And So The Merry Circus Goes Round Again...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. .... 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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...
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    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?
    Another Me, Oct 7, 2010
    #3
  4. 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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    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?
    Another Me, Oct 7, 2010
    #5
  6. 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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    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?
    Another Me, Oct 7, 2010
    #7
  8. 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 “inventiveâ€:

    * 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 7, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    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?
    Another Me, Oct 7, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    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
    victor, Oct 7, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    On 8/10/10 10:03 AM, victor wrote:

    > umbrellas bricks trousers forks paper beer vodka music etc


    Thanks, unlike Larry you responded with some examples. Although, all of
    those would have been developed prior to the concept of patents.
    Another Me, Oct 7, 2010
    #11
  12. In message <i8k7nu$c5m$>, 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


    But you were the one going on about the importance of “inventionâ€, and about
    whether it was right to “profit off others [sic] inventionsâ€. And presumably
    using patents to stop that.

    So which was the more important “invention†(and presumably, the one more
    worthy of patent “protectionâ€): the fundamental discovery on which a whole
    family of mechanisms was built, or those individual mechanisms?

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


    The steam-engine.

    When people are asked “who invented the steam-engine?â€, the name that
    usually comes to mind is “James Wattâ€. Only he didn’t. When we think “steam-
    engineâ€, we think “engine powered by steam pressureâ€. But Watt’s engine
    wasn’t like that at all; his engine was just a refinement of the Newcomen
    engine from decades earlier, and it was just an “atmospheric engineâ€, which
    meant that the steam came into the cylinder under low pressure and
    condensed, and it was the resulting suction due to atmospheric pressure that
    drove the piston.

    Nevertheless, Watt got a patent on his engine, and he used that patent to
    suppress any attempts to improve on his ideas. He was basically terrified of
    high-pressure stream; it wasn’t until after his patent expired in 1800, that
    Trevithick and the other Cornish mining engineers were able to develop the
    modern steam-engine.

    And they did so without patents; they freely shared ideas with each other
    and built off each other’s innovations, which is why the steam-engine
    progressed further in the subsequent 20 years than it had been able to over
    the entire previous century.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 8, 2010
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    On 8/10/10 12:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > But you were the one going on about the importance of “inventionâ€, and about
    > whether it was right to “profit off others [sic] inventionsâ€. And presumably
    > using patents to stop that.


    No I wasn't, I question you regarding your statement, that is all.

    > The steam-engine.


    Can you provide a modern example, I will even let you go back 10-20
    years. After all, I don't see that much development in steam engine
    technology these days.
    Another Me, Oct 8, 2010
    #13
  14. In message <i8lsem$b1r$>, Another Me wrote:

    > On 8/10/10 12:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> But you were the one going on about the importance of “inventionâ€, and
    >> about whether it was right to “profit off others [sic] inventionsâ€. And
    >> presumably using patents to stop that.

    >
    > No I wasn't, I question you regarding your statement, that is all.


    So you were not going about the importance of “invention� Why did you bring
    it up, then?

    >> The steam-engine.

    >
    > Can you provide a modern example, I will even let you go back 10-20
    > years. After all, I don't see that much development in steam engine
    > technology these days.


    So you think patents have only become important in the last 10-20 years?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 8, 2010
    #14
  15. In message <i8lded$2qd$>, Another Me wrote:

    > On 8/10/10 10:03 AM, victor wrote:


    >> On 7/10/2010 11:34 p.m., Another Me wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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

    >
    > Although, all of those would have been developed prior to the concept of
    > patents.


    Why is that relevant? Are you trying to say that patents have only become
    important since they were introduced?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 8, 2010
    #15
  16. In message <i8j4eu$nt7$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

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


    Another beauty here
    <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple.ars>

    Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
    essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 8, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    On 8/10/10 3:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > So you were not going about the importance of “invention� Why did you bring
    > it up, then?



    You brought it up

    > So you think patents have only become important in the last 10-20 years?


    Well you made the statement

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

    What was the point of making this statement if you are not talking about
    now, rather than 300 years ago!?
    Another Me, Oct 8, 2010
    #17
  18. In message <i8m47p$fda$>, Another Me wrote:

    > On 8/10/10 3:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> So you were not going about the importance of “invention� Why did you
    >> bring it up, then?

    >
    > You brought it up


    You were the one who seemed to attach importance to it. First you said
    patents had something to do with “innovationâ€. Then when I corrected you, to
    point out that they were only to do with “inventionâ€, not “innovationâ€, you
    said

    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?

    Then when I pointed out that “invention†was unimportant to innovation, you
    kept going on about “inventionâ€, as though you disagreed with me and thought
    it was important.

    So why did you keep doing this?

    >> So you think patents have only become important in the last 10-20 years?

    >
    > Well you made the statement
    >
    > "Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents
    > are essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?"
    >
    > What was the point of making this statement if you are not talking about
    > now, rather than 300 years ago!?


    Because patents have a history going back many centuries. And therefore
    there is an accumulation of empirical data going back just as many
    centuries, showing their relevance (or not) to the business of innovation.
    And it just so happens that evidence is consistent, in that picking from one
    period does not lead to contradictory conclusions compared to picking from
    another.

    It seems to me you’re trying to keep moving the goalposts here: you ask one
    question, I answer that, then you try to retroactively redefine the
    situation to somehow disqualify my reply. That’s a mug’s game, that you can
    go play by yourself.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 8, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    On 8/10/10 4:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > You were the one who seemed to attach importance to it. First you said
    > patents had something to do with “innovationâ€. Then when I corrected you, to
    > point out that they were only to do with “inventionâ€, not “innovationâ€, you
    > said


    Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot of
    businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first place.
    You still haven't given me an example of a business venture that is
    succeeding without patents involved.

    If you are so sure of the evils of patents, provide some valid examples
    of a life without patents instead hiding from the topic like you always do.

    You haven't corrected me of anything, you just change what you say
    constantly when someone finds holes in your topic.
    Another Me, Oct 8, 2010
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Me Guest

    On 8/10/10 3:04 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > Why is that relevant?


    Because you raised the topic of patents.
    Another Me, Oct 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan

    Computer Goes Round and Round Checking

    Alan, Oct 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    911
    Monroe Dowling
    Oct 8, 2004
  2. J Rusnak
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    446
    J Rusnak
    Oct 19, 2006
  3. Glastonbury Circus and performer acts

    , Jul 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    296
  4. Focus

    Circus in town! (pics and story!)

    Focus, Mar 25, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    542
    Rita Berkowitz
    Mar 27, 2008
  5. DaGenester
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,115
    Ed Rusi
    May 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page