This is a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Sure is! Some hypothetical business might come to harm unless we give them the ability to accuse their competitors of, and punish them for, thought crimes, therefore we must legislate to allow everyone to accuse and punish each other for thought crimes.

Patents are not something that are needed to protect R&D of massive companies. They are however, very much needed to give the small and mid sized companies a fighting chance, and encourage smaller businesses to be willing to even dream of competing.

When Apple or another multi billion dollar company invests 0.0005% of their wealth toward a new idea or concept, and it gets jumped on by a competitor that manages to do a better job with it in the markets, then they're not out a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, and have wealth to fall back on to fight back.

When a small self owned business tries to invest even half as much into something,... well, that is possibly their life's savings, their house, their car, and every last scrap they own. And when a company like apple comes along and says "Oh, neat. We'll have our own version on store shelves world wide and retail for 75% what you're selling in three months." well, the small business owner is screwed.

Patents in and of themselves are not a bad thing. What is bad is how abusive the system has become due to how lax it is in the requirements for granting patents, and the questionable manner in which they have often been enforced.

Patents are not something that are needed to protect R&D of massive companies. They are however, very much needed to give the small and mid sized companies a fighting chance, and encourage smaller businesses to be willing to even dream of competing.

When Apple or another multi billion dollar company invests 0.0005% of their wealth toward a new idea or concept, and it gets jumped on by a competitor that manages to do a better job with it in the markets, then they're not out a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, and have wealth to fall back on to fight back.

When a small self owned business tries to invest even half as much into something,... well, that is possibly their life's savings, their house, their car, and every last scrap they own. And when a company like apple comes along and says "Oh, neat. We'll have our own version on store shelves world wide and retail for 75% what you're selling in three months." well, the small business owner is screwed.

Patents in and of themselves are not a bad thing. What is bad is how abusive the system has become due to how lax it is in the requirements for granting patents, and the questionable manner in which they have often been enforced.

I'm not sure I can agree completely. I think it's primarily a novelty issue in that companies are applying for, and getting, patents for non-novel ideas. It started as a way to defend yourself from patent trolling from others, but it turns out everybody is a troll!

A good counter example for what you're talking about is Intel. A huge part of their success is directly attributed to their RnD. Microsoft and Apple could arguable get by without huge investments into RnD, but a lot of companies exist only because of the protections allowed for the fruits of their RnD.

Still eagerly awaiting what happens next week when the new patent changes come into affect in the US. Specifically other companies being allowed to file for invalidity of other's patents prior to any court cases and defendants being able to demand a trial by an expert board.

Apple may have won the battle, but I heard Samsung's paying in nickels. +1 for the small guy.

The US patent system just got a sizeable overhaul last yeat that's scheduled to take effect in 9 days.[/quote]excellant so that means we'll see no more slide to unlock, one click to buy, store files on the camera in the order you take them etc patents
[/quote]

What possibly led you to that conclusion? It made patents much easier to dispute and more expensive for corporations. In what way does that correlate to more trash patents?
[/quote]
I obviously was being sarcastic.
i.e. WRT US patents a lot of things are granted patents even though they are patently obvious (bad pun), this is its greatest failure, this 'sizable overhaul' is doing nothing to address this

They are however, very much needed to give the small and mid sized companies a fighting chance, and encourage smaller businesses to be willing to even dream of competing.

Do you have any examples of the kind of inventions that small companies need to patent?
e.g. I'm in the software business, and I already protect my inventions via trade-secrets, trade-marks and copyright, but I'm probably narrow-minded to other types of businesses.

Apple may have won the battle, but I heard Samsung's paying in nickels. +1 for the small guy.

Yes, right after they collect 86% of the US's nickels and rent 3000 trucks to carry them.....

What possibly led you to that conclusion? It made patents much easier to dispute and more expensive for corporations. In what way does that correlate to more trash patents?

I obviously was being sarcastic.
[/quote]
Sorry. Patent law is very hard to tell sarcasm on unless it's extreme. A lot of people hold very polarizing and extreme views, so it's easy for sarcasm to come off as just another extreme view. Apologies.

i.e. WRT US patents a lot of things are granted patents even though they are patently obvious (bad pun), this is its greatest failure, this 'sizable overhaul' is doing nothing to address this[/quote]

Givin entities the right to present a case for the invalidity of patents prior to any lawsuits being filed should help some. Really this isn't a problem with the law, as the law shouldn't allow them in the first place afaik. I'd be down for them cracking down on non-novel patents; adding a huge fine if a single entity goes over X number of rejected patents in a year would be great too.

[quote name='Alan Greenspan' timestamp='1347244599' post='4978456']Apple may have won the battle, but I heard Samsung's paying in nickels. +1 for the small guy.

Yes, right after they collect 86% of the US's nickels and rent 3000 trucks to carry them.....
[/quote]

They could offset by paying in some dimes/pennies too so they don't ruin the distribution of the US nickel. Still totally worth it.

Apple may have won the battle, but I heard Samsung's paying in nickels. +1 for the small guy.

Lol, This has got to be my favourite aspect of this. Samsung are the small guy? The same Samsung that has 3 times the equity of Apple and is the 35th largest economy in the world (including countries)?

Yeah, they're a plucky little mom and pop operation against the big bad guy.

And this attitude seems to extend to Android as well. Android, as in the phone os made by Google. The mind boggles.

Hate on apple if you want, but don't pretend the opposition are in any way morally superior.

No, Apple has crossed the red line! Now we all should not support such a narrow minded company anymore.
If a company sues for rounded corners, it can no longer be considered reliable.- Any payments at all are sick!

It will get interesting today with the Iphone 5 and Samsung's reaction...

So, just seen the new iPod Nano design... or the Apple version of the Nokia Lumia as I prefer to think of it which just makes all of this even more stupid :|