[rumpelstiltskin]

How is Google’s argument here different than simply demanding that Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al should simply sit back and let Google do whatever it wants with Android, regardless of the patents they hold?

And why should it be different? The fact of the matter is that the idea of Google going after Apple, Microsoft etc for violating Google's patents isn't even an issue. Wanna know why? Because Google's competing on the merit of the product. It's letting the customers make the choice b/w the Microsoft OS and Android.

Whereas if Microsoft had it's way, the customer wouldn't even have a choice. Thats the real difference.

[doe88]

But what about if the "merit" of the product is based on innovation developed by others?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Then it's more choices for the customer. Nothing's stopping the original 'innovator' from bring his product to market as well.

[itg]

Then what incentive does the original company have in spending time & money into R&D to develop new products when some other company can just rip them off?

[nextparadigms]

Why do most people or companies start a new business? Because they acquired the patent for it? No. It's because of consumer demand or the possibility of creating a new market, in which case you actually want others to copy you, because they validate your idea. Usually, new product categories sound pretty crazy at first, but by having others copy you, they're basically giving you social proof for your business, and saying you're not crazy for making that type of product.

[mhw]

> Usually, new product categories sound pretty crazy at first, but by having others copy you, they're basically giving you social proof for your business, and saying you're not crazy for making that type of product.

Ah, of course. Because everyone held off buying the iPad until all these Android devices turned up and validated the whole product category. You're on to something there, you know.

[nextparadigms]

I don't think there are that many companies out there that can turn a "big iPod touch" into a success, especially not a startup. People are much more willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt and try their products than they would be with a startup or with most other companies.

This is why I want to laugh when companies like HP and others think they just need their own OS, and then they can be just like Apple. Apple has a lot of other advantages and factors working for them, that the other companies can't easily replicate.

The whole world spins around copying others and putting our own spin on it. 99% is copying, 1% is innovation. Thinking otherwise will not be compatible with reality.

http://vimeo.com/25380454

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22380510974/why-im...

[v21]

I'm not sure that's as pertinent a question as "do patents stop your ideas from being ripped off?" And as it currently stands, I think the answer to that is no. But I also see companies innovating like mad. Maybe the pace would be even faster with better protections, but I am sceptical.

[icebraining]

The profit to be made between the time the original product launches, and the copies appear. This keeps companies on their toes instead of launching once and milking it for twenty years.

[mikeash]

Do you think Apple would have decided not to make the iPhone if they hadn't been able to patent aspects of it?

Other companies are trying desperately to match the iPhone, and failing. As far as I can tell, their failure to match it has nothing to do with patents.

[pcj]

What choice? Oh wait, you mean what kind of Ads you would receive :P?

On a serious note though, assume that you have a sandwich shop and your business is of course to sell sandwich (not free) and people flock to you for your tasty sandwiches. Now, if I open a Sandwich shop that gives away free sandwiches and it also tastes pretty much (close to 85%) like your sandwiches (say, i was inspired by your sandwiches, but i don't acknowledge publicly) and make money out of the numerous solicitors selling all kinds of things (you can decline to buy stuff, but they're always in-your-face) that are in and around my shop. Now, why would customers go to you if I sell the same (pretty much) sandwich for free?

Does it mean that I am a philanthropist because I give away free sandwiches to the people? And because I am doing a charity (technically), does it mean that you should not sue me?

That said, patent troll (like Lordsys) is entirely different issue. However, I don't think Apple has a choice here. It is trying to defend its business, and the only legal way it can do it is through these stupid patents.

Edit - Instead of just down-voting, why not elaborate?

[orangecat]

Does it mean that I am a philanthropist because I give away free sandwiches to the people?

No. It does mean that the people who choose to eat at your place are better off. Those who stay at the first shop probably are too, because competition will force them to improve their sandwiches. That's exactly how the free market is supposed to work.