28/08/2012 Newsnight


What does the battle between Apple and Samsung portend for the touchscreen? The inventor of the mobile phone talks about the long-term implications of Apple's recent court victory.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/08/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Beset on all sides by advice, which way is the Prime Minister going to


turn on the economy? Tonight, the Deputy Prime Minister,


Nick Clegg, calls for an emergency tax on the rich.


While this morning, David Cameron was asked by a senior Tory to


prove's a man not a mouse over a third runway at Heathrow.


Still in a double-dip recession, we will ask whether all this shows the


coalition is increasingly desperate to turn the economy, and its own


fortunes around. If you knew for certain your child


was to be born with a disability, would you, should you, still have a


baby? It is sometimes said that because the Nancys embraced


eugenics, that it must be wrong for us, at least to take the idea of


improving human beings seriously. Now, it seems to me just rather


silly to think that things are wrong because bad people do them.


We will debate whether eugenics is making a covert come back. The


patent wars of the high-tech giants, is there anything in it for the


customer, or does it stifle the creativity it seeks to protect. The


end of publishing, the Booker Prize-winning novelist, Howard


Jacobson and his new novel Zoo Time, and is the reader disappearing.


Good evening, the nation's politicians have returning from


their summer holidays, mainly with one thought on their minds, what


can be done to turn the economy around. The Deputy Prime Minister,


Nick Clegg, has joined that debate tonight, in an interview with the


Guardian, calling for an emergency wealth tax. And warning that


prosperity and social cohesion are at risk, unless the richest make a


bigger contribution, to what he calls a long economic war. It was


the second bit of uncomfortable advice for the Prime Minister,


after one Tory MP called for him to prove his political manhood, rather


than mousehood, over the third runway at Heathrow Airport. What do


we think Nick Clegg had in mind? Speaking to people tonight who know


Nick Clegg's mind, they make it clear we will not get any more


detail on what form this tax might be in the very near future. But,


they are very clear, if the recent bad economic news means that those


further down the economic pecking order are asked to make more of a


sacrifice, for example, there are more cuts to come, then those at


the very top should be asked to increase the burden on themselves.


What form that takes, they are not clear yet on the exact detail. But


it would be something like the mansion tax that was in their last


manifest at the moment the mansion tax you can't shift your house in


west London worth �2 million offshore, you can't pretend it


doesn't exist or it is not there or it is a shed. Something like a


mansion tax that is on wealth and not income. Now, speaking to


Downing Street tonight, they make it very clear, this is not


coalition policy S several times during a conversation it was


pointed pointed out to me, that this is the head of the Liberal


Democrats speaking ahead of the party conference. It won't be


necessarily welcomed on Downing Street, coming on day when Mr


Cameron was receiving advice on the expansion of Heathrow as well.


It is an obvious metaphor, soaring planes leading to, it is argued,


soaring growth, or some growth would be nice. Why Heathrow?


Because supporters say it would be the quickest and cheapest way of


expanding airport xasty. The reason airport capacity is important to


all of us, is we are in a recession f we want to build our way out of


economic problems wrecks need better links with economies around


the world that are growing, Brazil, India, China and others. We can't


do that sitting here. We need to fly out as business people making


deals, and people flying in to make deals, and be more connected to


those parts of the world. But, this is all bound up in politics, down


there in west London, or what would be west London f this fpsn't a


simulator, are millions of people whose lives are blighted from the


noise from Heathrow. Many of the seats down there are marginal. Even


the safe ones would probably turn marginal if the incumbent came out


in favour of a third runway at Heathrow.


Take one MP, for example, Justine Greening, the MP for Putney pro-


claimed her opposition 0 to a third runway, from her election leaf --


opposition to a third runway from her election leaflet, she even


quotes David Cameron saying "no ifs no buts no third runway", as well


as an MP, Justine Greening is the Transport Secretary, and not in any


mood, clearly, to change her mind. Thepm has been clear cut that we


have a coalition agreement not to have a third runway that we are


planning to stick to. There is cross-party consensus, even the


Labour Party have now accepted their push for a third runway was


wrong, and they have dropped that. There will always be people who


hold different views in any mind of political debate. There is a broad


consensus now. Many think that promise is now out of date. Writing


in the Telegraph, the chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select


Committee, Tim Yeo, says that he's changed his mind on the issue, and


thepm should too. He writes -- PM should too. He writes that the


Prime Minister should ask himself if he's a man or a mouse.


January this year, greenhouse gas emissions from flying were brought


within the EU cap for the first time. Never happened before. And


the effect of that is that, however many runways we build, the total


greenhouse gas emissions, across the whole of Europe, will not


increase by a single kilogram. That very important environmental reason


for opposing the third runway, has now been removed. Given that is the


situation, we should respond to the business imperative, from the


business imperative that clearly is we need more runway capacity at


Heathrow. One of David Cameron's problems is he has already made


some pretty startling changes of political direction already during


his term as PM. Think of the pasty tax, charity tax, and fuel duty. So


his MPs know, well, he's open to persuasion. And what's one more U-


turn, they argue. As well as upsetting many of his MPs who have


seats down there, he would also upset one of the huge political


figures of our time, who has grown even bigger in recent months. So


big, in fact, you could almost see them from up here. What you can't


do is endlessly cram a court into a pintpot at Heathrow, put hundreds


of thousands of more flights into London's western suburbs, making


sure people in the city have much worse noise and traffic pollution


in west London, when that solution, a third runway, won't even deliver


what you want in the long-term. And that's why I hope they go for a


bigger, bolder, better option. there are those Conservatives who


think that, although it would be wrong to go for a third runway now,


it shouldn't be ruled out forever. We have to respect the fact that we


were elected with a mandate not to put a third runway in. And I would


be disappointed to see us go back on that, even though I regard it as


absolutely vital we still get the process under way to determine what


we want. I think the two can sitcom for theably together. And let it be


at the next general election that this issue, hopefully, will form


part -- two can sit comfortably together, and let's hope at the


next general election it will form part of the mandate. This could all


get lift off tomorrow, in the Guardian, there is the Deputy Prime


Minister giving his idea of a tax on wealth, might be as nice as


sound as a low-flying jumbo. My guests are with me now. Emma


Duncan is deputy editor of the economy economy, and joining the


anti-Heathrow expansion campaign, but changed her mind, and Ann


Pettifor is a fellow of the left- leaning economics foundation. We


are joined by Lord Oakeshott, whoa might be able to tell us what Nick


Clegg is up to. Is this a bit of cheering up the troops before the


party conference, or is this serious business of squeezing the


rich until the pips squeak? This is seriously pushing Lib Dem policy.


It is well established, it is very popular. The mansion tax is the key.


Because, as your int tro said, the key way you make sure the wealthy


pay their fair share of tax is by taxing their houses, that is the


one thing they can't move to mount Monoco. It is more than that. It is


the emergency stealth tax? Nick is saying we will be pushing for the


mansion tax, you can do that quickly. Let me just say, I'm


delighted Nick has come back radicalised and refreshed from his


holiday. There was a serious push inside Government, and outside, to


get the mansion tax through in the budget. It made very good progress.


So, indeed, some of the things that were done could help lead the way


in, there was actually a tax of 15% in, there was actually a tax of 15%


on people who keep their houses in companies. This is now the time, as


the economy pain has to be shared more, through having a real push


next year to get the mansion tax. If he wanted to do that he wouldn't


have vote today reduce the top rate of tax to 45%, you are all over tax


on the rich? We are not. It is very clear democrat policy, we were


pushing very hard inside. Let me say. But not on income tax, that is


something collected from the rich. Let me explain it, I'm not the


greatest admirer of George Osborne, but he was open minded in the


budget. But the problem was David Cameron. We will have a serious


push and try to get that. In addition, obviously there are other


things you can do to take longer, but we are delighted to hear Nick


Clegg coming out strong on tax for Liberal Democrats. It is a bit of


cheering? Nick has had a pretty hard year, we are happy to see him


coming back and fighting for Lib Dem policies. I don't suppose you


are quite as cheered up with the mansion tax return prospect?


think this is pre-conference gestureing, in a way. This is not


about something that is Government policy. This is Nick Clegg saying


let's try out a few ideas before party conference. It is not


Government policy. It is Lib Dem policy. We are working in a


coalition. There was a serious push for it last year, and a bigger push


this year, this is not a vague idea, this is in our policy, central, it


is a very popular policy as well. What Conservatives need to learn is


they should push popular policies like the mansion tax and the banks.


It is not about popular decisions it is about governing. I think this


is a discussion pre-conference season to get the debate going in


the Liberal Democrats, it is not something the Government are


proposing at the moment. It is not something that is part of policy.


If Nick Clegg wants it to discuss it at his party conference, that is


absolutely fine. Do you think the wealthy pay their fair share of tax


in this country, Mrs Macleod? always for reducing. Do you think


they pay the fair share or not? have done the right thing. Do you


think they pay their stpair share or not? -- fair share or not?


Simple question? I'm a Conservative and believe in low taxation. You do


then. What do you think of this, and the reintroduction of this


Heathrow runway, with people worried about lack of growth and


cuts? The word "emergency" is always difficult, anything that


creates uncertainty is bad for the economy. Personally, I'm not at all


against property taxes, I think they are quite a good idea. Because


you can't move property? That's it, and also income is a bad thing to


tax, because you shouldn't really go around discouraging people from


working. You don't see a conflict in Nick Clegg saying we will sign


on to the 45p tax rate as opposed to 50p, but we should have a


mansion tax? I don't want to see taxes that, as I think you were


saying earlier, might squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, we need


the rich, we need their money. Pettifor what do you make of it, do


you think it is a good idea to squeeze the rich and it is fairer?


It is much fairer to be taxing the rich, and especially their assets,


which have grown massively, which have been inflated by the credit


boom. They have not been taxed on it. The point is, this is a sign of


desperation, because this coalition Government has increased taxes


before. They believe that by squeezing the economy and


increasing taxes and cutting spending, they will get growth,


economic activity, they are not. It is having the reverse result.


will come back in a second, I wanted to pursue the point about


Heathrow, some people would say that is what is really driving the


debate today. Heathrow Airport is important, but it is not as


important for the "are you a man or a mouse comment", this is about


real worries in your party about not being enough growth in the


economy, and things not going well, and you may may have to introduce


more harsh cuts? The Heathrow debate was about a few people


speaking up about what their concerns are about growth in the


economy. I think it is a fair point. The growth in the economy and jobs


is a top priority for us right now. And should be, so, therefore, there


is no issue with people exploring different options for what might be


some of the solution to that. But for me, certainly, a third runway


for me is absolutely no solution at all. You changed your mind on it,


presumably you find it noisy and irritating, but why did you change


your mind? Because I had to do some work looking at London's economy. I


came to understand how absolutely crucial international connections


are to London. London is the most international, great, global city


that there is. New York, essentially, is serving America.


London service the world. Companies need to be impecably connected with


the rest of the world. The problem is, if you look at the figures on


the connectivity of London to the big new, emerging markets, which


are the places our businessmen are going to need to get to, and where


we need investment from, other European countries are increasingly


improving their connectivity. Holland and Germany. This is


absolutely no economic case whatsoever for expanding Heathrow,


in order to improve the economy. The fact of the matter is, if we


want increased connectivity, I'm not against, that then the airlines


will simply have to adapt their routes. If they are not going to do


that, maybe Governments should regulate them. They may go


elsewhere? The airlines could adapt their routes to make the


connectivity. You don't need to expand the airport to make that


happen. You need to change the airline routes. Can we have a bit


of a reality check here. It is an interesting argument about Heathrow,


and whether you should have a third runway. I don't think you should.


It is completely irrelevant to the current economic crisis. Whatever


we do at Heathrow, it is years and years away. This is where I agree


with my coalition colleague. It is not irrelevant, it is not


irrelevant. We are in a serious recession here, we are going


backwards what we have to do is get the banks lending and get houses


built. This is long-term. We have to encourage private sector


investment in infrastructure, the Government has been saying it wants


that, there is a whole lot of money that is sitting there, ready to


build, another runway at Heathrow, which we need for our economy in


the long-term, and that would do it. Please, please. When you have got


quite a senior backbencher talking about a "man or a mouse moment", it


suggests it is a policy issue, but masking something deeper in that,


which is discontent with David Cameron's leadership. Is this some


kind of Westland moment, people saying it is a policy moment, but


it is something else, lack of leadership? I don't think it is


lack of leadership. I think the Heathrow debate is something today


everybody is speaking about. It has been about Heathrow, to a large


extent. But largely also about jobs and the economy. It is also about


leadership? I don't think so. I think David Cameron has shown


really strong leadership, throughout the time in the


coalition Government. And prior to that. When you are asked "man or


mouse", that suggests a lack of it? That is one person, let's get it


into perspective. One person made the comments and I think he was


wrong. I think David Cameron has shown strong leadership in trying


to take the country forward, putting new initiatives in place to


turn the country around. He has said strongly with Nick Clegg, no


third runway, and there will be no third runway. On that cross-party


agreement we will leave it there. Now, the Olympic motto of higher,


faster, stronger, has always had one obvious theme, better. The


London Paralympics games are thought to be the best ever and


feature the best athletes in the world. Former British table tennis


champion reports, there is a new debate about an issue raised in


London 100 years ago, what should the role of science be in improving


human life. Should it include interfering with the process of


evolution itself, the name of it is a dirty word "eugenics". Here is


the report. Eugenics.


It seeks to apply the known laws of hereditary. Taking control of the


evolutionary process to improve the human condition. That is the


rational of eugenics. It would have been better by far for them and for


the rest of the community if they had never been born. But the most


henous crimes of the 20th century, the Holocaust, the mass murder of


the disabled, the enforced sterilisation of anyone considered


inferior. It all took place in the name of eugenics. But can we


embrace the promise of eugenics without its totalitarian


conotations. A modern, humane eugenics, driven not by coercion,


but by individual choice. The world is about to descend upon London for


the Paralympic Games. More than 4,000 athletes will compete in 20


different events. These British athletes are preparing for the goal


ball competition. The games are a celebration, not merely of sport,


but of the human spirit, a celebration of the greatest


disabled athletes on the planet. But 100 years ago, London welcomed


a rather different gathering. Disability was at the top of the


agenda, but with a very different twist. It was here, on the banks of


the Thames, in the summer of 1912, that the first international


eugenics conference took place. This was no fringe event, many of


the world's leading politicians and scientists descended upon London to


debate, amongst other things, a very simple issue. How to rid the


world of physical and mental disability. The media coverage


hinted at a brighter future, taking advances in our understanding of


genetics and breeding, to enhance future well being, and reduce


disease, and disability. Churchill attended the coverage, as did the


former Prime Minister, Lord Balfour, notable advocates included Bernard


Shaw, HG Wells, and John Maynard Keynes, a cricketor of the British


eugenics society. In many ways, eugenics united left and right.


Professor James Moore of the Open University, is an expert on the


history of eugenics and its consequences. The professional


middle-classes were the interested, with a bee in their bonnets. The


interest was future generations, the unborn. Eugenicists devoted


themselves to future generations and those who ought not to be born.


You are making a constituency of a voiceless unborn future was really


quite easy to convince people, that some people would be an infliction


on posterity. But from these seeds eugenics grew into something quite


different. In the hands of the Nazis, it became a project, not for


improving lives, but for destroying them. The effect of the environment


on human traits was virtually ignored, eugenics became a pretext


for eliminating anyone considered intellectually, physically, or


Asianly inferior. Consultants to this German exhibit, were many


people who later were honoured by the Nazi, and who wrote the


textbooks quoted by Adolf Hitler and the founders of German racial


policy in the 1930s, no-one saw that coming then.


But eugenics survived the end of the Second World War. Sweden


performed more than 6 2,000 sterilisations of the mental low


and physically disabled, right into the 1970s, and often, by force.


Virginia sterilised 8,000, California 21,000, other programmes


existed in Korea, Japan, Canada, and beyond. This is the covert


history of 20th century disability, and it hasn't stopped yet. In the


last two decades, there have been involuntary sterilisations amongst


gypsies in Europe, and the native peoples of Peru. The legacy of


London 1912, hoifr unintended, has been hor -- however unintended, has


been horrific, not just the eugenics of Nazi Germany, but the


programmes of sterilisation that have taken place throughout the


world. Perhaps the most shocking thing of all, is that these kinds


of programme continue to exist today. Many of the paralympians


will be celebrating in London, and have the same disabilities as those


whose rights have been violated. Does this mean we should write off


eugenics in its totality. We stand at the dawn of a new era, where


advances in genetic engineering, and embryo selection, could permit


parents to take far more control of the genetic make up of their


children. Should the prospect of designer babies be ignored, just


because of its associations with Nazisms. It is sometimes said that


because the Nazis embraced eugenics, that it must be wrong for us, at


least, to take the idea of improving human beings seriously.


Now, it seems to me just rather silly to think that things are


wrong because bad people do them. So, if it is true, which I think it


is doubtful, that the Nazis made the trains run on time, it doesn't


mean it is wicked to try to have a punctual railway system. There are


powerful, moral reasons to enhance human beings. And indeed human


beings are inveterate self- improvers.


This conception of eugenics has nothing to do with violating the


rights of the disabled, it is about allowing parents to do the best for


themselves, and their children. But critics see dangers. I think


sometimes having a disability can make life harder, but it doesn't


necessarily mean it is a bad thing. It just means that some things in


life are more of a challenge. Sharky, a British paralympian, has


a genetic condition that causes partial sightedness. I wouldn't


want a designer baby. I think you then take on the responsibility of


how that child is when it is born, if you have made that decision, it


is on your head be it. When you start meddling with that and


playing God within that situation, you are then responsible. We don't


want nature to take its course. Nature is a killer. We could not


practice medicine if we believed in letting nature take its course.


Because one of the best definitions I know of medicine is the


comprehensive attempt to frustrate the course of nature. The debate


over eugenics hinges on an even deeper question. Perhaps the


deepest question of all. What gives value to human life? Life all ends


the same way for everyone. We all finish this life at some point,


what did you do with it along the way? Eugenics has taken humanity


down many dark roads and caused untold suffering. But could a new


eugenics, enlightened by empathy, lefrpbed liberty, finally be about


to fulfil its promise. We have our guests here, some of our guests


views were in the film. We have a newspaper columnist who has written


about the apartheid some people with disabilities face, and cares


for his own daughter. And Kerry is a BBC presenter with the lower part


of her right arm missing. What do you think of the moral argument


that we have the duty to prevent disease and science has a moral


responsibility to prevent disability? It is a human


responsibility rather than a moral argument, all of us are responsible


for the future of the human race, in one sense. If you go down the


road and say we can create the perfect person, what you are doing


is saying well, unless we match up to this, therefore everyone else is


imperfect in some way. It's very foolish to think that we can create


an almighty human, because we're human beings, as long as we have


war we will have disabilities. People are coming back from


Afghanistan maimed in some way or other. It is like saying are they


also imperfect, the same way as people born with a disability.


Actually, no, none of us are imperfect, we are different from


what the suggested norm is. This has a human face, this isn't just


an abstract issue. I don't dissent from anything Kerry has just said,


of course, she's absolutely right. I have no interest in the idea of


perfection, it is a serious question, as to whether we should


try to improve the health of human kind, and to improve the health of


our children, and if we can do that, at a very early stage, if we can


make people more resistant to disease, longer living, healthier,


I think that is something that a good person would try to do. I will


come back to you Kerry, asking Ian about, that do you think there is


something wrong with that vision, that because you can do it you


should do it? It is an obscene vision we have seen before in


history. On one degree we should give credit to Professor Harris


because he's showing science is going faster than society can cope


with. And we are seeing grotesque views coming before us. There is


this view that disability is a medical issue, and there is a


secondary status to disabled people and we should eliminate that. There


is a perception that a disabled person has a worse quality of life


and should be stopped from living, in every single way it is


extraordinarily grotesquely so damning, and horribly superiorism


over disabled people. I suspect every parent is watching what would


I have done in your position, had I known, if I could have done


something about it, would I have chosen another way? Is that


something you thought about? There is presumption behind that, that a


childlike mine has a worse than inferior way of life. For all her


medical problems that bring her pain, she has a very happy life.


The problems she has in the main are those put forward by society, a


lot of people in society have the views that the professor has, that


there is this apartheid that disabled people are exiled to the


fringes of society. There is a fear of disabled people, there is an


idea they are inferior and we don't want them in society. That is the


presumption about the question you are asking and the views put


forward by Professor Harris. think you don't know what my views


R I do know you have advocated infantiside in the past, that is an


interesting thing to advocate. have not advocated that, we are not


talking about infantiside. You have been quoted in the past saying you


have been in favour of infantiside. I may have been quoted in that way,


that is not the subject. Certain low, look, think about, don't think


about disability, but inhancement. There is a very thin line. I could


be better in all sorts of ways than I am, I would like to be more


intelligent and resistant to disease, I would like to have a


better life expectancy than I do have. That doesn't mean that I'm


unworthy to live now, that doesn't mean that I think people like me


are inferior. Of course I don't think any of those things, I don't


think your daughter is inferior or I am, but I do see a considerable


point in trying to make people healthier, longer lived, so that


they can have more productive lives and do more of the things that they


would wish to do. Kerry, you have also got a child. Was it something


that you thought about, is this going to be a problem for her as


well as for you, is that something that even? Would my disability be a


problem for her, I don't think about that, if it is, I don't care,


she will have to get on with it. There are millions of things life


with throw at you, having a mum with one hand is a tiny aspect. My


daughter is mixed race, have I made her life harder by having a mixed


race child? I don't know, all I can do is support her the best way I


can, give her love and all the creativity and imagination I would


give to any of my children and see what she does with it. Do you think


with the advances in science that this debate is not just inevitable,


but we will have more and more about it, and people will think


more about it? I think it is sad and unfortunate. Probably you are


right. I really hate the way that health and disabled is grouped all


into the same thing. You know, we would all like to have a cure for


cancer and AIDS, but that is a very different things to say someone who


is living with an impairment, that isn't necessarily making their life


harder, in a physical sense, perhaps in the sense of how society


views them, it is making their life harder. But impairments aren't


necessarily something that needs to be challenged or changed, they are


something that needs to be worked out. Professor, do you think in


that context it is morally wrong for some people to have children,


if they know the child will have a particularly severe disability s is


that the wrong moral choice for them? It may well be. I think it is


something that people ...According To whose morals? If you are using


IVF, for example, and you have six fertilised embryos awaiting


implantation, the law will only be permit you to implant two of those.


You know that half of them will be severely disabled and the other


half will be presumed to be healthy. You can't implant them all, you


have to make a choice. Would it be right for you to deliberately


choose to implant the children who will have disabilities. That is the


parents' prerogative. I agree with you about that. I agree absolutely.


I'm a strong believer and have advocated all my career, in


parental choice about reproduction. But the question is, how should


they exercise that. Do you think it would be morally wrong for them to


exercise it in favour of a child they knew would be born about


disabilities? Yes. Given that the child doesn't exist, they can


either create a life which will have difficulties or a life that


will have fewer difficulty. I think again that is the same issue, here


we are hearing someone who is advocating, essentially, that is it


is morally wrong to give life to a child that is different to others.


But the problems are not the problems of the disability, it is a


problem with society that won't accept disability and is scared of


disability, the reality is that a disabled person can have just as


good a life and happier life, it is complete luck and circumstances and


so many factors come into it. The idea, the arrogance that it is


morally wrong to give life to a childlike that is extraordinary. I


do agree it is an issue which society needs to handle. Society is


running ahead in many ways, science is running ahead of what society


can deal with and cope with at the moment. Thank you all very much.


Now, the battle of the smartphones between Apple and Samsung reached a


climax in a US court yesterday A knockout for Apple. What does it


mean for one of the world's most lucrative markets and our choice as


consumers. Joe Lynam has been called to the Genius Bar.


Within hours of their landmark court patent victory last Friday,


Apple's boss, Tim Cook, said the That is a different yd view to


originality held by Steve Jobs back in 1995. Picasso had a saying, he


said good artists copy, great artists steal. We have always been


shameless about stealing great ideas. Speed forward to last year,


and the saintly Mr Jobs declared thermonuclear war on other firms


who he felt had copied Apple technology. Now Apple appears to


have won a decisive battle in that war. A California jury, rather than


a patent expert panel, found Samsung had infringed several


patents and fined them $1 billion. Although the judge did a great job


of controlling the litigants, isn't an expert on patent law. Although


some experts might be on the jury, they are not experts, without a


significant technical background. There are always strategic issues


in looking where and who to sue. What are they squabbling about.


Many of the days we use every day in our smartphones, for example,


there is this pinch effect where you make pictures bigger or smaller,


then there is the elastic band effect, where you go to the top or


bottom of the page, it bounces back. Apple says it invented both those


technologies and Samsung nicked it and put it into their phones. Can


you patent a rectangular shape with a rounded edge? The District Court


in California said you could. Apart from Apple who are the winners and


losers from the judgment. Samsung is beige loser, we will know if it


will have to remove some of its flagship phones and tablets from US


shelves. The markets have wiped $12 billion off the company value since


the judgment. Samsung are set to appeal, but it might seriously


damage it. The real problem for them is how to deal with the


logistical fall-out. If appeals fail and they have to withdraw


products from the market place. That is a massive logistic kalhood


ache, pulling millions of hand sets out of the market. It is unlikely


it will happen, but it could happen, they could be forced to pull back


handsets already sold. That becomes an incredibly expensive and


difficult process. Going after hardware makers like Samsung, Apple


side stepped the battle with Google, which owns the software android. If


Apple had gone after Google, they could pick on a faux that could


bite back. They own MoT role la, and with it key patents d -- MoT at


that role la, and with it key patents.


What does the inventor of the first mobile phone make of all this?


Marty Cooper used to work for moat role la, and made the very first


call from a cellphone back in 1973, ironically to his then arch rivals,


AT&T. It is not Apple's fault it is the system itself. The patent


system was intended to provide a monopoly to make sure we would get


more innovation. Some how or other the system has become distorted


over a period of time. It is inhibiting us getting new


technology. We are still in the toy stage, most people in the world


still use phones for talking, and for texting. We have been doing


that for many years. The rest of the things we are just starting.


Some commentators are already warning consumers that this ruling


will create an Apple tax on all of them. As rivals will now have to


pay Apple to use its technology. Pushing up the price for many tech


products. Innovation may have been rewarded by the court, but


consumers may end up paying, once again, for that. They may secretly


be banking on Samsung's appeal. In a moment the ping-pong table. First


the death of the novel is a story almost as old as the life of the


novel. But what of the death of publishing? Or the end of the book?


Over the past few years the music industry has been in turmoil,


sometimes free or pirateed downloads sur planting CDs, which


you have to go out and buy. Could it happen to the book? Howard


Jacobson's new novel Zoo Time turns in part about the idea that maybe


reading itself is finished. One of the old jokes of literature is more


people write poetry than actually read it. So is the same also


possible about a generation which tweets and blogs, but may be


indifferent to the professional writers, who keep us entertained


and informed, and here is the shock, might actually know something.


Howard Jacobson's central character in his new novel Zoo Time, is a


writer called Guy Ableman, who reflects, on what he calls, the


The Finkler Question. Jacobson himself won the Booker Prize in


2010 at a point in his career where he was highly regarded, but how


well did he sell. Does it take a big prize to turn things around. Or,


as one of his characters put it, should he blag and twit, or as some


might say, blog and tweet. How much trouble is publishing in now?


Independent book shops are closing, and libraries are closing, and


publishers are all worrying and wondering how to deal with the


phenomenon of the electronic book and so on. My worry is, it is not


my worry, this is a novel and it is full of fun, I hope, it is full of


exhileration, and it is the story of a man in love with two enwomen,


his wife and his mother, that is the meat -- two women, his wife and


his her mother. It is full of meat. It is full of agents and literary


people in despair of the novel? He's a failed novelist. He isn't me.


I have won the Man Booker Prize, I started this before I won the prize,


but still, he is a failure. His sense of what is going wrong might


be slightly more gloomy than my sense of what is going wrong. I


write this as someone who has an inordinate love of the novel. I


believe the novel is more important than anything else. So when I see


the novel being ill-read, it bothers me, I don't want to go to a


reading group, and have people saying to me, as my hero Guy


Ableman does, I can't sympathise with your hero, I can't identify


with your hero, it is irrelevant. But, if it is the novel being ill-


read, there are obviously some great novels being written,


including Fifty Shades of Grey? Huge human for, yeah! But to go


back to the kind of novel I love, it seems to me a shame when all the


things that the novel exists to do, which is to dilute ideology, to


refute a political position, the value of the novel exists precisely


because it won't allow you to occupy any of those positions. But


we are reading novels now as though, if the novel is not politically, as


we believe it should be, it is a failed novel. If a novel doesn't


say the sorts of things we think it should do. If a offends against


gender or race politic, there is something wrong with it. The glory


of the novel is it offends. have a lady who gives a degree of


hand relief to a tiger in a zoo, which may offend some people, a lot


of readers might find it funny? hope they would, but if such a


thing happens in life, I'm assured by people who work in a zoo,


because I research my novels very carefully, you must write these


things. The glory of the novel is it will offend and upset and will


allow no political ideology or opinion settle anywhere. If we


don't like the characters it doesn't matter. That is what I


started this conversation, is it our fault as readers if we don't


get it, or identify with the character of something, are we


doing something wrong? I -- any reader who thinks he or she doesn't


want to go on with a novel because they don't identify with the


characters, then yes, there is something wrong with that the


reader. I hate the unput downable, put it down. I don't want it on my


book, put it down, get angry with it, open the window. You can't


breathe with the great books, the relationship you want people to


have with the great books can't be defined by nice attitudes, an


unwillingness to be upset by anything. The novel can do so much


for us, the novel teaches us what it is like not to be ourselves, to


read only from our own individual, the selfishness of our own


individual position, it is so miss what the novel is for. Sounds to me


as if the novel is still alive. What is also happening is there is


winners and losers, and some win the Booker Prize, and you have done


much better, I suppose, in temples of sales because of it, or there is


-- in terms of sales, because of it. Or there is things like Fifty


Shades of Grey, which do well, but it is not about whether it is a


good literature? My novel will not win the Man Booker Prize, and may


never do it, what of him. I see winning it as an extraordinary


stroke of good fortune, I had the perfect panel. What happens if you


don't. What happens if you are not read by people sympathetic to what


you are doing. We will leave it there. A quick read of the front


That's all from Newsnight tonight. At a time when despite the weather


we are inspired by the Olympic spirit and putting sport into our


lives, we notice our Booker Prize winning author, was a keen ping-


pong player, and having on the same programme, Matthew Side, former


number one, it was too good an opportunity to miss.


Hurricane Isaac approaches Louisiana, we have our own weather


system coming to the UK. Not on the same scale but making an impact.


Rain in the day ahead, following on with heavy showers, this is how it


looks like in the afternoon. Torrential downpours in northern


England, had heavy in the Midlands. The rain clearing away at this


stage. Sunshine will follow. The showers in south-west England and


Wales packing quite a punch, hail and thunder is possible. But it is


not going to be a constant rain at this stage. There will be spells of


sunshine inbetween the heavy downpours. Some of us may just


escape them and stay dry. The wind is lighter in Northern Ireland and


south-west Scotland. Slow-moving torrential downpours are possible.


Hail and thunder, you could get local flooding and possible


disruption. More persistent rain for the outer hebties in Shetland.


A lot of showers around, following the persistent rain tomorrow. As


for Thursday, still some showers around across central and eastern


parts of the UK. Particularly in the afternoon in eastern England.


It starts to dry up further west, particularly across Scotland and


What does the battle between Apple and Samsung portend for the touchscreen? Newsnight talks to the inventor of the mobile phone about long-term implications of Apple's recent court victory over Samsung for infringing intellectual property. Presented by Gavin Esler.

Download Subtitles