“Wait, since Apple is giving away all of their phones, perhaps we should be a little nice to them and let them have **something** like a super powerful and stifling monopoly over our independent thoughts and actions for 20 years.”

I am *sure* you think you are making a point. Really. Maybe you think you are making some point about how since Apple already makes money it is fair to rip them off?

http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg or http://goo.gl/S2AJR

Can you clarify?

That aside, Samsung has made many phones. Apple has not. Apple “copied” a lot more from society as they jumped into that market than did Samsung when they upgraded to their more recent editions.

And I don’t see the point with the tablets. Are you penalizing Samsung for trimming down in size as has been the pattern by electronic manufacturers for ages?

Until Apple accounts for all of their copying in going from nothing to what they have, I don’t think Samsung or anyone body else needs to explain why they would trim down their hardware.

Again, independent invention is a reason to reject our current patent and legal system. This has nothing to do with Samsung or Apple, although if we were going to judge by “copying” quantities, it does seem Apple has copied a lot more. For that reason, I am a little surprised a patent supporter wouldn’t be backing Samsung here over Apple.

Can anyone show Apple copying to that level? If they did then they are in the wrong.

The idea Samsung came up with that “independently” is absurd… at least based on the data given. But if you want to make that argument I would love to hear it.

..not that Apple came up with most of their features independently, of course.

They must be losing billions of dollars every quarter being so generous to us for having put a few picture squares next to each other and otherwise copying the essence of a whole bunch of existing products and software (even going back decades to movie ideas).

Anyway, don’t get me wrong. I have not voluntarily signed an agreement with Apple to yield ANY rights whatsoever to them to create whatever comes out of my head BUT since Apple has lost billions every quarter giving away these phones, maybe we should give them **something** even if it is forced from us and no one has yielded any such human rights. Eh?

It seems Apple copied the idea of a small compact phone running on a full OS and GUI and using apps and many many many many other features which did not exist 20 years ago. They go from no product to copying all the key features of existing phones developed within the last 20 years.

Of course, for the third time on this thread, let’s point out again that it is rather antisocial and stifling to allow someone who comes up with something to block someone else who also comes up with it essentially independently.

I do believe in ownership. My stuff is *mine*, even if it does not benefit you.

Correction. Your stuff is yours until you share it with others. At that point, your only recourse to retention of any degree of ownership is a plea to the masses that it is in their best interests for you to retain some of the rights of ownership to that which you’ve already shared (again disregarding the unethical concept of appeals to divine, or “might makes”, right). I do not see you making that case. Why is that?

But you have said you do not really believe in the right to property unless it benefits society. That shows we have such different views of rights as to make agreement impossible.

I do believe in ownership. My stuff is *mine*, even if it does not benefit you. And your stuff is yours, even if it does not benefit me.

But thank you for explaining where our views differ.

You dodged my question.

As you did mine.

There IS NO inherent, natural right to possession of thoughts and ideas. There is not even an inherent right to “property” per se; beyond the brute force mentality of “try to take this from me”. A civilized society creates laws of “property” based upon what is beneficial to that society as a whole (disregarding the rather uncivilized, equally brute-force governances based upon heredity or dictatorship).

The government protection of “real” property can typically be justified under such rules of societal beneficence when the property under consideration can not feasibly be possessed by more than one individual at a time. Such is not the case with “intellectual” property — there is no natural impediment posed to what you would do with the knowledge you possess by the fact that I also might come into possession of that same knowledge.

Patents have nothing to do with you protecting your rights (outside of democratic adjudication, you have none); they are about your encroachment upon everybody else’s rights — and the onus is upon you to justify how everybody else benefits from such encroachment.

http://maypalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Samsung-Products-vs-Apple-products.jpg or http://goo.gl/S2AJR

If that image is true (I have no verified), then we have a clear example of copying. What rights does Apple have to deal with such unfair business practices?

If instead of by “copying” something which you spent millions of dollars discovering, I (being the brilliant engineer that I am) devise the exact same thing using twenty cents worth of duct tape and dental floss, and having no knowledge whatsoever of your prodigal research (for which you’ve already been subsidized under taxation statutes), by what right do you presuppose to prohibit me from benefiting from my discovery?

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/direct-patent-office-cease-issuing-software-patents/vvNslSTq

The forbiddance of knowledge is an anachronism from the Medieval Ages that can no longer be tolerated, let alone encouraged by government fiat. The problems facing mankind no longer afford the luxury of wasting its resources upon arbitrary monopolies on knowledge and ideas.

Still, the current system clearly sucks.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-patent-office-cease-issuing-software-patents/vvNslSTq