My fruity fondleslab-owner friends don't get the irony of Apple copying Xerox...

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

Given their criteria for "invention", no-one ever invented anything ever.

yeah that's all we basically do is tweak things built upon pre-existing knowledge.

there are very few really original inventions. but something even supposedly "original" still builds off of the cumulative body of science and the arts, which are a product of thousands of year of collaboration.

so...i find that even the idea that "I" could invent something (alone) to be pretty ridiculous, although ego boosting for sure. if i did come up with something it would be me along with thousands of years of science built by collaboration and contribution, without which I wouldn't even have numbers or language.

patents and copyrights do a lot to retard the advancement of technology (and the species). think we'd be better off without these impediments

>> ^njjh201:

>> ^criticalthud:
patents and copyrights do a lot to retard the advancement of technology (and the species). think we'd be better off without these impediments

I'm not so sure. Patents only delay further progress in the relatively short run, and the pay-off is that to get a patent you have to share your method with all humanity. In fact I suspect that without patents we'd get a whole lot more secrecy (because you'd have to jealously guard your secrets from day one if you wanted the advantage of exclusivity at all) and innovation would be impeded worse. Who knows.


I'm not arguing that there are no benefits to the patent system. What I'm saying is that the negative effects vastly outweigh the positive. This retards the growth of ideas.

But let's take a closer look...Do you think the patent/copyright system helps or hurts something like cancer research?

I think they make a point. If Apple can take the concept of OTHER people/companies who've put out products that are similar but based on older/fatter/slower tech, why is it OK for them to turn around and sue under the guise of invention/patent?

If they can go out and shut down other companies now, why can't other companies reach back into history and snub the Apple products based on other ideas and just claim damages based on the number of years/interest/etc. AFAIK no one did it to them, so how is it right that they can now turn around and point fingers for what they themselves did? Which is take ideas and concepts out there in the market that failed, but generally had the same niche but lacked "something" that the successful products have now.

It's like aluminum bike frame manufacturers suing any company that has been around for 80 years making steel frames and then move into aluminum designs based on their old steel frames. Then the 10 year old aluminum manufacturer sues because the new alum frames resembles their lines too much.

It's far too murky historically for Apple to turn around and sue people who could have just as easily sued them a decade back for similar reasons.

I mean it's not like we have a clear counterfeiting thing here where the devices are called lPads.