«

.... this time it’s Motorola suing Apple
<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/motorola-files-patent-lawsuits-against-apple>.

Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?

In message <i8j26j$mjc$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
> essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?

Just look at these diagrams
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit>,
<http://www.infographicsfyi.com/who%E2%80%99s-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade>.

You can probably predict likely future lawsuits by simply filling in the
gaps where there aren’t any lines yet...

On 7/10/10 12:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
> essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?

Well if it is true, then Apple has profited off someone else's
innovation, are you saying that is ok?

In message <i8j6hc$p47$>, Another Me wrote:

> On 7/10/10 12:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
>> essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?
>
> Well if it is true, then Apple has profited off someone else's
> innovation, are you saying that is ok?

Patents only cover inventions, not innovations. “Innovation” is more than
just having an idea, it’s the execution of the idea. Remember the old adage,
that anything worth achieving is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration?
Patents can only cover the inspiration, not the perspiration.

In other words, patents are irrelevant to anything of importance.

On 7/10/10 2:40 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Patents only cover inventions, not innovations. “Innovation” is more than
> just having an idea, it’s the execution of the idea. Remember the old adage,
> that anything worth achieving is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration?
> Patents can only cover the inspiration, not the perspiration.
>
> In other words, patents are irrelevant to anything of importance.

Well in this case, and in the case of Nokia, both are suing due to their
inventions. So again, if this is true, is it ok for Apple to profit off
others inventions?

In message <i8ji5f$vjh$>, Another Me wrote:

> So again, if this is true, is it ok for Apple to profit off others
> inventions?

“Invention” is nothing.

Invention is not innovation. “Innovation” is more than just having an idea,
it’s the execution of the idea. Remember the old adage, that anything worth
achieving is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration? Patents can only cover the
inspiration, not the perspiration.

All patents achieve is to be a mechanism for stifling competition.

On 7/10/10 6:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> “Invention” is nothing.

So it is nothing to invent something?

> Invention is not innovation. “Innovation” is more than just having an idea,
> it’s the execution of the idea. Remember the old adage, that anything worth
> achieving is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration? Patents can only cover the
> inspiration, not the perspiration.

Do you actually understand what you write?

In message <i8k1l0$8pt$>, Another Me wrote:

> On 7/10/10 6:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> “Invention” is nothing.
>
> So it is nothing to invent something?

Consider which is more “inventive”:

* The development of the general theory of the thermodynamic Carnot Cycle
* The use of this general theory to create and refine the various kinds of
internal-combustion engines, e.g. the four-stroke petrol-powered Otto Cycle,
or the Diesel engine.

Which of these was patentable, and which was not?

>> Invention is not innovation. “Innovation” is more than just having an
>> idea, it’s the execution of the idea. Remember the old adage, that
>> anything worth achieving is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration? Patents
>> can only cover the inspiration, not the perspiration.
>
> Do you actually understand what you write?

Yes. Do you?

On 7/10/10 11:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Which of these was patentable, and which was not?

I don't really care


> Yes. Do you?

yes I do. Can you give me some examples of innovation, or invention
that people haven't patented, and has progressed to great commercial
success?

On 7/10/2010 11:34 p.m., Another Me wrote:
> On 7/10/10 11:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Which of these was patentable, and which was not?
>
> I don't really care
>
>
>> Yes. Do you?
>
> yes I do. Can you give me some examples of innovation, or invention that
> people haven't patented, and has progressed to great commercial success?

umbrellas bricks trousers forks paper beer vodka music etc