We can send men into space, but cant build..

[Blackbeard 10]

You may remember Beagle 2 built by us British at the cost of about £50 million some years ago. Sadly it dropped onto the surface of Mars and was never heard of again just like a dropped phone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_2

[Cyclone 10]

Philips has long done a ton of R&D, and is to be commended for green-lighting and having a commercial go at a lot of 'out there' concepts (e.g. ambilight) still to this day. I have a lot of respect for them that way.

 

But let's face it, they're not exactly setting global standards in the personal tech sector, are they?

 

They're very much at the forefront technically, always have been. But, equally, always trailing commercially.

 

E.g. they could have sawn up the LED pico projector market years ago, and are amongst the most prominent actors in that (still-)niche market with their PicoPix range. But their products are completely outclassed, in terms of performance and features, by party latecomers BenQ and Asus, to this day.

 

I turned down their in-house headhunter last year. And no, it wasn't because they iz Dutch

Smart watches have tanked abysmally for years and years. They most probably will replace the ubiquitous mobile, as a personal communication/exchanging device in years to come, if only due to the form factor/ergonomics. But that's years and years (and years) away.

 

In the longest term, they might. But in the medium term, I don't think a watch can do what a smartphone does.

 

Phones got bigger in the last 5 years, because a large screen is more useable. I use my phone for reading on the tram, sat nav, email, and browsing for information, and even with a large battery it needs charging every day.

I'd use my watch (if I wore one) for telling the time. If it needed charging everyday I'd buy a new watch.

I don't want a phone/tablet sized screen strapped to my arm, and even with a pico projecter and some sort of as yet undeveloped battery technology to make it last a day, it wouldn't be a comfortable way to browse, or read anything.

 

Maybe the phone will disappear though as devices like google glass replace some of the functions and then the watch phone will replace others... But then, if I have glasses that can project into my eyes and are close to my ears, why would I want to talk to my wrist?

[DeathAxe 10]

Philips are too busy exploiting the patent system, patenting ideas without even having a product to show for the vague idea in the title, later to sue other companies for actually coming up with the technology.

 

They are a disgrace. And all for what? petty revenge?

[Resident 1,192]

Philips are too busy exploiting the patent system, patenting ideas without even having a product to show for the vague idea in the title, later to sue other companies for actually coming up with the technology.

 

They are a disgrace. And all for what? petty revenge?

 

You can also replace Philips with the biggest perpetrator of patent exploitation, Apple.

 

They're even trying to patent having a brick & mortar shop with tables.

 

Apple are a bigger disgrace than Philips are they go after small companies who own patents that they (Apple) want and threaten them with BS litigation, which the small company can't afford so caves and sells the patents dirty cheap.

 

Apple have already ADMITTED openly on camera that they steal other people's ideas. Then they go out and SUE anyone who has a vague similar product/idea.

[DeathAxe 10]

You can also replace Philips with the biggest perpetrator of patent exploitation, Apple.

 

They're even trying to patent having a brick & mortar shop with tables.

 

Apple are a bigger disgrace than Philips are they go after small companies who own patents that they (Apple) want and threaten them with BS litigation, which the small company can't afford so caves and sells the patents dirty cheap.

 

Apple have already ADMITTED openly on camera that they steal other people's ideas. Then they go out and SUE anyone who has a vague similar product/idea.

 

You are correct, but you seem to have given a typical politician answer of blaming someone else for doing the same thing ;-)

 

Back in the days of old cameras, Kodak (I think it was them, not in a position to look it up) held a monopoly on patents and kept suing all the other camera companies. Eventually a judge ruled that they give them up, and leave them open for everyone to use as they were holding back progress.

 

Unfortunately, this cannot happen these days, as the corporations have too much of a hold over the legal system, and the politicians.

[L00b 441]

Philips are too busy exploiting the patent system, patenting ideas without even having a product to show for the vague idea in the title, later to sue other companies for actually coming up with the technology.

Wrong.

 

They are an IP-based business, to the exact same extent as the UK's posterboy/darlings ARM (who do not, of themselves, have any more products to show than Philips) and, decades before these two and Apple, Big Blue (IBM) which pretty much invented the 'patent-it-all' approach to ring-fencing business interests.

 

It costs money to develop IP. Any IP. So licenses may be granted to monetize the IP, in addition to or as an alternative to the patentee making and selling widgets with that IP. Competitors who simply want to copy the IP without paying for its development (i.e. not taking a license) get in the neck. Rightly so.

Back in the days of old cameras, Kodak (I think it was them, not in a position to look it up) held a monopoly on patents and kept suing all the other camera companies. Eventually a judge ruled that they give them up, and leave them open for everyone to use as they were holding back progress.

That still happens (forcing a patentee to issue licenses of right because pent-up demand is deliberately not being satisfied), and is codified into most patents acts (and International Treaties) the world over.

 

It doesn't happen that often, because -unsurprisingly- patentees, who are well aware of the above, are not exactly looking forward to have a judge wade into and meddle with their business practices, so take care of meeting demand (through their own activities and/or licensees...like Philips, ARM <etc. - you get the gist>)

 

Unfortunately, this cannot happen these days, as the corporations have too much of a hold over the legal system, and the politicians.

Wrong again. It can, and does.

 

Heard about Apple and Samsung lately? How about Qualcomm and Nokia before? Or Nokia and Ericsson before that? Or <etc.>?

 

BTW, did you hear (our very own-) Judge Birss' priceless judgement in the Apple v Samsung UK design infringement case?

 

Philips and other patent heavyweights are also heavily involved in FRAND (Google it) patent pools. Where Philips is concerned, particularly e.g. in relation to MPEG-related IP.

 

Now, that's not saying all is hunky-dory of course. There is certainly a problem with patent trolls, and with consistency of examination quality at the USPTO, but these are US-only issues, thankfully.

Edited May 29, 2014 by L00b

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Many moons ago. I dropped my phone in the toilet. Got it repaired for free. This is back before the rip off insurance they try and sell you.

 

Was it a "pay-as-you-go" phone?

[DeathAxe 10]

Was it a "pay-as-you-go" phone?

 

Da-dum-tshhhhh!

 

 

 

As the guy that replied to me, what you are saying is pretty much how I said that it was. Semantics.

 

If anything needed reform, it is the patent system.

[L00b 441]

As the guy that replied to me, what you are saying is pretty much how I said that it was. Semantics

Not really.

If anything needed reform, it is the patent system.

Again, not really.

 

By and large, it does not need reform. As with all "systems", some minor aspects need tweaking here and there every now and then, as economies and global trade both develop...and so such minor aspects are being continuously tweaked here and there. Apply within for examples

 

What does need reform, however, is education in knowledge-based economies like ours, for more people to understand what IP is (and has always been) and how IP works (and has always worked), in combination with gaining a sufficient grounding in business life and practices (by reason of which the IP system exists and endures in the first place). Preferably at an international scale.

 

That is, rather than stay entrenched with uninformed opinions about a legal system, the workings and purpose of which they do not understand, and only become dimly aware of either on the back of a headline (usually misleading or incorrect) or because the prospective investor asked about it (by which time it is usually too late anyway).

 

That's not a personal criticism, DeathAxe, but an invitation to educate yourself I've been practicing IP law for close to 20 years now, and I'm still learning (about it) every day, and likely always will - because it is being continually tweaked

Edited May 29, 2014 by L00b

[Xt500 10]

A mobile phone which can survive a 3-4ft drop !

 

Id settle for one that works.apparently in 1969 they could make a call from the moon.Without a GSM repeater installed i cant make one from home!