Yeah, and everyone hovers around the iMacs and Ipads in Best Buy. Although I won't knock anyone for doing that-- I always use the iMac in Best Buy to look up reviews for items before I buy them so I don't have to talk to any blue shirts. And I do that, because the Apple computers in Best Buy are apparently the only ones that ever work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19463693

*sigh* I'm not sure I can add any more...

There have been a couple more interviews with the jury's foreman, and everything he says just leads me to believe he was totally incompetent. The more he speaks the more I am in disbelief that he could actually potentially believe the words he's saying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19463693

*sigh* I'm not sure I can add any more...

There was a post I definitely saw on 9gag.com, and I can't find it now, that compared current and recent Apple products with a brand of 1950's audio equipment. They were nearly identical. And now I can't find it. :/


edit: Found it!
edit2: This one's better, though.

There have been a couple more interviews with the jury's foreman, and everything he says just leads me to believe he was totally incompetent. The more he speaks the more I am in disbelief that he could actually potentially believe the words he's saying.

yeah it sounds like he made up his opinion day 1, and just didnt care to hear any more evidence.
Why the hell did they let ppl with no idea in the field choose the verdict?

No idea...? Ironically they probably picked that meathead because he was in tech... just the evil and totally biased side of tech. The rest of the jurors... who knows.

Patent law needs some serious reform, I don't understand how something as important to humanity as the genetic code could be patented by one company, genentech. I don't know the exact details of what was being fought over or what was brought up in court, but I don't agree with being able to patent certain sections of code. I can see patenting an entire software product, sure, but not anything less than that.

Patent law needs some serious reform, I don't understand how something as important to humanity as the genetic code could be patented by one company, genentech. I don't know the exact details of what was being fought over or what was brought up in court, but I don't agree with being able to patent certain sections of code. I can see patenting an entire software product, sure, but not anything less than that.

Ever seen the movie "Flash of Genius"? Greg Kineer plays the inventor of the "intermittent windshield wiper", Robert Kearns. As a movie, it's completely predictable from the name onward what is going to happen. But by the end of the movie, and hopefully well before that, you really have to ask yourself, "Why in God's name does it matter that your name is on this patent?" This man sacrificed everything, and willingly, and some might say foolishly, just to prove a point and lay a claim.

So, let's everyone lay his own claim to some part of the Commons. Let's all plant our flags and say "I claim this [thing] in the name of [me]", and see what this all looks like after just a few generations. It becomes a minefield. And that's what it is today. It's not just that the laws need reform, it's a little worse than that. The whole premise itself seems a little bit off.

I can see patenting an entire software product, sure, but not anything less than that.

This is what copyright law is for - the product can be protected under copyright.
There's no need at all for patents.

So, let's everyone lay his own claim to some part of the Commons. Let's all plant our flags and say "I claim this [thing] in the name of [me]", and see what this all looks like after just a few generations. It becomes a minefield. And that's what it is today. It's not just that the laws need reform, it's a little worse than that. The whole premise itself seems a little bit off.

Don't patents die along with their owners, if nobody else picks them up within the legal period? I think you have one year in the USA to acquire orphan patents - with justification - before their object falls into public domain. Obviously this doesn't prevent important patents surviving through several generations, but it does mean that ultimately, the patent will almost certainly expire. I still agree with you though.