Well then I guess you don't use wifi or ethernet ports then? They must scare you. I mean who the fuck came up with electrical standards anyways. Those IEEE guys - bunch of goofs. That USB port? Fuck that, it doesn't need a standard. /sarcasm

Then id still be zooming in and out using an inferior method. If some company patented a joystick back in the 80s and told everyone else to suck a dick we'd all still be using d pads to play our video games, that's not innovation it's being selfish.

You should get royalties if someone uses your idea and you should get rich off it, but to hoard it seems like a playground bully who won't share toys because they want everything for themselves.

Groklaw? ROFL. They are well known as being Anti-Apple and Anti-MS. Do you have anything to add of your own, or are you only capable of posting what others say?

Did you even read my reply to Lomac above? Companies who develop IP used in things like WiFi or USB offered their patents to be used to form a standard. They approach organizations like IEEE to use their IP and in exchange they agree to abide by FRAND rules.

IEEE has no right or authority to go to a company and say "we're going to use this technology to implement a standard, and there's nothing you can do about it."

For humanity? Are you kidding me? Apple didn't invent a cure for cancer. They invented a gadget. Something that is 100% luxury and 0% necessity. It's a fancy toy people like to use. How is withholding a feature used on a "toy" bad for humanity?

Maybe we should start taking money away from the wealthy while we're at it? It's no good for humanity to have people starving on the streets while others are dropping $1,000 on a fancy meal and driving home in their Ferrari afterwards. How dare they keep money they've earned - they should distribute it for everyone to use.

Yeah Bill Gates should have never given a cent to charity either, he earned that money let him be buried in it all when he dies too, fuck everyone else who could use it.

Dude, shut the f*ck up. You provide s*itty feedback on the laptops section, and now this?

Just out of curiosity, are there problems with what Groklaw posted? I don't know the site at all, and I don't know if they are or are not anti-apple/anti-MS. The article DOES bring up the same points that many felt when the verdict was released (eg. the speed at which the verdict was reached given the complexity of the form which surprised even Apple's own lawyers, the inconsistencies with the $ amounts awarded, the quotes afterwards from the jury foreman, etc.)

Even if they ARE biased does that mean the points should be just written off? Not trying to pick on you, but given the fact that you are an iOS developer (I assumed that was your self-made youtube clip), you are clearly biased as well, so should your points be simply ignored?

^ Groklaw is trying to make a big issue out of a small mistake. There was a table filled with devices in the jury room, and jurors picked each one up and used it to see if it infringed. It would be a simple procedure to have a list of things to check for, and then grab a device and run through the list. Then repeat this procedure for the next device and so on.

This is why the jury verdict form was so long. It might have had 700 questions, but they were not 700 unique questions. They were the same 35 questions repeated over for 20 devices (as an example). It makes sense that once they knew how to approach each question with the first device that it would be easy to duplicate their "testing" with subsequent devices.

If you look at the jury verdict, there were certain devices found to not infringe certain patents. They didn't "flip a coin" as Groklaw implies. If you pick up the same devices and compare them to ones that infringe you can detect the differences. This is proof that the jury spent time with each device to determine individually which parts they infringed.

Considering all the similar devices (how many different versions of the Galaxy does Samsung sell under various names?) it's possible someone wrote down something in the wrong spot on the verdict form by accident. This mistake was spotted and corrected, and no other mistakes have been found. In other words, it's an honest mistake that Samsung and Groklaw would like to spin to show incompetence on the jury's part.

They go on to highlight that the jury wanted to "do something more than a slap on the wrist", implying they were beyond their rights to come up with the $1 billion sum. They conveniently forgot to show the jury foreman's comment about Apple saying that Apple's demands for $2.5 billion were "extraordinarily high". They came up with a sum that was a compromise between Apple's ridiculously high demands and Samsung's ridiculously low demands.

Finally, they forget one important fact: when people go over what juries talked about or how they come to their decisions people always find inconsistencies. This is normal and common. What's important is what they decided in the court, not what their feelings are about it afterwards or how they individually repsond to differently worded questions posed by reporters all with their own agenda. Groklaw is trying to imply that jury members making different comments somehow means the entire process is flawed.


What does giving to charity have to do with protecting your IP? Microsoft still vigorously goes after anyone violating their IP and demands licenses for it. As do all companies.

Yeah they say pay me and I'll let you use this feature, what a concept!

so a site is anti-trust and therefore they are uncredible.

Because apple

the concept is the same.
cure for cancer.
pinch and zoom.
invent the wheel. whatever idea you can throw in.
it doesnt matter.
you cant judge what idea is worthy to be shared and what isn't.

an idea is an idea.


a gadget isnt 100% luxury.

you're looking at this from such a personal and subjective view point.

if you think an iphone or whatever is "100% luxury"

then i guess you can go live in a hole in a ground, and go hunting for your food.

cuz everything you're doing now, everything you're using, living for, is "100% luxury".

the job you work, the computer you're typing on, the money you have in your pocket.
all those things are just contributing toward more "luxury" only themes. the money you make and what you spend it on, most of the things you do in your daily life, are all contributing to "luxury" things that are not "necessities". if we lived in a world where only "necessities" mattered, then we should just all be in "the matrix" like tubes, where we do nothing but sit around and tubes constantly feed us nutrition and keep us alive. cuz really, being alive is all you need if you're talking about necessity right?


a necessity is anything that is required for you to function at an acceptable level in a social/collective setting.
im sorry, but grandma using her "dumb" phone, is not considered functional any more.

im sorry, anti social trench coat mafia types, that choose not to have cellphones, or use the internet or whatever, isnt considered acceptable in a social setting.

i don't know about you, but when was the last time you hung out with someone that didn't have a phone? or didn't know how to use wikipedia, or know how to search up information instantly on the spot and apply it?
im sure we all have. but those people are annoying. beyond the scope of what knowledge they have to offer through personal discussion, you don't really have a use for them.
hard to contact, hard to talk to (no email? no instant messaging? c'mon), basically, yeah they choose to live some backward life, and i have no problem with that, but don't drag everyone else down with you.
if you choose to live with society, and you want to participate, you have to keep up with everyone else.

you see where im getting at?

every peice of technology/"gadget"/toy or "luxury" item is part of the tree/process of technological integration into our society.

its not a LUXURY.

you know what a luxury is? a luxury is having a gold plated fork, vs a stainless steel fork. the fork itself is not a luxury.

a necessity isn't defined by "what keeps you alive" ok.

it depends on the social/environment setting and what is required from you to be a functioning human being in those settings.

-a haircut and shower is a necessity for you to function as a socially acceptable non stinking bummish looking human in society.
-a hard hat is a necessity on a construction site for safety.
-retardedly expensive and light weight products used on formula 1 cars, and olympic athletes are NECESSITIES for them, they NEED those items to compete in their respective circles.
-a computer is a necessity in learning now where it wasnt 20 years ago (i don't need to explain this one).
-flat panel screens are becoming industry standard in every single device that displays anything.
-TOUCH panel screens are increasingly integrated into society.
-THEREFORE PINCH AND ZOOM (the most effective and naturally easiest to understand without "learning"), is a necessity because people will be using it ALL the god damn time for EVERYTHING you can imagine.

from zooming into a naked pic of a woman.
to zooming into maps.
for engineers and architects to zoom in and out of blueprints.
for medical professionals to zoom in and out of MRI scans etc.
it can be applied for military purposes
space programs

dude i can go on forever.

dude the pinch and zoom function is so fucking simple and effective, PRIMATES CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

you really really think an iphone is PURELY luxury?

i can throw out another idea.
what if they invent some device like an iphone that is 1000x cheaper.

every kid in africa or whatever disadvantaged nation can have one for cheap.
it can be an integral learning device.

you're telling me they're not allowed to have pinch and zoom because that "cheap" smart phone they get isnt an apple product? are you fucking kidding me?


a simple gesture like pinch and zoom can become or already is integral to almost every single touch device.
these touch devices go beyond apple products.
they can be or already are used in all different fields of work.


we already take money away from the wealthy, it's called tax. and the tax is hella high if you haven't noticed.
they do distribute it. they distribute it in a fairest amount we can agree on right now. again, we call it tax.

so the same idea for "patents". you must share the idea. licencing.
i totally don't mind the person that invented it collecting royalties or whatever from all the licencing, but THEY MUST SHARE IT.

you cant keep it all for yourself and not ANYONE use it. that is just fucking retarded dude.
if you want to keep an idea to yourself and not share it, you have to go live alone, away from society, and the invention and idea will die along with you. it will become worthless, and useless, and forgotten, like the person that died with it.


dude, all i can say is, i cannot convince you. it's very obvious that your views come from someone that practices a life of introversion. you are unable to discuss or think of any idea without including where "the self" stands.

but what you can change is your perspective of how things are applied. your views are super short sighted. everything revolves around the "here and now" of things/of practical application.

your level of your awareness is really limited. you don't seem to see how your ideas and your "way of thinking" on this patent war affects others. again, you consider the self first. and you dont seem to be able to see beyond the self or a few branches beyond where you stand.

the world is bigger than that. the world and human beings last longer than just your lifetime. we want technology and innovation to be accelerated as fast as possible. not to be hindered and not shared.

we already had 1000 years of backwardation from the dark ages, we don't need any other ridiculous zealous self serving ideas to hold humanity back even for 1 second.

i don't think you know what innovation means.
it means being able to copy something, and make it better.

someone copied a stone/wooden solid wheel, and turned it into a wooden wheel, with spokes. then WE thought, oh we can made the outer layer out of rubber. and now they have crazy ass wheels that cant be popped and self re inflate and all that other shit.
and guess what, the construction of those wheels needed someone to invent METHODS of carving wood, or making rubber molds, or whatever. what if all those ideas were patented and the inventors DIDNT LET ANYONE USE THOSE METHODS.

how can you be SO sure pinch and zoom cannot lead to other things? can you see the future? can you predict the chaotic and random path of nature for the next 100 years? you cant even predict it for the next week. how can you with hold such an idea when you cannot even fully predict how it can be potentially used?

are you fucking kidding me for real?

can you really NOT see how everything is connected? every single idea, or concept that ANY HUMAN BEING COMES UP WITH, is based on the hundreds of thousands of years of innovation, of people copying and borrowing ideas. people come up with ideas, formulas, methods that create new things everyday.
those ideas are shared, and because of that sharing, these new inventions are possible.

anything you create, did not come purely from you. it came from the collective power of humanity.

listen, i don't care someone invents a way to give yourself instant orgasms, or if they invent a method for immortality.

the weight is the same. the concept is the same.

patents only slow down the inevitable. this world is full of hungry ,creative, innovative and aggressive human beings.
you can only hold back an idea or the truth for so long.

eventually someone is going figure a way around your selfishness and steal it or if it comes down to it, forcefully take it or beat it out of your dead body.

you're only delaying it for as long as the patent lasts or you can hide the secret.
doesn't that seem kind of pointless and stupid? you're holding the flood gates shut, for a temporary period, just so you can reap the benefits (until you die/patent expires etc whatever).

let me ask you, if money was abolished, we have a system where money is basically useless.
would you still withhold that idea?

if your answer is no, then this whole discussion is based on ego and greed. based on pride and monetary reasons.

if the answer is yes, then you're either a egotistical prideful selfish man, or you have some social insecurity and fear society in some aspect.

listen, unless you can list out to me, all the pros of how keeping an idea all for yourself, is beneficial to humanity as a whole, in the short and long term (long term being the foreseeable and the unforeseeable future), and have that list of pros go on much longer than the pros of sharing it for humanity, i don't think you have a very feasible argument.



you have to remember, the smallest events, no matter how futile or simple they seem, can have the greatest impact on the thought process of the creative mind.

i am sure you can refer back to your own childhood when one can arguably say we were more creative.
im sure you can think of or reflect on a time where the smallest thing, such as, perhaps a gesture, lead to some other idea. now you can imagine that scenario being played out over billions and billions of lives, with people much smarter or much more creative than we both ever were. you cannot predict what they can do with the application of another persons idea. but i do know, if you restrict it, they will do nothing with it.

^ Holy f*ck.

listen, if you've ever patented something, and reaped the benefits of it, im sure you can say credit has to be given to you teachers, the schools you've been to, every technique and formula you've been taught, every bit of input and experience you've ever had in your life to shape you to become who you are (which is basically every single nano second that has passed in your life).

im sure all those people that have taught you anything to do with your invention, wouldn't mind a cut of what they deserve.

yet they don't get a single penny... why?

did they not contribute to the creation of YOU which contributed to your creation?

im sure any decent human being would give their parents a lot, but what is the reason? mainly because they raised you, they had a big impact on your life and which direction it took. yet you don't give credit to everyone else that has helped shaped your life? no matter how small? everything is connected step by step, event to event. nothing comes out of nothing.

i don't know what else to say man.

so the rappers have it right when they accept an award?
they get on stage with everyone they know...start off at the top by thanking God, and then work their way down with shout outs to everyone all the way down to every person that lives on their block?

:troll:

and ulic strikes......

Ulic, so what you're basically saying is that any concept, any prototype, etc., should automatically become public domain? I find this a little odd, especially considering how you used to prattle on about humankind and their habits. If I create a new camera crane remote head, I don't want my competitor to take the exact same design and use it as their own. I suddenly don't have any incentive to be creative anymore and design something new. Instead I'll simply steal someone else's design and sell it as my own. Maybe I'll build it with less quality parts and mark the price at 3/4 of what the inventor is selling it at.

That sounds a bit like communism, and we all know how well that ideology works in real life.

Humankind thrives on gain, plain and simple. Yes, there are always plenty of exceptions, but the majority of people out there will not do something if they don't get some sort of personal or financial gain from it. If there's no reward then there's no real desire to create.

The reward is getting royalties from every camera they sell using your technology. Getting rich off other peoples products being sold sounds pretty awesome to me.

There's a difference between making something better and copying lol

from what i remember for a law & ethics test i took a few years back on patents (at least in Canada) you can't patent the idea, only the method/technology to execute the idea...

But if my product becomes popular, I don't want my product to be automatically set up to be licenced under law. I want the option to choose whether I allow other companies to use my design or not.

Just as there's a difference between copying the pinch/zoom and making something else/better.

I was watching that show Shark Tank awhile back and this dude claimed to have a patent for holes in the pockets of your jacket for wires to go through to use your electronic devices...if you can patent something that fucking stupid then there's clearly a problem with the patenting system right now.

Ulic, I wish we lived in your world where all people did was contribute to the common good for all mankind. Let's take the entire GDP of our nation and equally divide it up among all the people that live here. In fact, screw nations. Let's take the entire GDP of the world and distribute it to every single person living in it. Everyone is equal.

The fact that some people produce 2-3 times as much as another person doesn't matter - they won't feel any resentment at all that they're doing more work or that they are in effect supporting people who have less than them. Likewise, the scientists and inventors can freely take money from the pool of humanity and use it for their research and development so they can come up with ideas to better everyone's lives.

And the "common person" won't mind at all that what they produce through daily labour is being funneled away to these "elites". They will fully trust that they will make the best of the increased resources going to them and every penny will be used solely for the purpose of improving humanity.

Come on, do you actually believe any of what you wrote?


I have a patent application still going on. None of my teachers deserves any credit for what I came up with at all. Should an English teacher that explains verbs and nouns to you get credit if later on you have an idea for a spy novel that goes on to become a NY Times bestseller? Should the person who taught you how to use a word processor get credit as well? Absolutely not.

You can't give someone a talent. I play a few instruments (well, I don't play - I can make them emit sounds that resemble a song). I have to work my ass off to make something sound good. My daughter takes piano lessons, and in a few months she's already surpassed my ability by long shot. I also can't sing worth shit. My daughter has perfect pitch. She sure didn't inherit any of those abilities from me. And she sure as hell didn't get them from any teacher. It sounds unfair, but some people are just better than others. They are born with the right genes. They are good looking, smart, creative or athletic. Things that we have to work hard at come naturally to them.

I've said this numerous times on RS and I'll repeat it again:

A lot of people don't agree with that. They don't think it's fair that someone else has more than they do or that they were able to use their talents to get further ahead. I think it's perfectly fair.




Let's go back to the iPhone as a luxury item. I should re-phrase that. A smartphone is a necessity for many people, but certain features are no more than luxuries as you can still make a smartphone without them. Apple owns the rights to pinch/zoom. If Samsung takes their latest flagship phone, the GS3, and replaces pinch/zoom with another gesture (like the ones I presented), then what are we left with?

- It still has a 4.8" HD screen.
- It can still send and receive text messages.
- It can still be used for e-mail.
- It can still access Google Apps/services.
- It can still browse the web.
- It can still do turn-by-turn navigation.
- It can still run thousands of Apps for various functions.
- It can operate over WiFi, 3G or 4G networks.
- It can still take high-quality pictures and HD video clips.
- You can still use voice commands.
- It still syncs contacts or e-mails with your office.
- It still has cloud storage for your data.
- It still has a memory card slot for expandable storage.
- It can still be used for NFC payments.
- It can connect to Bluetooth devices or your car.
- It can still play loads of games.
- It can still access Google Play.

In short, it still does 99.9% of what it could before, the only difference is having to use a different gesture for pinch/zoom. Are you going to tell me that switching zoom gestures is going to make the phone unusable? That people are going to go "OMG, I have to do that to zoom?"



I know you'd like the world to be some utopian paradise. But it's not. So why are you using morals from an imaginary world to talk about a court case that's happening in the real world?

you should have to licence it to whoever wanted to use it, if the design is actually useful and makes your life easier than whatever current design is out.

if your competitor can make the exact same thing for 3/4th the price and quality, and STILL have it be more successful than your original product, your product was flawed in price. if someone steals the idea and makes it better, then they made it better plain and simple. you helped create that idea. what more do you want me to say? you still get royalties. what more do you want?

if you make something and someone eles copies it and some people buy it, doesnt it just mean they like that product more? they prefer it because of the price? or whatever other detail over yours? whats wrong with that? if they wanted YOURS they'd go buy it. but obviously the competitor has made it more desirable to certain customers. are they really stealing your customers? or are they just providing another option to a device that is similar.


you do have an incentive to be creative, you make money of royalties.
YOU INVENTED IT AND SHARED IT WITH THE WORLD. what MORE do you want?

you suddenly might not have incentive to be creative any more, but someone else will. and they'll make it regardless of how you feel. and then someone else will try to rip it off regardless.

you wouldn't be stealing any idea, you would be buying a licence to produce the product with the same design.

plus stealing ideas, if you cant steal it here, just go to the other side of the world and do it.

so now you sue your competitor and they cant make your camera here in north america.

what's stopping you from going to china, or anywhere else in the world and doing it?

you're NOT STOPPING ANYTHING, we live in a GLOBAL world.


i didn't say it should AUTOMATICALLY be public domain. you can keep it a secret forever, and not let anyone know about it, or keep it a secret between you and your friends.

once u release something in to the public, it IS public knowledge.
it becomes part of the collective whole. that's a fact. you cannot stop it with patents, or force or whatever. it just becomes part of our history regardless of who invented it. anyone will have free reign over it whether you like it or not!

you can sue the shit out of them, but other people will keep doing it. you can sue the shit out of everyone that copies you but you're not gonna be able to sue people at the rate which they rip it off.

keeping an idea from the public, is the same thing as keeping drugs from druggies.
they're gonna get their hands on it no matter what you do. its inevitable.

the worst case scenario is they have to wait till the patent expires, which means a decade or two of innovation that could have stemmed directly from that one design.




when private 3d printers become widely avaliable, what the fuck are designers gonna do about their greed and pride huh?

everyone is gonna be able to print whatever the fuck they want.

you think the designs are gonna be "sold"? yeah maybe for corporate legal reasons.
but everyone else like me and you will just download the design from the internet, and print out whatever design we fucking want. people will download patented ideas, they will add and modify it, they WILL come up with better designs BASED on the original patents without licences without authorization. and there is not a single fucking thing anyone can do about it.

what are you gonna do? BAN 3d PRINTERS? give me a break.

we're in an age where collectivity is of higher priority. no one cares who came up with the idea, no one cares how hard it took to design it, they only care about the end product, and where other people can take it.


there is no ME or I. your idea, is our idea, our idea, is your idea. ideas are immortalized.
i know people will disagree with the above statement, but the fact is, what the fuck are they gonna do?
all they can do is disagree at a personal feeling level, everyone else will go on copying ideas and making them better. not a single fuck will be given.



WHY?

i don't know about you, but what you just described sounds like how the world works already.
the common person already doesnt mind what they produce and do every day is funneled away to the elites. lol

99.9% of you all work jobs, where the money is funnelled up. you're programmed to have pride and all that in the work you do, in the end all you're really doing is contributing to the economy and people at the top that have some sort of control on the economy and where it's heading.

the guys at the top do think they're improving humanity.

they're like you.
they think its best the way it is, where they have absolute power. and you don't.

if you were at the top, nothing would change man. because your view, is EXACTLY the same.

absolute power is something no man should have if you want progress as a whole.

yes i believe every word i write. im an idealist.

the real world is subjective, dreams are objective.

without ideals, we would have no dreams to chase and warp this physical world into.

you do wish you live in the ideal world, yet you blatantly choose to work against that ideal and move away from it. it's never going to happen if you don't believe it.

you keep going back to the subject of money.

if the world was equal, there would be no money. the concept of equality and money and wealth, doesnt work. at all.

the argument isnt about money. i already said you would have to licence it and probably reap millions of dollars worth for coming up with an idea and thats it. some other company would figure out how to actually make it and market it and sell it, and you'd just sit back and collect money.

isnt that already FAIR ENOUGH?

PROS:
-you make money from your idea, you do nothing.
-the world gets to do with your idea as they please (trying to improve on it)

CONS:
you don't get absolute power over your idea.
you don't get 10000x the money or whatever.

i don't know man. the cons dont seem to hold any value at all.



yeah they should deserve credit. why not?
i gave reasons for why, but you don't. you just decide to blatantly cut them off because you think everything stemmed from YOU.
but it DIDNT.

if you were born into a shit ass backwater town in the ghetto of the ghetto.
i don't care how talented you are. you aren't going to become a fucking engineer.
yeah, that english teacher taught you to be more articulate, therefore your book was better.
yes that person that invented the word processor HELPED YOU type books up and let you edit hundreds of pages rather than you physically writing it every time.


yeah your daughter is better at others musically, but without the catalysts of teachers.
without the catalyst of you knocking your wife up
without the catalyst of a car stereo where she started to hear music
without the catalysts of someone INVENTING the instrument, INVENTING how to read notes, INVENTING the perfection of singing and all that other crap. she wouldnt be where she is.

think of a pyramid. we are at the top. the very very very top. we are the most current piece that has been laid down on the top of the pyramid.

we cannot exist, without the support, the base of the pyramid and every single block that has been laid down. everything we do, is stemmed from the base.

if you choose to ignore that fact and say all your talent miraculously sprouted out of no where, then you're lying to yourself.

listen, if we decide to use patents like the way they are now, more people should get credit, everyone down the line should get some sorta cut right? that's ONLY fair. you're fighting for "fairness" right?

we don't have the technology to $$$$$ every person that helped or somehow equally and fairly split the money. but say 10-15 years from now we do.
and people start submitting requests and applications for sub-patents, on how they contributed.

i can sure as hell bet you're going to try to deny every single person of their money. it still comes down to you feeling YOU did everything. i don't know how many ways i can explain it, but you, are not some god like being where all your knowledge and talent sprouted from some divine nothingness.


the soldier that gets the kill shot that wins the war, didn't fucking win the war himself.
the training he received, the support from his team, the logistics behind the military, 100's of years of development in war and tactics made him who he is.
he wasn't born with the skill to do what he did.


it only takes 0.1% of flaw for something to fail.
people don't want it to do 99.9%, they want it to do 100%.

think of it this way, imagine if the steering wheel was patented and the person had absolute control over it. im not talking about a particular steering wheel design. im talking about THE STREERING WHEEL.

well, why cant another car company invent some other way? use a fucking joystick... oh wait that's patented too..

why don't they use a PS3 controller to control your car?
why not? it doesnt 99.9% the same thing too.

but yeah, guess what, ITS NOT AS EASY TO USE. PEOPLE DONT WANNA USE IT.

pinch and zoom is like the steering wheel. it's natural, u don't need to fucking figure it out. it just IS.

what about doors? patent doors that have to be pulled or pushed to be open. force everyone else to use sliding doors.
c'mon man.

if a primate can figure out how to use it, it just seems that it's natural.


another good example is the scroll wheel on your mouse.
that shit was ripped off so fast and made smoother and better.

no one could do anything about it.
and it was natural. someone could figure out how to use it without ever seeing it under 30 seconds.

what if only one company was allowed to have the scroll wheel?
or hell what if only one company was allowed to have a "mouse".

im using more and more simple examples, but simplicity or complexities don't matter. it's the CONCEPT behind controlling the idea.
it's so archaic and like dark ages. like some fucking high priest or inquisitor preaching "ALL SHALL USE THIS IDEA, THIS WAY, AND ONLY IN THIS WAY, ANY DEVIATION SHALL BE MET WITH PUNISHMENT, NO ONE ELSE SHALL PREACH IT. ONLY I CAN"

c'mon man...


yeah it's NOT... right now.

it's not an imaginary world. it's a real world, we are heading there, at a faster and faster rate.
laws like these hinder that progression.

like i said, you only live in the current state, imagine if we were in the dark ages. would you just be a supporter of the church and repress everything? because that's the world as it is at that current state? could you not see where the future is generally heading towards?
if everyone was like you, nothing would ever change. because "this is just the way it is", but it ISNT. you can change it. you can fight it or invent another system.

im not arguing who should win the court case. im arguing the fact that the concept behind patents has long expired and exceeded its use.

i advocate change. to adapt to new ideas that are better, that make things run smoother, make every ones lives easier. laws can be changed. lifestyles can be changed. and they all WILL be changed.
you have to look beyond your life, beyond your daughters life.
things dont happen over night. they take time beyond what you can currently understand and realise.
the sooner something is changed or tested, the better.