Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosauz
Not really, but the fear mongering west would be pushing this notion. It's pretty much established that China just wants to maintain land that has traditionally been Chinese, like say tibet, or taiwan, which have been part of the chinese empire ever since Shi huang di united all of china, it's not so farfetched for a country to want to maintain the borders that were established from the rich history that most chinese are quite in love with. It's why there are the swiss alps and the french alps because those borders were ordained by traiditonal segregation due to the churchs power.
|
Tibet and Taiwan don't belong to them in the modern world because they are no longer ideologically similar to them. What they are doing is no different from hegemonic oppression.
+1 : It is interesting to see a view like that although I don't agree with it. I don't see alot of people who think deeply about issues like this these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
I'm pretty sure the iPhone isn't the first touchscreen iPhone, so no, they can't patent it. They can, however, patent bits and pieces of it - maybe too much. There are supposed to be restrictions on that sort of thing, but they're subjective, and Apple can afford lots of lawyers.
|
Even if they can patent it, the finance and economics ministry will put it out as a general license : it is bad for market and competition, as well as R&D innovation if they are going to do that.
Heck if it goes through touchscreen smartphones will be monopolised by Steve Jobs. And there goes the free market and chances of technological innovation.
Quote:
I think, for that sort of things, patent law is pretty similar everywhere. (Conditions of attribution are a bit different in Europe, but the rights patents give you aren't.)
In France, there's the added bit that you can't buy a license and not use it for X years, but all it means is that the rights revert to the patent holder. If you're it, you can forbid everyone to use the tech for as long as the patent holds. In theory, there are circumstances where the government will force you to license it, but again... subjectivity + lawyers.
|
Looks like the Chief Justice is going to have alot of work in his/her hands. When it comes to subjectivity, it isn't fair to the general population who follow the law and get shortchanged by an issue involving a person with lots of dosh.