Ah, so that’s what Google’s masterplan is regarding the defense of Android against the patent trolls. HTC has just launched a few more defensive patent lawsuits against Apple, and while that’s by far no longer newsworthy, it is this one time. You see, HTC is suing Apple over 9 patents that have only very recently been transferred (namely, a week ago) from Google to HTC. The patents come from Palm, Motorola, and others. This means Google is giving away its patents to Android device makers. Nice of them.
… HTC’s patents suck less.
A gold plated piece of shit is still a piece of shit.
HTC’s shit is less shitty.
Not familiar with Mutt, are we?
All is fair in love and patent wars I say. I wonder what Apple will do. Pass the popcorn …
Seriously though, I hope the patent wars die down, what a waste of time and human creativity (and OSNews page space).
]{
As long as the US government is allowing companies to sue each other over nonsense, and as long as there is the potential for money to be made while doing so, I suspect we will continue to see such lawsuits.
Software patents are written by lawyers for lawyers, anyway. They certainly aren’t written for programmers…
as long as there is the potential for money to be made
Ah yes, if there only was real money made. Patent lawsuits only waste money and shift money around from one megacorp to the next. One megacorp’s “profit” in this game is the next megacorp’s “loss”. All paid for by the customer. It absolutely doesn’t create anything of value.
Consumers haven’t gotten any technologically better iPhones, Android phones , WinPho phones or Blackberries out of these lawsuits. If any, each won claim has given the winning manufacturer the opportunity to just sell the same phone with less incentive for innovation and the losers are artificially forced to sell even more inferior devices.
So who have won? The fat cats in the business of selling less for more.
Not really.
My point in this instance is that HTC’s patents/claims are slightly fairer than those of Apple. HTC’s patents are vague, too, yet they possess a slight hint of substance and originality. On the other hand, Apple’s patents are completely obvious and match some rather conspicuous prior art.
Also, I was alluding to an infamous slogan from the 1990s for an email client.
I don’t want them to die down, I want them to go away completely and stop hindering innovation.
An all-out war is probably the only way this could happen. Compare it to a real war…. I want a clear winner, not a long lasting skirmish for the next 50 years.
Clever move by Google. By extending some of their patent portfolio to one of their partners, they avoid the negative associations and risks that would have eventuated by taking the lawsuit to Apple directly.
They maintain their image, and defend their Android service. It’s good for their brand and their company overall.
Plus, their partners will probally be able to use those patents agains attacks not related to Android, ensuring that they will like to partner instead of wanting that google defend them directly. If this (using those patents in other cases), google is simply being a genious, and no one will care about googlerola anymore, they will go for the patents they can get for free from Android.
Really nice strategy, if true.
I think Google may be able to take this one step further, by creating a Community Cross-License (CCL) pool for Android, similar in concept to the CCL pool Google have already set up for WebM.
http://www.webm-ccl.org/
Perhaps Google might do this once their purchase of Motorola Mobility has finalised. This CCL pool for Android-related patents could then give patent protection to all members of the pool (not just HTC), and prevent them from being able to sue each other.
This in turn would effectively silence critics of Google’s purchase of the Motorola Mobility patents. It would set up a co-operative amongst manufacturers of Android devices (as far as patent protection goes) yet still allow for competition between the manufacturers.
It seems, to me anyway, to be a pretty good solution. IMO it would be a huge PR win for Google if they do this.
Edited 2011-09-08 01:51 UTC
No it can’t because a patent pool cannot be used offensively, it’s purely a defensive vehicle.
There is a reason Google ‘sold’ these patents to HTC. HTC needed patents they could use offensively and so they had to be the patent owner to have the right to use them in that way.
Apple is not going to take this lying down I bet. Tim Cook has something to prove. I say they should take it to Google and let the two of them go at it directly.
It is true that only the patent owner can sue another party.
In order for this to work for a patent pool, all that would be needed is for the pool (established as a separate legal entity) to own the patents. Then the pool could sue any patent agressors against Android OEMs on behalf of said OEMs.
Alternatively, Apple could join the patent pool that Google raised to protect Android, and it could then become a “smartphone” patent pool instead of an “Android” patent pool.
All the members of the smartphone patent pool would cross-license other members, and thereby promise not to sue other members. After a while, anyone who wanted to make a smartphone would simply join the pool.
Patent problem solved for everybody, all patent lawsuits over smartphones are settled. Everbody wins, even the public, except perhaps patent lawyers.
Edited 2011-09-08 03:03 UTC
You just described a patent troll 😉
PS: There would need to be a single legal entity which owned all the patents of the hypothetical Android patent pool. That entity could then sue other parties (patent agressors who were not members of the pool) on behalf of pool members.
The Open Handset Alliance is a good candidate to become just such an entity.
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_overview.html
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html
Edited 2011-09-08 03:30 UTC
That was truly silly, even coming from you. HTC was sued by Apple so when they counter-sue, they are using those patents defensively. HTC did not initiate (offensive use of patents) lawsuits against Apple, it sued Apple in response (defensive use of patents) to being sued by Apple.
Now you’re just arguing semantics.
While they might be defending themselves, a counter-sue is still going on the offensive. Which was the point the original poster was making; if HTC own the patents then they’re not sitting around avoiding getting attacked, they’re counter-attacking.
Using patents defensively and offensively are well established terms. Using patents defensively has only one possible interpretation: suing back. Original poster claimed HTC is using these patents offensively, which is plain nonsense. Offensive use would be suing others without getting sued or threatened first. I stand by what I wrote – saying that counter-suing is offensive patent use is bullshit. It’s by definition defensive, unless you can propose another way to use patents defensively. Perhaps printing them, rolling them up tightly, then hitting the lawyers on their head until they withdraw their patent lawsuits could be considered another case of “defensive patent use” but I doubt it would work.
WHERE CAN I SIGN UP FOR THIS WHACKING OF LAWYERS YOU SPEAK OF? I DEMAND TO KNOW.
And so ethical. Here is the route by which one of the patents came into play. U.S. Patent No. 6,473,006 on a “method and apparatus for zoomed display of characters entered from a telephone keypad”; originally filed by Phone-com, which assigned it to Openwave, then sold to a French company named Purple Labs, which sold it on to Myriad’s French subsidiary (Myriad has Java-related litigation going with Oracle), sold by Myriad to Google last year and by Google to HTC on August 29, 2011 (recorded on September 1).
Patents aren’t ethical, not anymore. These days it is what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine too.
The drive to create innovations has a long time ago left the putrid patent business.
Well said…. the time will come for Apple and Google to have it out directly but the time is not now. Google is helping their allies. They already bought the patents; lending them out for defensive purposes probably doesn’t cost them too much.
It has nothing to do with ‘protecting Google’s image’ as Apple’s PR has been disseminating lately. The deal is Apple sued HTC not Google. Google cannot simply jump into the case.. HTC has file countersuits against Apple and Google is helping HTC. Its as simple as that. We know that Apple PR has been trying to cast this development as ‘Google fighting a proxy war to protect their public image’ And many variations of that argument are already flooding forums worldwide.
Thom, ain’t there a way to block this fghgfh spammer for ever?
This means Google is giving away its patents to Android device makers.
According to the BBC these patens weren’t given away, but bought by HTC.
Why use the term ‘patent troll’ in this context?
My understanding of the term is that it refers to those whose sole business is the exploitation of patents for monetray gain. Using patents to defend a legitimate actual product is not being a troll, that’s just using patents for the purpose they were intended.
You may dislike Apple’s use of patents, or consider it unreasonable. You may feel that Apple started a war and that when one starts a war one shouldn’t complain about being counterattacked (which I agree with by the way). But using the term troll in relationship to it is inaccurate and just devalues the word by reducing it a mere insult thereby draining it of meaning.
“Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.”
Emphasis mine. “Often” – so not always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
From that same page:
Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law.[13]
Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following:
Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[8]
Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;[14][15]
Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;[16]
Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;[17] or
Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.[18]
Yeah… So you just also confirmed the term can be perfectly applied to Apple.
Some may not like seeing their precious company labelled as such, but if the shoe fits…
Edited 2011-09-08 09:52 UTC
Very true, pick the cherries that you like most.
By not labeling Apple as such, you’re also picking the cherries you like the most – you know that, right?
I don’t pick cherries, I object against lowering the definition of “patent troll” to an extend that it fits any company that sues another company over patents.
There are companies that only acquire with the purpose to sue, never intending to do anything constructive with them. I don’t think anyone, except those companies, would not call them patent trolls.
IMHO there is a big gap between those companies and companies that defend patents they do use, intend to use, “invented, etc… You’re just putting everything on one heap, making the term “patent troll” pretty useless as it would mean everyone is one.
Hell, lets call you a patent troll because you keep bringing up stories about them.
Well, maybe Apple can’t accurately be described as a patent troll, but Apple certainly is a patent diva.
Apple sure is, but I think Thom can also report this legal event without any terms describing Apple. It doesn’t add anything to the story and just seems part of Thom’s holy war against Apple.
Thom isn’t at war against Apple and has frequently pointed out that he’s a happy Apple customer.
What he dislikes is any company that (ab)use patents and other such intellectual property to eliminate competition. However you want to label Apple, they are guilty of this. Thus Thom calls them up for this behaviour.
Too many people on here are obsessed with picking sides.
I always get the impression Thom is dividing the world in the good guys and the bad one. When his good guys do anything evil they get the benefit of the doubt or are excused, when his bad guy are hinted of doing anything bad he already has them convicted.
Samsung’s tablet is just a me-too product, an iPad rip-off. They have made tablets before and they didn’t look like an iPad, after the iPad their tablets did. It’s an attempt to cash in on a hype Apple created by mimicking the iPad.
Is this the kind of competition we should care about? This isn’t innovation Apple is trying to suppress, because there isn’t any. Heck, by suing companies that blatantly copy Apple stuff one might argue they spur innovation. The Asus Transformer doesn’t look like an iPad and it did something different.
Dutch judge disagrees with you.
So now the judge is right, but when a judge rules in favor of Apple (s)he is bribed, an idiot, wrong, mistaken, on drugs, Apple fanboy, etc… ? What about the German judge then?
The judge made a ruling, if Samsung was over the legal edge or not, it doesn’t mean its products aren’t Apple rip-offs, because they obviously are. Even its OS, Android, is designed to mimic iOS. Before Samsung started copying Apple they copied Nokia.
I never said anything like that about the German judge. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Yes, I do put more faith in the Dutch judge than in the German judge because, you know, I’m Dutch myself, and because the Dutch ruling is available, very detailed, and incredibly well-argued. We don’t have the German ruling yet.
I fail to see why the judge and you both being Dutch would make this judge more trustworthy than a German one, also considering you criticized your own country a few times in a not so positive manner.
Because unlike some, I do not judge in broad strokes, nor do I generalise. In today’s polarised technology industry, that’s a very rare thing, it would seem.
Perhaps you’re right, apart from generalizing every company that goes to court over patents by calling them patent trolls I guess.
I never made that generalisation. You’re putting words in my mouth again.
I said that offensive use of software patents makes you a patent troll. Apple fits that bill. Sorry, can’t help it Apple fits the patent troll definition.
The jury is still out on what defines a patent troll. You do generalize as you view companies that only buy patents in order to sue on the same level as companies that sue to defend against companies that rip-off their products, as well as companies that sue to fight competition.
Apple is probably the most sued tech company out there, yet you make it seem they are the ones doing the suing.
Defensive patent suing doesn’t exist, either you are against patent suing madness or not. So it’s rather odd your disapprove Apple suing companies that rip them off using their own patents and cheer on companies that use 3rd, 4th or even 5th party acquired patents to counter sue.
That’s bullshit, and you know it. If you walk up to me and start punching me in my face, I WILL punch you back, even though I’m against violence. Defending yourself is NOT the same as attacking.
The Dalai Llama won’t punch back. You probably would’t either if you suddenly got hit in the face, but that’s not by choice.
And companies don’t need to counter sue, they could also prove they are innocent of infringing.
Now considering software development has become a legal minefield it is not easy not to infringe, then again some companies willingly do hoping they won’t get sued (Google) or assuming they can counter sue their way out of it (HTC).
I’m not against patents, but I am against silly patents and there are a whole bunch of those, often at the center of court cases. I don’t care if it’s Apple or anyone using those to sue, they should’t be able to.
Thom – why not drop the pedantic crap and just raise your game a bit? It’s not hard to be a better journalist and it”s very easy to be a poor one. Generally the best way to be a better journalist is to be especially careful when writing articles about stuff you have strong feelings about, you need to make sure that you are generally being as accurate as possible. If your strong feelings are justified then the facts alone will support them, no need for distortion or hyperbole.
In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to products they have made and which they claim their competitors are copying without permission. That’s what patents are for. To use the term the ‘troll’ in relation to such activity simply devalues the word and empties it of all meaning. It just becomes synonymous with ‘bad’ so why use the word troll at all unless what you want to do is simply to smear.
You may think that the aim of Apple’s actions is to curtail free competition in which case say so and the word troll is meaningless in relation to such behaviour. You may feel software patents in general are a bad thing in which case if you want to use the word troll in relation to software patents then use it against all those claiming software infringements, in my opinion still a misuse of the word but at least a consistent misuse. As I said using it in the way you did is wielding it as an insult and a smear and is piss poor journalism.
> In this case Apple is asserting patents relating to
> products they have made and which they claim their
> competitors are copying without permission. That’s
> what patents are for.
Sounds like typical lawyer’s talk. After all laws are in place, why not abuse them, right? Wrong. Using patents in such manner is unethical and is called patent trolling.
Edited 2011-09-08 15:03 UTC
The difference between HTC/Google and Apple is that Apple actually invented the technology it accused HTC — and by proxy, Google — of “stealing” (to use Steve Jobs’ verb). One of the patents Apple cited in its 2010 suit – Patent No. 7479949 — is a 358-page document signed by Jobs himself that covers everything from the way a finger touches the screen of a smartphone to the heuristics that turn those touches into commands.
HTC and Google, by contrast, are accusing Apple (whose smartphone designs they have plainly copied) of violating patents they bought fourth or fifth hand.
“Patents were meant to encourage innovation,” Google’s chief legal counsel David Drummond wrote last month in his famous open letter.” Google’s enemies, he complained, were using and “bogus” patents to try to “strangle” Android. “Fortunately,” he added, “the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means.”
Indeed.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/shocker-for-android-oems-go…
More from the Apple shill Mueller.
His article is bullshit. Not only was it known since AT LEAST March of this year that top-tier OEMs get pre-release access (LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc.), the document itself isn’t new either. On top of that, the document mentions OEMs and general, and then gives MBOTH Motorola and Verizon as examples.
In other words, it’s the usual smoke and mirrors from Mueller.
Ah, so it’s true, but it’s still bravo sierra because Mueller reported it.
No, it’s not true. He writes as if ONLY Motorola is going to get special access, even though that’s not what the document says. On top of that, he makes it seem as if this document was created after the acquisition – even though it’s older. He makes it seem as if this is new information – even though it’s not.
He’s a shill, and you’ll find few take him seriously. I mean, at least with folk like myself or Gruber you know our positions. Mueller, on the other hand, claims to be balanced – but he’s not.
I didn’t get the impression he wanted to create the impression the document was made after Google’s intend to buy Motorola Mobile.
But hey, I think it would be an improvement if you tried to appear balanced like Mueller or at least report the news like it is and write your own opinion in a separate section.
… than you for offering an example of some. Here is a counterpoint to the claims and conclusions offered by FM:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/the-bombshell-that-wasnt-foss-pate…
Funny. The Dutch courts disagreed with that one, and threw most of the patents and design stuff out the window.
So again why are people so indignant? Either Apple’s patents are spurious and will fail or not and will succeed.
So again why are people so indignant? Either Apple’s patents are spurious and will fail or not and will succeed. [/q]
People are indignant because Apple is threating their ability to write code with software patents that is why. That is the main reason. And any company that tries to usurp code that they did not write with have a lot of tech people up in arms. The notion that you cant write your own code with out Apple hauling you into court is ludicrous but that is what is happening.
Did the court disagree Apple invented the technology or did it disagree Samsung was infringing?
In fact – both.
Good, so Samsung won the case then.
Have many times, how many pictures, how many prior art, how much more proof do you apple fanboys need to get into your thick heads: Apple is suing companies with patents related to ideas they copied. One of the patents involved in Apple’s recent patent trolling is the rectangular shape with screen and some buttons. Yes it’s in their actual products (the iPad) and there are countless prior art from other manufacturers. They are suing with patents of so called “inventions” that 1) they most definitely did not invent 2) are way too obvious to call them inventions. Some of their patents may have some merit, but that’s not what critics of Apple are railing against. It’s the rest.
Edited 2011-09-08 17:43 UTC
In which case Apple’s claims won’t stand up in court in which case why are you getting worked up by it? The only reason people are so worked up is because Apple actually have a case and might win.
What really upsets people is that Apple aren’t pussies anymore. They stopped being losers a while back and started playing hardball and winning and it drives people potty. Back in the desktop era the whole industry leeched off Apple for its R&D and Apple, run by bozos back then, let them. It must have enraged Steve Jobs, watching from his exile, and I am sure he was determined that if he ever got another shot with Apple that he wouldn’t let it happen again. He did get another shot and Apple morphed into an innovation machine chewing up product sector after product sector with startling new devices. But this time around Apple wants to stop others copying them. And so they play hard on the patent front.
Good. Copying is bad for innovation.
Innovation by it’s very nature necessitates “copying”. Innovation is improvement of an existing idea.
The iPhone is a package of pre-existing ideas and concepts that was put together in an innovative way. There is no aspect of the iPhone that is inherently unique and doesn’t build on an idea or invention that already existed in one way or another.
Apple achieved massive first-mover advantage in the market with the iPhone, that is the reward for innovation. It’s up to them to continue building forward, they shouldn’t get to draw a line in the sand and say “Ok, guys, pack up and go home because we’ve now perfected the smart phone and we’ll sue you if you try to build a better one.” The iPhone wouldn’t exist if Apple didn’t have the previous work of other companies to draw off of.
Copyright laws exist for a reason, and should be the standard by which software and creative work is protected, not patents. Patents are intended to protect inventions. Legally protected monopolization of ideas and concepts is bad for innovation.
I do agree with you that it’s up to the courts to sort this mess out.
No, that’s refinement, not innovation. To innovate is to create something new. What Apple does is take current ideas and change them, evolve them from a certain perspective, into something shiny. I’m not saying this is bad, and it sure has worked for them, but I wish people would stop claiming Apple innovates. They do not.
Look up “innovation” in a dictionary and compare it with “invention”.
Apple didn’t invent tablets anyhow. Most stuff they claim for their inventions in this case has prior art.
It’s mostly the anti-Apple people that claim Apple claims to invent all that stuff. Apple innovates mostly and for some reason a group of people refuses to look up its definition.
Thom & co like to put as much as they can find proving Apple is evil, twist stuff or even make things up, put it in their Apple voodoo doll and start beating it while claiming they are defending the world against Apple domination.
Here are two listings:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovate?show=0&t=1315594…
So, “to invent” and “to innovate” are the same thing. If one is inventive, one is also innovative, and vice versa. That definition is generally accepted.
However, even if we use your selective definition (Websters archaic #2 listing?) of “innovate,” Apple is not innovative — it hasn’t really “made changes” to what has come before. Apple just follows prior art.
Edited 2011-09-09 18:57 UTC
Apple fully deserves the patent troll title, because they use all kind of ridiculous patents in offensive manner to fight competition to ensure their monopoly. Troll doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t produce any technology.
What market are they exercising monopoly power over exactly?
The “better than the rest” and “it just works” market I guess.
Tablet for example. How else can you call their attempt to ban Samsung from producing Galaxy, if not monopolistic aspirations? I don’t think there is any point in describing the obvious.
Oh, I see so because Apple created and dominates the consumer mindshare for tablet form factor computing devices they have a monopoly?
Sort of like how osnews aspires to have a monopoly on absurd comments. WHAT!?!
A monopoly position in a marketplace in both theory and practice is very different from just being extremely successful. You should do a little reading/thinking before making nonsense comments “stating the obvious”.
Apple is hardly the only supplier of tablet/slate devices, neither do they control or limit the means to manufacture alternatives or use that dominant position to force suppliers not to work with competitors.
Apple did not seek to ban Samsung from producing tablets of any form. They sought an injunction to prevent the sale of tablets that infringe on particular elements of its intellectual property. Talk about obvious. One way for Samsung to go to market and avoid the injunction is to remove the infringing elements, or dispute by legal argument that they do infringe. Are you trying to argue it would be impossible to create a tablet that did not contain these elements? Because, well that would be “obviously” false.
You may or may not agree with the substance of their claims but labelling the pursuit of your rights via the due process of law as “monopolistic aspiration” is nonsensical.
Please, don’t engage in demagogy. Patents in this case are used to ban competition, not to protect “intellectual property”.
No, there isn’t. The logically minded already understand both sides and have an educated opinion, whereas the true Apple fanboys/fangirls (in the negative sense) are like someone hooked on a substance. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, but they won’t listen until something actually happens that affects them in a profound way. As for the all corporations are evil types, well they’re like the rabid anti-drug zealots that scream the same crap over and over and over again without actually looking at the facts first. Neither of these extremes are credible in the least, though they do provide some good entertainment from time to time.
Patent troll is one who makes no products and acquires patents for the purpose of licensing them to others through litigation threats and actions.
I think the proper term for what Apple is doing is ‘anti-competitive and frivolous use of patents’ The act of filing numerous obvious software patents in order to drive competitors from the marketplace.
Microsoft is waging a similar campaign in order to drive up the price of open source software by demanding according to Barnes & Noble “shockingly high fees” to deploy Android on their devices. They have pledged to do this and it is under way.
Basically my take is that these companies want to use patents as a means of taking ownership of other’s code. If you sit down at your computer and write code you now have to be concerned with Apple and Microsoft asserting patents even if your code is completely different from theirs. That is using patents to take control of others code. A very scary development indeed.
Call it patent racketeers then. Trolls doesn’t sound much worse.
sorry, deleted my comment
Edited 2011-09-08 10:28 UTC
It’s about defending their own business (Android in this case). Not a single smart company acts out “niceness” including Apple, Google and Microsoft.
Nitpick the definition of “patent troll” all you want. Just like pornography, I know it when I see it. I’ve got no problem labeling Apple a patent troll. Like Thom said, “if the shoe fits…”
I know it’s painful for the Apple-faithful to admit it. Like a victim of spousal abuse, you guys don’t want to see it, even when it’s blatantly obvious to everyone else. Your favorite company is one of the worst-behaved corporate citizens in the tech industry. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears won’t change that.
Edited 2011-09-08 11:43 UTC
Because they sue people they think are infringing their patents?
The only reason anyone is getting excited about all this is because of the possibility that Apple might win i.e. that the patents might be valid legally.
No, because they sue out of greed and fear of competition.
Hi Tony.
Some people believe that in some (many?) cases, exercising your “rights” is not necessarily the classy thing to do. To use another phrase – its not quite cricket. I’m sorry you don’t see it, but Apple comes off really, really badly with people that think this way.
Imagine a world which the sole means used by Apple to obtain success was to continually shut up their opponents by building products that people love – products that people will buy even if there is a cheap knockoff available.
Its a world in which I’d be cheering them on.
I expected something better from Google. A defensive patent pool for all open source mobile industry, not just for Android associates.
There are clearly no business owners posting comments on this. In reality, an sane company does what it can to protect it’s interests and none of these companies are doing anything that far apart from the others.
And btw, moral “behavior” judgments have no place in business.
What kind of bullshit is that? So if a dictator asks you to make computers for him so he can more efficiently track his subjects and torture them, a business should not take that into consideration? Wtf?
IBM didn’t.
That’s why IBM still has this dirty spot in their reputation.
Are you actually trying to make this comparison, or is your reply meant to be taken as a joke? I really hope the latter. And clearly any company is expected to work within the bounds of law. Not that that should have to be pointed out but for some reason it seems I should.
The is a huge disconnect between Joe Average’s perception of business, and the reality of what it actually is. If people lack understanding, they should acknowledge it rather than pretend all that inexperience adds up to anything remotely sane.
Edited 2011-09-08 18:35 UTC
I actually own a business. Don’t act all hoity-toity.
Anyone with a couple hundred bucks and 30 minutes to fill out paperwork can call themselves a “business owner”. Maybe I should have been more specific but I have a feeling it wouldn’t have mattered. People with the ‘company X is evil’ mentality aren’t usually receptive to anything outside of that narrow view. I don’t know if you yourself fall into that group or not, and I don’t really care either way. But, if I had to guess, I know what it would be based on the bias I’ve seen.
That’s like saying if “everyone” around are unethical crooks, just because laws are all screwed up, why not to be like that as well. Fail. Don’t be a crook.
Edited 2011-09-08 18:37 UTC
I think you’ve forgotten a few things… First, (un)ethical behavior is largely open to interpretation based on the individuals beliefs. Second, your *opinion that a company is doing something “unethical” doesn’t automatically make them crooks. Lastly, if you’re going to judge, judge everyone by the same stick — you’ll find that most companies have far more in common than not.
I don’t argue that most are. Fortunately not all though, and those who prefer to be honest, deserve credit.
And that’s why we need regulations.
Apparently Steve-O skipped history class that day… you know, the day the teacher explained why it’s a bad idea to fight a war on multiple fronts.
Edited 2011-09-08 21:54 UTC
It’s funny to me that people are throwing around this “patent troll” label as if it actually has any significance in any way, or any real meaning beyond a weak attempt to offend/demean.
Tell the truth, how many of you “patent troll” slingers were pointing your finger when you posted?