Apple's helpful guidelines for competitors to avoid patent infringement

[HappyMartin]

Simply making an application is not misuse nor is it corruption. It might be misguided, the courts might throw it out but it is not a crime to try and bring an action like this to a court.

Corruption would be if they were bribing court officials and so on.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

Simply making an application is not misuse nor is it corruption. It might be misguided, the courts might throw it out but it is not a crime to try and bring an action like this to a court.

Corruption would be if they were bribing court officials and so on.

No. Attempting to abuse the patent system outside its intended use rises to the level of corruption, whether or not bribes become another part of the equation.

In other news, speeding is still a traffic infraction, even if you stop at stop signs.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Phogg

No. Attempting to abuse the patent system outside its intended use rises to the level of corruption, whether or not bribes become another part of the equation.

I think that is quite a novel use of the word corruption.

In other news, speeding is still a traffic infraction, even if you stop at stop signs.

Because you aren't allowed to do it. It is against the rules.
That has nothing to do with what is under discussion, which companies are allowed to do, and are not against the rules.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think that is quite a novel use of the word corruption.



Because you aren't allowed to do it. It is against the rules.
That has nothing to do with what is under discussion, which companies are allowed to do, and are not against the rules.

You personally assert that patenting simple geometric shapes is within the rules.

Amazing.

I believe that the way I believe applying for food stamps when you make three hundred K a year is within the rules.

If you don't apply, you can't get benefits right?

That is not a different application of the law than what you propose in anyway. The level of innovation required to qualify for a patent was not met, but the application was made anyway.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Phogg

You personally assert that patenting simple geometric shapes is within the rules.

Amazing.

a) No, that is hyperbole, but proceeding anyway
b) Submitting an application is within the rules.
If the patent officials examined it fairly, according to the processes set out for them, and decided to award it, then yes it was within the rules. Certainly not corrupt.
If the officials made an honest mistake, or failed to follow their rules for some innocent reason, then they have made an error, but absent something further, are not corrupt.
If Apple had paid or otherwise influenced the officials to change their opinion, or in some unlawful way influenced which officials it would be assigned to, that would be corrupt.

To me, corruption means providing payment (whether in money, goods, favours, etc...) to obtain a benefit (again, money, goods, favours, etc... ) that you would not otherwise be entitled to. You have influenced someone to act for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the organisation they work for.
How are you defining it?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

To me, corruption means providing payment (whether in money, goods, favours, etc...) to obtain a benefit (again, money, goods, favours, etc... ) that you would not otherwise be entitled to. You have influenced someone to act for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the organisation they work for.
How are you defining it?

Sigh. It would be nice if just once an MR thread didn't derail into The Dictionary Dance.

cor·rupt
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt

Definition of CORRUPT
transitive verb
1a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe
b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values
2: rot, spoil
3: to subject (a person) to corruption of blood
4: to alter from the original or correct form or version
intransitive verb
1a : to become tainted or rotten
b : to become morally debased
2: to cause disintegration or ruin

Examples of CORRUPT

1. a politician corrupted by greed
2. music that corrupts the morals of children
3. corrupting the country's legal system
4. the corrupting influence of power
5. Their idealism has been corrupted by cynicism.
6. The file has been corrupted and no longer works properly.
7. a corrupted version of the ancient text

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrupt

Your definition of corruption -- bribery -- is much narrower than the accepted definition of corruption.

ETA: If it's not too rude for me to say so, I would like to point out that it's not hard to look this stuff up. (At least, it wasn't hard for me. Your circumstances may be different from mine, in which case I apologize.) Maybe you could do that yourself next time instead of demanding that everyone else define their words for you? I don't think it's fair for the people you're engaging with to demand that we all define all our words for you as long as Dictionary.com still exists. This is my personal opinion.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Sigh. It would be nice if just once an MR thread didn't derail into The Dictionary Dance.

cor·rupt
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt

Examples of CORRUPT

1. a politician corrupted by greed
2. music that corrupts the morals of children
3. corrupting the country's legal system
4. the corrupting influence of power
5. Their idealism has been corrupted by cynicism.
6. The file has been corrupted and no longer works properly.
7. a corrupted version of the ancient text

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrupt

Your definition of corruption -- bribery -- is much narrower than the accepted definition of corruption.

And your multiple definitions are overly wide... simply because a word has several different meanings doesn't mean that they all apply simultaneously... the usage here was clearly in line with the first of your definitions and the others are contextually irrelevant...

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And your multiple definitions are overly wide... simply because a word has several different meanings doesn't mean that they all apply simultaneously... the usage here was clearly in line with the first of your definitions and the others are contextually irrelevant...

"Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery" does not mean "guilty of dishonest practices, limited only to bribery". That's not how examples work. Also, read the rest of the first line. You don't get to just stop when you like and proclaim that's the entire definition.

The person who first used the term "corruption" in this thread was (in my opinion) referencing a lack of moral integrity.

ETA: Also, again, Dictionary Dance. It's derailing and it turns the whole discussion into a quibble over the definition of "is" rather than a meaningful discussion of the topical subject matter. And, no, I will not define "is". It's clear what the poster meant by "corruption" -- derailing to demand that IT'S NOT CORRUPTION IF NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS is both incorrect, dictionary-wise, and choosing to ignore the other poster's argument entirely while ostensibly responding to them.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually no, it isn't capitalism at all. It is an attempt to gain a monopoly through the courts, to circumvent the market.

Which is how capitalistic firms have always operated. The dynamic of capitalism tends toward monopoly. As it is, they have a legally sanctioned (and unexceptional) monopoly on the specific products they create (iPads, iPhones, etc.). Attempting to leverage that into a monopoly of tablets generally (and to take bigger share of the smartphone market) is a difference of degree, not kind. If you don't like it, blame capitalism, not Apple. Seriously, blame capitalism.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

All I am saying that such behavior is anti-capitalistic. Are companies amoral? Are people amoral? Companies are run by humans.

It's perfectly capitalistic. They are attempting to use the resources they possess (both material and intellectual) to maximize the return on those same resources. They are leaving no stone unturned in their quest to maximize the value they have at their command. If they can do it by intensifying production of iPads while keeping employment constant (assuming the market will absorb all the iPads they can make), they'll do it. If they can do it by using the courts to block competitors (or at least trip them up a bit), they'll do it. This is how capitalist entities (persons, corporations, states, what have you) have always behaved.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Phogg

You personally assert that patenting simple geometric shapes is within the rules.

Amazing.

I believe that the way I believe applying for food stamps when you make three hundred K a year is within the rules.

If you don't apply, you can't get benefits right?

That is not a different application of the law than what you propose in anyway. The level of innovation required to qualify for a patent was not met, but the application was made anyway.

And neither of those are against the rules. If the patent (or food stamp relief) is granted, hopefully it would be challenged, but this does not make the application itself against the rules. If you think that the rules should be changed, go for it. I think the rules, as they currently stand, have been established to protect those who already have commanding positions in the market. They are there to prevent new competitors from arising and allow the larger firms to engage in rent seeking behaviors. The problem is not the abuse of the rules but the rules themselves. I think a strong argument could be made that there would be more innovation if a company was not allowed to rest on the laurels of its previous achievements, if it must continue to strive to differentiate itself by continued innovations. A flood of 'immitation' merchandise could achieve this end (and already does when the 'immitation' is not sufficiently similar to engender a court challenge). A premium would go, as it always does, to those first on the market with an innovation and to those able to produce with greatest efficiency (or best able to make use of new tech as a loss-leader).

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

It's clear what the poster meant by "corruption"

Not to me it isn't.
I don't understand how taking advantage of the system, even using loopholes, could be considered corrupt, without some other step.
Not all things that demonstrate a lack of integrity, even if such were agreed, are corrupt. Cheating on your spouse certainly demonstrates a lack of integrity, would you describe it as corrupt? Cheating on a test? Lying to get elected?

-- derailing to demand that IT'S NOT CORRUPTION IF NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS is both incorrect

Didn't say that.
In my mind corruption involves A corrupting B.
It involves B acting in his own interests (or A's interests), rather than the interests he is meant to serve.
Apple are acting in their own interests, that is what you would expect them to do.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

b) Submitting an application is within the rules.

Most systems aren't perfect and allow misuse, without even breaking any particular rule.
It's about morality and common sense.

Dutch judge dismissed mentioned "community design". In Dusseldorf court, which, according to FOSS blog, is well known for siding with particular side most of the time, they came to a different conclusion, that basic shapes are actually patentable.

The fact that "Dusseldorf court" with particular reputation exist, is a flaw in the legal system. The fact that community design is accepted without any formal review process is a flaw in another system.
Using these to "companies advantage" is not justifiable by neither capitalism, nor comunism or ninja turtles.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kartu

Most systems aren't perfect and allow misuse, without even breaking any particular rule.
It's about morality and common sense.

Dutch judge dismissed mentioned "community design". In Dusseldorf court, which, according to FOSS blog, is well known for siding with particular side most of the time, they came to a different conclusion, that basic shapes are actually patentable.

The fact that "Dusseldorf court" with particular reputation exist, is a flaw in the legal system. The fact that community design is accepted without any formal review process is a flaw in another system.
Using these to "companies advantage" is not justifiable by neither capitalism, nor comunism or ninja turtles.

Fine, even assuming all of that, I still don't see where the corruption comes in?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Fine, even assuming all of that, I still don't see where the corruption comes in?

As you said:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In my mind corruption involves A corrupting B.
It involves B acting in his own interests (or A's interests), rather than the interests he is meant to serve.

The Dusseldorf court didn't act in the interests of those that it is meant to serve.