apple

[natty dread]

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/apps/pb ... /308319965

Apple’s lawsuit victory is setback for humans
Related Content

Jobs picture brightens
Stocks rally on jobs data, ECB bond plan
ECB outlines bond-buying program
More than 50 million Americans short of food
Journal Register Co. seeks bankruptcy protection
CT health exchange names CFO, COO

Douglas Rushkoff

Imagine that we were just developing spoken language for the first time. And someone came up with a new word to describe an action, thought or feeling — like "magnify" or "dreadful." But in this strange world, the person who came up with the word demanded that anyone else who used it pay him a dollar every time the word was uttered. That would make it pretty difficult for us to negotiate our way to a society that communicated through speech.

That's the way the patent wars on smartphone and tablet advances are beginning to feel to me.

As a human being, I do not particularly care about Apple's recent victory in the U.S. version of its patent lawsuit against Samsung for copying its iPhone's and iPad's form and features. Now that Apple is demanding that Samsung pull eight of its products off the shelf, my only personal interest is whether the Samsung products, once banned, will become collectors' items. Will I one day want to show my grandchild the phone that dared to mimic the iPhone?

But while the details of legalities, and the impact to share prices, and even consumer choice, don't keep me or any of my friends up at night, there is nonetheless something creepy about Apple's suit. It's not so much that Apple — the biggest company in the world — has turned into a competitive monster; it's the territory that Apple's fighting over. It feels as if the technology innovation wars are no longer over one piece of technology or another, but over us humans.

It's one thing for Apple to defend the look and feel of its phone — things like the little button on the bottom, which seem obvious but are actually the result of a lengthy and painstaking design process. They may deserve a few years' exclusive on stuff like that.

But when it comes to gestures, such as the now ubiquitous "pinch and zoom" technology through which users stretch or shrink pictures and text — well, that no longer feels quite the same. (Apple, of course, has argued in its court case that they are the same; the company spent time and money on both sorts of research, it says, and doesn't believe the results should be copied by others.)

They are gestures that may have begun on the device, but now have become internalized, human movements. That's because these gestures are not simply technological innovations, but the language through which we humans are coming to navigate our way through the emerging digital landscape. We take to gestures and movements that grow out of the ones we use here in the real world. To translate them into the digital realm well requires skill, but the gestures themselves are not the typical territories — like land masses — over which corporations have traditionally fought. They're inside us.

Usually, advancements of this sort are developed through consortia of companies. The HTML standards through which the Web is rendered are not owned by a single company, but developed together and used by everyone. Imagine if one musical instrument company owned the patent on the piano keyboard, and another on the tuning of a violin. Or what if every typewriter company had to develop its own layout of letters?

While Apple deserves to be rewarded for the innovations it comes up with, there's a limit to how far into our learned behaviors the company should be awarded protection from competitors. Our transition toward a digitally functioning society is no less momentous than the shift from grunters to speakers, or from speakers to readers and writers. As such, it will require an equally cooperative spirit from the people and companies who take us there.

Douglas Rushkoff is a media theorist and the author of "Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age." He writes a column for CNN.

[natty dread]

BBS, why did you abandon me? Greekie's no fun anymore.

[natty dread]

Wait wait wait.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry.

"If other companies abused the patent system similarly". If? IF?

Are you fucking kidding me? The patent system is being abused constantly. Ever heard of patent trolls?

[thegreekdog]

Wait wait wait.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry.

"If other companies abused the patent system similarly". If? IF?

Are you fucking kidding me? The patent system is being abused constantly. Ever heard of patent trolls?

No I haven't. You know why I haven't? Not enough people care.

Analogy time: Bob opens up a lemonade stand. Jim opens up a competing lemonade stand and patents technology such that Bob can no longer run his lemonade stand. People can still get lemonade for a price they can afford. No one cares. The end.

[john9blue]

No I haven't. You know why I haven't? Not enough people care.

Analogy time: Bob opens up a lemonade stand. Jim opens up a competing lemonade stand and patents technology such that Bob can no longer run his lemonade stand. People can still get lemonade for a price they can afford. No one cares. The end.

there are so many directions one could go with this analogy...

for starters, let's say that i spend years inventing new technology that makes lemonade way tastier. i start a business using my new machine, but it turns out that bob's technology has some key similarities to mine. bob sues me and i can no longer sell lemonade. bob continues to hold a near-monopoly on the lemonade market with his inferior technology.

[Army of GOD]

Wait wait wait.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry.

"If other companies abused the patent system similarly". If? IF?

Are you fucking kidding me? The patent system is being abused constantly. Ever heard of patent trolls?

No I haven't. You know why I haven't? Not enough people care.

Analogy time: Bob opens up a lemonade stand. Jim opens up a competing lemonade stand and patents technology such that Bob can no longer run his lemonade stand. People can still get lemonade for a price they can afford. No one cares. The end.

It's hard for me to see why this isn't a problem to you, I guess. Since Jim owns the lemonade market and can keep his monopoly legally because of his patent, he can raise the prices to whatever he wants given there's a demand, right?

[john9blue]

Wait wait wait.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry.

"If other companies abused the patent system similarly". If? IF?

Are you fucking kidding me? The patent system is being abused constantly. Ever heard of patent trolls?

No I haven't. You know why I haven't? Not enough people care.

Analogy time: Bob opens up a lemonade stand. Jim opens up a competing lemonade stand and patents technology such that Bob can no longer run his lemonade stand. People can still get lemonade for a price they can afford. No one cares. The end.

It's hard for me to see why this isn't a problem to you, I guess. Since Jim owns the lemonade market and can keep his monopoly legally because of his patent, he can raise the prices to whatever he wants given there's a demand, right?

doesn't matter; people will still buy it as long as he sells his lemonade in shiny white cups that only fit into jim-brand cup holders

p.s. yes i'm mad

[natty dread]

Wait wait wait.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry.

"If other companies abused the patent system similarly". If? IF?

Are you fucking kidding me? The patent system is being abused constantly. Ever heard of patent trolls?

No I haven't. You know why I haven't? Not enough people care.

BLUHBLUH

You're like a broken record.

Analogy time: Bob opens up a lemonade stand. Jim opens up a competing lemonade stand and patents technology such that Bob can no longer run his lemonade stand. People can still get lemonade for a price they can afford. No one cares. The end.

Oh, so that's how the free market works! I get it now, free market means bob can freely sell his lemonade without those nasty unamerican things like "competition" getting in his way. Gotcha!

[thegreekdog]

Of for f*ck's sake. I'm not saying I don't care. I'm saying the vast majority of people don't care. Obviously I care else I would not have read this thread. Obviously I care because I support antitrust laws. Obviously I care because I'm a fucking libertarian. I was not being sarcastic when I said I wish you luck.

I'm not arguing that it's right. I'm not arguing that Apple is doing something above board. I'm arguing that not enough people or politicians care enough to do anything about it.

My lemonade stand example is a great analogy. Should we care? Yes. It violates the basic tenets of competition that is relevant for capitalism to flourish. I would care. But most people buying lemonade for what they deem to be a cheap price would not care.

So yeah, I'm like a broken record because you can't seem to get the concept through your head that in order for Congress to do something, people must care enough to make Congress care enough. And that hasn't happened.

[natty dread]

So if the congress doesn't care, why are there congresspeople who are trying to push a patent reform act?

Granted, it's not nearly enough to fix the patent system, but at least it shows that someone in the congress is aware of the issue.

[thegreekdog]

So if the congress doesn't care, why are there congresspeople who are trying to push a patent reform act?

Granted, it's not nearly enough to fix the patent system, but at least it shows that someone in the congress is aware of the issue.

I think you've answered your own question AND made my point. Again, not saying some people aren't aware; saying most people don't care.

[maxfaraday]

TGD, when you say "no-one cares", it makes me think of a few lines by Bertolt Bretch...
I can't remember the title but it said something like that:

When they came for the communists, I didn't care for I am not a communist.
When they came for the artists I didn't care for I am not an artist.
When they came for the Jews I didn't care for I am not a Jew.
(etceteara)
When they came for me there was no-one left to care about me.

[thegreekdog]

TGD, when you say "no-one cares", it makes me think of a few lines by Bertolt Bretch...
I can't remember the title but it said something like that:

When they came for the communists, I didn't care for I am not a communist.
When they came for the artists I didn't care for I am not an artist.
When they came for the Jews I didn't care for I am not a Jew.
(etceteara)
When they came for me there was no-one left to care about me.

Yes, Natty brought up Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews earlier in the thread.

I will reiterate what I told him: this is a great analogy, not blown out of proportion at all, and is completely not highly repulsive or disgusting.

[natty dread]

TGD, you're reverse-godwining here, ie. asserting that an analogy is invalid because it involves nazis

[thegreekdog]

TGD, you're reverse-godwining here, ie. asserting that an analogy is invalid because it involves nazis

No, no. It's an awesome analogy. I constantly compare patent law infringement to killing Jews.

[natty dread]

patent law infringement

no

[maxfaraday]

TGD you're missing the point.
The analogy is not about the nazis, that's just a coincidence, it's about "nobody cares".
Yes it's a bit extreme but it's still valid.

[thegreekdog]

TGD you're missing the point.
The analogy is not about the nazis, that's just a coincidence, it's about "nobody cares".
Yes it's a bit extreme but it's still valid.

I'm not missing the point. I understand the analogy.

Here's why no one cares. In the scheme of someone's every day life, whether or not Apple is successful in infringement actions against Samsung is largely irrelevant. The individual does not feel any pain associated with Apple's success or any pleasure associated with Apple's failure. If Apple became successful, and as a result, could inflict pain on individuals, the individuals would begin to care. Until that happens, most people in the United States will not care about the results of Apple's patent infringement law suits or that Apple patents items that it hasn't yet products.

So, for the sixth time, I agree that Apple is engaged in unfair practices. I am simply pointing out that the story is not getting play because people aren't feeling the pain and simply do not care. And, unlike in your analogy, in the United States when people do begin to feel the pain, they can do something about it - they can pressure their politicians to fix the problem. Unfortunatley, gypsys, homosexuals, and Jews didn't have that option.

[Army of GOD]

Godwin's law. Please lock this thread.

[natty dread]

AoG,

Here's why no one cares. In the scheme of someone's every day life, whether or not Apple is successful in infringement actions against Samsung is largely irrelevant. The individual does not feel any pain associated with Apple's success or any pleasure associated with Apple's failure. If Apple became successful, and as a result, could inflict pain on individuals, the individuals would begin to care. Until that happens, most people in the United States will not care about the results of Apple's patent infringement law suits or that Apple patents items that it hasn't yet products.

People care if they're not able to buy the products they want (ie. Samsung phones/tablets) because of Apple's criminal actions. Android devices already control over 50% of the market share of the tablet/smartphone market, so obviously they're more popular than Apple devices. So obviously people care about them.

[Army of GOD]

why is that girl naked?

[rdsrds2120]

Here's why no one cares. In the scheme of someone's every day life, whether or not Apple is successful in infringement actions against Samsung is largely irrelevant. The individual does not feel any pain associated with Apple's success or any pleasure associated with Apple's failure. If Apple became successful, and as a result, could inflict pain on individuals, the individuals would begin to care. Until that happens, most people in the United States will not care about the results of Apple's patent infringement law suits or that Apple patents items that it hasn't yet products.

People care if they're not able to buy the products they want (ie. Samsung phones/tablets) because of Apple's criminal actions. Android devices already control over 50% of the market share of the tablet/smartphone market, so obviously they're more popular than Apple devices. So obviously people care about them.

Which is the cruel irony of it all. They will only start to care once it's too late (assuming Apple had won and these devices were taken off).

BMO

[thegreekdog]

AoG,

Here's why no one cares. In the scheme of someone's every day life, whether or not Apple is successful in infringement actions against Samsung is largely irrelevant. The individual does not feel any pain associated with Apple's success or any pleasure associated with Apple's failure. If Apple became successful, and as a result, could inflict pain on individuals, the individuals would begin to care. Until that happens, most people in the United States will not care about the results of Apple's patent infringement law suits or that Apple patents items that it hasn't yet products.

People care if they're not able to buy the products they want (ie. Samsung phones/tablets) because of Apple's criminal actions. Android devices already control over 50% of the market share of the tablet/smartphone market, so obviously they're more popular than Apple devices. So obviously people care about them.

So why don't they care now?

[natty dread]

who says they don't

[BigBallinStalin]

A more fundamental question is:

assuming that most people, or some large number people, care, then so what?

As in, if it doesn't affect profit margins significantly, then the expression of one's disproval does not matter.


Think of two values. (A) = anti-apple sentiment, (B) = perceived benefits minus costs of buying an Apple product. If (B) > (A), then the expression of disapproval or care will not matter--for apple. If A > B, then the expression of disapproval will matter because more people will not buy apple products.

How many people belong in either side? Who knows, time will tell.


RE: viewership. If one is of the anti-apple persuasion, it won't matter if he/she is already going to buy a non-apple product. So the observation of "care" from views on whatever article does not reflect the attitudes of the relevant target markets for apple.

If one wishes to assert that since people care about this issue, then it'll hurt apple's profitability, it may be false because the observed data does includes more than apple's specific target markets (i.e. customer bases).


Then there's the issue of apple filing for an injunction against its competitors to prohibit them from producing "their" own products.


(natty, I like your response to mine... I have to condense basic economics into it, so... how can I teach you economics in less than <300 words and through this slow clunky forum--compared to speech? Be patient ).