one kind or another, or societal proscriptions, designed to protect the originator. So once again, what is the point on this appeal to the past?
As to your fragile Constitutional argument, it all falls apart when you take into account that many of the framers who allowed a loose construct were aso the ones that served in the legislature that then proceded to construct a more rigid one. Your argument that because the framers of the Constitution (as if the U.S. is the only country with patent laws, originated the idea, or is the only country that matters) left the matter up to future legislatures to specify, and chose to leave it flexible is proof of any lack of moral basis, is absurd. Nor does it provide and defense of this argument. It merely states that they left the matter legally ambiguous. It says NOTHING about whether they themselves felt any moral imperative, and in fact, the fact that they chose to provide Congress with this authority makes it reasonably clear that they did.
So, in summary, your position is:
2. That legislators are morally obligated to secure to authors and inventors exclusive control over their own creations, regardless of whether or not such laws actually promote "progress in science and the useful arts" and even if they have the effect of retarding it (for how long and how broadly?).
Feel free to correct me.