We can send men into space, but cant build..

[DeathAxe]

You can also replace Philips with the biggest perpetrator of patent exploitation, Apple.

 

They're even trying to patent having a brick & mortar shop with tables.

 

Apple are a bigger disgrace than Philips are they go after small companies who own patents that they (Apple) want and threaten them with BS litigation, which the small company can't afford so caves and sells the patents dirty cheap.

 

Apple have already ADMITTED openly on camera that they steal other people's ideas. Then they go out and SUE anyone who has a vague similar product/idea.

 

You are correct, but you seem to have given a typical politician answer of blaming someone else for doing the same thing ;-)

 

Back in the days of old cameras, Kodak (I think it was them, not in a position to look it up) held a monopoly on patents and kept suing all the other camera companies. Eventually a judge ruled that they give them up, and leave them open for everyone to use as they were holding back progress.

 

Unfortunately, this cannot happen these days, as the corporations have too much of a hold over the legal system, and the politicians.

[L00b]

Philips are too busy exploiting the patent system, patenting ideas without even having a product to show for the vague idea in the title, later to sue other companies for actually coming up with the technology.

Wrong.

 

They are an IP-based business, to the exact same extent as the UK's posterboy/darlings ARM (who do not, of themselves, have any more products to show than Philips) and, decades before these two and Apple, Big Blue (IBM) which pretty much invented the 'patent-it-all' approach to ring-fencing business interests.

 

It costs money to develop IP. Any IP. So licenses may be granted to monetize the IP, in addition to or as an alternative to the patentee making and selling widgets with that IP. Competitors who simply want to copy the IP without paying for its development (i.e. not taking a license) get in the neck. Rightly so.

Back in the days of old cameras, Kodak (I think it was them, not in a position to look it up) held a monopoly on patents and kept suing all the other camera companies. Eventually a judge ruled that they give them up, and leave them open for everyone to use as they were holding back progress.

That still happens (forcing a patentee to issue licenses of right because pent-up demand is deliberately not being satisfied), and is codified into most patents acts (and International Treaties) the world over.

 

It doesn't happen that often, because -unsurprisingly- patentees, who are well aware of the above, are not exactly looking forward to have a judge wade into and meddle with their business practices, so take care of meeting demand (through their own activities and/or licensees...like Philips, ARM <etc. - you get the gist>)

 

Unfortunately, this cannot happen these days, as the corporations have too much of a hold over the legal system, and the politicians.

Wrong again. It can, and does.

 

Heard about Apple and Samsung lately? How about Qualcomm and Nokia before? Or Nokia and Ericsson before that? Or <etc.>?

 

BTW, did you hear (our very own-) Judge Birss' priceless judgement in the Apple v Samsung UK design infringement case?

 

Philips and other patent heavyweights are also heavily involved in FRAND (Google it) patent pools. Where Philips is concerned, particularly e.g. in relation to MPEG-related IP.

 

Now, that's not saying all is hunky-dory of course. There is certainly a problem with patent trolls, and with consistency of examination quality at the USPTO, but these are US-only issues, thankfully.

[GLASGOWOODS]

Many moons ago. I dropped my phone in the toilet. Got it repaired for free. This is back before the rip off insurance they try and sell you.

 

Was it a "pay-as-you-go" phone?

[DeathAxe]

Was it a "pay-as-you-go" phone?

 

Da-dum-tshhhhh!

 

 

 

As the guy that replied to me, what you are saying is pretty much how I said that it was. Semantics.

 

If anything needed reform, it is the patent system.

[L00b]

As the guy that replied to me, what you are saying is pretty much how I said that it was. Semantics

Not really.

If anything needed reform, it is the patent system.

Again, not really.

 

By and large, it does not need reform. As with all "systems", some minor aspects need tweaking here and there every now and then, as economies and global trade both develop...and so such minor aspects are being continuously tweaked here and there. Apply within for examples

 

What does need reform, however, is education in knowledge-based economies like ours, for more people to understand what IP is (and has always been) and how IP works (and has always worked), in combination with gaining a sufficient grounding in business life and practices (by reason of which the IP system exists and endures in the first place). Preferably at an international scale.

 

That is, rather than stay entrenched with uninformed opinions about a legal system, the workings and purpose of which they do not understand, and only become dimly aware of either on the back of a headline (usually misleading or incorrect) or because the prospective investor asked about it (by which time it is usually too late anyway).

 

That's not a personal criticism, DeathAxe, but an invitation to educate yourself I've been practicing IP law for close to 20 years now, and I'm still learning (about it) every day, and likely always will - because it is being continually tweaked

[Xt500]

A mobile phone which can survive a 3-4ft drop !

 

Id settle for one that works.apparently in 1969 they could make a call from the moon.Without a GSM repeater installed i cant make one from home!