W3C And Apple Patent in Patent Dispute

[Guest]

Apple is facing yet another patent dispute.

W3C And Apple Patent in Patent Dispute : Read more

 

[Guest]

lol

 

[gokanis]

Which? W3C? Apple? Both? lol

 

[dman3k]

Go W3C!

 

[socalboomer]

Apple has not commented on the dispute.

Go figure

 

[Enkidu98]

F apple

 

[wintermint]

I don't know why people think Apple are innovating technology .. seems to me that they're cockblockers for other groups xP

 

[phate]

Apple has not commented on the dispute.

What would they say? "We're arseholes that believe we invented everything and will fight anything that might decrease our ability to line Steves pockets."

 

[stingstang]

And yet more unsurprising news about patents. Weeee

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]wintermint[/nom]I don't know why people think Apple are innovating technology .. seems to me that they're cockblockers for other groups xP[/citation]

They don't innovate when it comes to technology (okay, credit where its due: they did in the previous century), they innovate on design. A valid strategy, although it's not my cup of tea.

 

[sundragon]

[citation][nom]wintermint[/nom]I don't know why people think Apple are innovating technology .. seems to me that they're cockblockers for other groups xP[/citation]

Cupcake, Patenting technology you created is part of that thing called Capitalism - you know one of the reasons everyone is switching to it (China to name a few important countries). You patent technology and you make money... GOD forbid people make money off something they created. If they are not willing to let go of the patent, there may be an underlying reason that isn't evident to Toms (obviously) or the rest of us... Now you can go back to trolling

 

[waethorn]

This is why open standards don't work. If you want to innovate, you patent, so as not to lose out on your R&D expenses. Open standards are anti-patent, so they are also anti-innovation, because the real innovators are the ones that do it for financial gain, financial gain being an incentive.

 

[balister]

Sounds like RAMBUS all over again with JEDAC.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]sundragon[/nom]Cupcake, Patenting technology you created is part of that thing called Capitalism - you know one of the reasons everyone is switching to it (China to name a few important countries). You patent technology and you make money... GOD forbid people make money off something they created. If they are not willing to let go of the patent, there may be an underlying reason that isn't evident to Toms (obviously) or the rest of us... Now you can go back to trolling[/citation]

Of course GOD forbid people making money off something they create. In this day and age, we love to villanize those that make money, make those that don't into Saints, while wishing the whole time to have more money than we could ever possibly use, even though it would by definition make us into exactly what we claim to hate. Lets face it.. Most the people here are trolls that are greedy as hell, want something for less than nothing, and want to be rich, and be what we love(but claim to hate), despite having nothing to offer except comments full of blind, uneducated hate.. All the while claiming we as enthusiasts are smarter and better, when nothing could be further from the truth. Own a business, and try and show me that you won't protect your ideas, however small. Welcome to Capitalism, Adulthood, and the American Dream people.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]Waethorn[/nom]This is why open standards don't work. If you want to innovate, you patent, so as not to lose out on your R&D expenses. Open standards are anti-patent, so they are also anti-innovation, because the real innovators are the ones that do it for financial gain, financial gain being an incentive.[/citation]
Just because it's open source doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. Take for example Red Hat.

 

[openi3]

People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(8) carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.
...the patent system was established to encourage inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented products.

- from the GNU manifesto.

See, here's the problem. Because somehow I've patented an idea such as connecting the screen on my phone to a camera on the same phone to view images in real time, I deserve millions for it.
This same patent was thrown out for being just too obvious for me to be rewarded in gazillions of dollars.
Similarly, the cost of copying something digitally is near zero but the royalties are disproportionate to the rewards of creating the IP in many cases.
I'm not anti-capitalist *but* the amount of money spent on protecting something that can be recreated easily is huge.
What would one value the bittorrent network at as a distribution medium? Could one distribute a game over that network say, with a couple of adverts built-in on level loading screens that could cover the costs of the game? Maybe make a profit? I think so.
That should beat steam for instance.
Good questions for the new millennium.

 

[sundragon]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Just because it's open source doesn't mean you can't make money out of it. Take for example Red Hat.[/citation]

Red Hat isn't doing as well as Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, HTC, Nokia, Sony, Nintendo, etc, to name a few... These companies protect their designs and technology because it gives them a unique advantage over competitors... They deserve to do this because they put the resources ($$$) and intelligence to create it. Red Hat licenses Linux to people and companies and provides some support - Nice niche business model, but not the way the world runs... People keep knocking Apple, but without Apple, and Google, we would all be using horrible Windows Vista like products. Each of these companies keeps the other in check with their competitive products. This is great for us. They will fight tooth an nail for any leg up they get over their competition.

 

[pepe2907]

Actually it's all because Apple developed many of the HTML5, while the dumbs in W3C are tryind for years to specify and make usable /and promote as such the XHTML/ although bot the browser industry and web developers mostly refused it. And the major developers and browser makers formed an alternative /with a significant technology contribution by Apple/ alliance who developed a new and much better standard - that's why now W3C should search for ways to work around Apple's patents.

 

[LORD_ORION]

This is why developers need to run the hell away from OpenCL. (If you shovel the crap to the bottom of the pile, OpenCL belongs to Apple)

Work with the W3C to implement a standard, and turn around and say only Apple can use it? What a bunch of crap... that is not how that group operates.

I hope the group blocks apple from patents shared amongst the W3C so they learn their lesson.

 

[pepe2907]

[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]This is why developers need to run the hell away from OpenCL... [/citation]

BULLSHIT, COMPLETE BULLSHIT
What's even common between OpenCL and W3C, HTML /any version and spec./ and web development?
Do you know what OpenCL means? Do you make a difference, between OpenCL and WebCL?