The benefit is precedent. Apple shows that they will do everything they can to enforce their patents, and Samsung shows that they will fight back. Both companies thus lower the chance that someone else will do the same thing.
That benefits THEM...how does it benefit the world? Were these infractions that threaten the incentive to innovate, or they infractions just because they could call them infractions? If someone else DID do the same thing, would the world be better off or not?
IBM is considered an IP failure for allowing the PC-clone market to come into being...even though it is highly unlikely computing would have taken off the way it did otherwise.
The notion hinges on the idea that someone or a group of people can invest time and resources into innovation with the understanding that they will get paid if the idea pans out.
The arguments for and against this notion are perpetual.
Backing up: I'm aware of the sides of the "how to spur innovation" argument. I'm asking if, in this set of proceedings, there was any impact OTHER than these two companies establishing that they will vigorously defend their claims AND I'm asking if those claims lie near any areas of interest.
For example, the "Dummie's Guide" trade dress cases about yellow or the one-click patent lived at the edges of those spheres, and thus helped define what the edge was. Was this a case that largely only impacts these two companies, or does the matter at hand fall into well-established realms and this was just a matter of legal details?
These are questions most journalism does a terrible job of covering, and hunting down legal blogs that also have enough technical knowledge AND aren't biased because patent attorneys tend to fall into the "everything must be protected no matter what" camp is quite an exercise.
I am unfamiliar with patent law, but the traditional discussion about it is whether it actually reflects these supposed values. Consider the major innovations of our time. Did patents play any role? As far as I can see, the best innovations spread quickly beyond the inventors (touch screens and gestures), and the remaining patentable details turned out to be either trivial details (eg icon placement on a home screen) or regulatory capture (see: codecs).
It just seems like patents were invented for an entirely different type of innovation than occurs now in software.
It's an extremely hard to thing to study, however, because the normal way to measure "innovation" is literally to count patents, making it extremely difficult to compare patents vs innovation.
Not at all - and I don't really care about them in this case, I'm more wondering what precedent was set for the world BY this case. (not just the ruling, but the entire proceeding).
Let me amend: I _should_ not be surprised at corporate indifference, but I'll admit I'm nonetheless surprised more often than I should be.
People should carefully consider the IBM PC clone situation before they leap to the defence of things like patents, how much more innovative would IBM have been if it was allowed to hold a virtual lock on business computers, vs the entire PC market?
There are few things that benefit everyone all the time. If we eliminated everything that only benefits a few people at any given time, what kind of world do you think we’d end up,with?
...I'm not sure why you have this response. I was asking the question, not suggesting an answer. To answer why I'm asking the question:
Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't' mean things can't be improved. If this case had near-zero benefit to the world outside of these two companies, and had it never happened not much outside of these two companies would be impacted, then it's a piece of evidence (one piece, not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved are too heavy, no longer useful as a matter of public policy.
If, on the other hand, this impacts many companies in a good way, or settles certain legal issues that enables real innovation (as opposed to just locking down licensing requirements that don't spur innovation), then it's a piece of evidence (not independently conclusive) that the IP issues involved have actual merit and the protected and expensive fight is regrettable for the cost but not the existence.
And of course, on the gripping hand, any number of nuanced levels in the middle, including related issues like "took too long". "issue was important, but settlement leaves outside companies just as confused", etc.
Being far too ignorant to have an opinion (as I mentioned in my OP) I was hoping to get some enlightenment, some details, some sources, not hoping for a strawman shutdown. If we did so to every question on the internet, what kind of world do you think we'd end up with?
