Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, why don't you define "reasonable profit" for us? This business bashing has become very fashionable, but few people consider that you have development cost, marketing cost, workers to pay, etc. And for many companies the winning products have to make up for losses of the losing products.

In this case they may be charging 15000.- per unit and still lose money. So what is reasonable?

I have already said there is no such thing as 'reasonable profit.' It is considered morally acceptable to make as much as possible. Greed is good. It didn't always used to be like this. Things have got worse. 'Business bashing' has become 'fashionable' as a reaction to the increased leveraging of mass wealth against the common man and woman.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I have already said there is no such thing as 'reasonable profit.' It is considered morally acceptable to make as much as possible. Greed is good. It didn't always used to be like this. Things have got worse. 'Business bashing' has become 'fashionable' as a reaction to the increased leveraging of mass wealth against the common man and woman.

And the next question will be - where will the corporations make their money when they have impoverished that common man and woman? The FT and the Telegraph, two decidedly right of centre papers, don't think the signs are too promising, for the US at least. Why is America not raging against the dying of its light? and America’s dream unravels

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I have already said there is no such thing as 'reasonable profit.' It is considered morally acceptable to make as much as possible. Greed is good. It didn't always used to be like this. Things have got worse. 'Business bashing' has become 'fashionable' as a reaction to the increased leveraging of mass wealth against the common man and woman.

Ever thought what brought about the concentration in the retail industry? Walmart, Amazon, the disappearance of the neighborhood grocery store? It was consumers' greed for ever lower prices that made it impossible for small stores to keep stay in business. Greed works both ways.

Things are a lot more complicated that the simple black and white picture you are painting here. Sure there is plenty of greed, but the case under discussion might not be one of them (we don't really have any data to support a conclusion either way -- for all we know this may be a big money loser even at such high prices). So this general rant about "evil" businesses was quite uncalled for. If there is a specific, proven example of unethical business behavior I am all with you. But this general demonization of all businesses is ridiculous.

[Rizla]

I suppose a moral definition of "reasonable profit" is take only what you need.

The case of the development of anti-AIDs drugs and the generic knock-offs comes to mind in this debate. Should people die because of patent?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I suppose a moral definition of "reasonable profit" is take only what you need.

Even such a seemingly simple definition is not easy. What does anyone really need? Food, drink, and shelter is one possible way to define it. But if we went use that, then we would all still be in the stone age, wouldn't we?

And if they charge a high price, but are still losing money because the market is just not big enough -- wouldn't then an even higher price be "reasonable" according to your definition?

Many would argue that greed is human nature, and that it is a good thing if held in check and not let run wild. Why is greed that doesn't hurt others bad? Without greed people would never want to do anything beyond what they have to just to survive. Without greed 2 billion people in Asia wouldn't be well on their way out of poverty just over the last 30 years, but would continue to be stuck in miserable existences like the were in the 60s and 70s.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The case of the development of anti-AIDs drugs and the generic knock-offs comes to mind in this debate. Should people die because of patent?

Two possible solutions. Government can let private business fund medical research and then buy the drugs. Or government can fund all medical research and take ownership of the patents. Either way, patients will only be charged what they can afford to pay.

To pay for this, taxes will need to be raised. Problem solved.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

Just spent some time on the Prentke Romich site reading the specs.

The $15K device is this one which is actually an ACC device AND full win7 laptop with eye-gaze mouse pointer. In other words, it's a full computer and communication device for a severly disabled (full paralysis) person.

The ipad app is more equivalent to the Springboard lite.

So you noticed that they charge $475 for 2Gb of extra RAM, which only cost $9-$12. Charging 40 to 50 times more as a service for the disabled must be a real sacrifice on their part.

Since the iPad is a computer and it is capable of eye-tracking, it makes the app equivalent to the 15k version. The fact that it has twice the number of buttons on the screen makes it better and easier to use.

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the existence of a desirable retail version that works well is evidence in and of itself

Just because something is good doesn't mean that it was expensive to make.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So you noticed that they charge $475 for 2Gb of extra RAM, which only cost $9-$12. Charging 40 to 50 times more as a service for the disabled must be a real sacrifice on their part.

Nope, didn't notice, didn't look. I'm not happy about the prices they charge but I don't think that comparing systems with widely different capabilities as equal is exactly fair either.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Since the iPad is a computer and it is capable of eye-tracking, it makes the app equivalent to the 15k version.

Unless it is integrated in the app, or the ipad when purchased, it is NOT equivalent at the price you quoted for app + ipad. Also, until eye-gaze can contol all functions of the ipad and other apps it is not equivalent. My desktop is a computer, and is capable of eye-tracking, but I need to add hardware and software to make it possible. You at least need to add the cost of the hardware to support it. Link to hardware + app that makes this possible on the ipad, please.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The fact that it has twice the number of buttons on the screen makes it better and easier to use.

Depends on the fine motor control of the user as to whether that is better or not.

I am not defending prices the company charges, but IMO claiming the ACC app + ipad combo is equivalent to the $15k full access computing system for people with limited to no motor control is akin to comparing the price of a bicycle to a car.

[wodin]

The definition of "reasonable profit" as opposed to obscene profit is ultimately up to me, the consumer. If my desire/need for the product is greater than the cost of the product, I will buy it; and the profit margin is reasonable. If it is not, I will refuse to buy it because the margin is, by my definition obscene.

In the previously cited case of the book magnifier, the margin was obscene, and I passed; even though the need would have been great.

The old adage of capitalism applies; “Whatever the market will bear.”

[sbroome]

Love these manipulative articles that find an extremely sympathetic demographic (little girls that can't speak are great) and pull on people's heart strings even if their point doesn't matter.

[Penforhire]

What is obscene profit? Seems like you need to read corporate financial reports if you really want to make that judgement. If they only sell ten of something their margin on those sales needs to be much higher than if they sell 1,000 of them.

And suppose you do read their financial reports. How much pretax profit is reasonable to you? 5% of sales? 15% of sales? That target changes depending on what else you can do with your money. When CD's pay 2% or less then 5% might just limp by. But in the high-interest heydays of the past you had to show 15% or more. Otherwise investors might as well have put their money somewhere else.

The target changes again depending on how much reinvestment is required in your business. Intel has to cough up billions these days to create a new fab. If they don't they will be irrelevant in a couple of years. That cash has to come from profits.

The alternative is to suggest socialism. Let the government pay for it. Maybe. Definitely for some things.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I looked at the youtube video for the app. Then I went to the Prentke Romich website and looked at their product.

The app is a direct knock-off of the product. Maybe it works slightly differently but the app looks like they took the product and just copied it verbatim. it is really that close. blatant rip-off.




I agree with the rest of it. The Prentke Romich company is enforcing the propriety of the product by not making it portable to alternate hardware platforms like the ipad...but as the owners of the patent, that is their right. I hold no grudge against them for that.

you are one of those who thinks Microsoft invented spreadsheets, aren't you? Of course interfaces are going to look the same when the an implementation of the same idea is straightforward. It's like dumb Apple execs showing the similarities between their tablet and some other tablet: "See, same large screen, same smartphone hardware behind, same icons launching apps upon touch..."

Patents are truly dumb, you'll come up with some silly and obvious idea and wait for the first sucker to actually implement it, profit!

I'll just quote Benjamin Franklin: "... as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

now, wasn't him one of the Founding Fathers of the USA?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Love these manipulative articles that find an extremely sympathetic demographic (little girls that can't speak are great) and pull on people's heart strings even if their point doesn't matter.

What's more manipulative, using a girl to get leverage against a company, or the company (which is never required to show how much the R&D actually costs thanks to the fear of ZOMG COMMUNISM!) deciding it has a captive market and gouging for prices? Or maybe setting the price unaffordably high so somebody will create a government program like Medicare to pay for it, so the parents don't have to but the corporation still makes obscene profits?

And then there's also the possibility that some of the patents are overly broad, like, "A device including a keyboard, which plays recorded or synthesized human speech when a key or button is pressed."

I'm inclined to side with the family, though. Stuff like this really should fall into the category of "I'm making this to make someone's life better and damn the profits" instead of "I'm gonna make everyone PAY THROUGH THE NOSE!"

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by teh603

I'm inclined to side with the family, though. Stuff like this really should fall into the category of "I'm making this to make someone's life better and damn the profits" instead of "I'm gonna make everyone PAY THROUGH THE NOSE!"

That would be extremely nice of the company, yes. Which brings me to asking how much have you donated to that littlle girl's family so that her life becomes better?

[grumbles]

I haven't read the patent or even all the posts but it looks like the application is a variation on Blisssymbolics. I suspect that with sufficient resources (i.e. money) many of the patents could be invalidated through "prior art." It would take time, a lot of money and the patents would probably expire before it even went to court. As always, only the lawyers would profit. This sounds like something that should never have been granted a patent in the first place. There are many examples of "symbol boards" that have been in use, putting symbols on a tablet and then have the tablet speak does not strike me as being sufficiently novel for a patent, having the symbols change dynamically is no different from using overlays.

This really cries out for some one to challenge the patent. But by the time it will be resolved, the child will be middle aged.