“An unfortunate byproduct of being an iconic consumer electronics company sitting on a vast pile of cash: You’re an obvious target for patent-holding companies looking to make a quick buck,” John Paczkowski reports for AllThingsD.
“Which is precisely the position Apple finds itself in these days,” Paczkowski reports. “According to PatentFreedom, which tracks some 710 intellectual-property profiteers, Apple has been on the receiving end of 171-patent troll lawsuits in the past five years.”
Paczkowski reports, “One hundred and seventy-one suits. That’s more than any other company in tech, including Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.”
Read more in the full article here.
Die you gravy-sucking pigs!
Patents: Protecting creativity and innovation by hobbling Apple.
More if you include the patently false claims Apple fights against with Judges Koh and Cote.
There are those who create and build and then there are those who destroy and steal. Aspire to greatness.
Don’t suck. Don’t be a parasite.
1. To draw, or attempt to draw, something by suction, as with the mouth, or through a tube. [1913 Webster]
. . .
4. To be objectionable, of very poor quality, or offensive; as, telemarketing calls really suck; he’s a good actor, but his singing sucks. [Colloq.]
To quote Bob Dylan from ‘It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleading):
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying
Thus my concept of the current self-destructive CRAPitalism in the world of humans. AKA: Be entrepreneurial or die.
Then a small BOMB dropped:
New Zealand kills off software patents while experts question validity
It’s hardly surprising to learn that computing is a billion-dollar industry, and that patents have a part to play in this. In New Zealand, they no longer have that part to play – a new bill states, “A computer program is not a patentable invention.”
For advocates of free and open-source software, this is a major victory. New Zealand is hardly a massive country, but it sets a precedent that could be followed elsewhere in the world.
. . .
David Macaskill, an expert from New Zealand IP law firm James & Wells, states that the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand can now examine patent applications to determine whether they are worthy or not. Those of “dubious inventiveness” are less likely to receive any coverage.
The new bill also changes how patents are treated, moving to a “balance of probabilities”. Previously, the system focused on giving the patentee “the benefit of the doubt”.
. . .
The entire scenario is highly unusual; it is a big shake-up for the generally well-defined realm of intellectual property, patents, and legal disputes. For now, it seems like it could stifle the activities of ‘patent trolls’, though only time will tell.
The article provides a link to the just-passed NZ bill. Now comes the world scrutinization of this new strategy.