or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple hit with streaming media patent infringement suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple hit with streaming media patent infringement suit - Page 2

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Because the patent system is in fact broken and not relevant to current technologies and current concepts of actual and virtual intellectual property. I personally have owned and released several copyrights over the years, and while I personally don't hold any patents, I have scientist and engineering friends who do. Actually, the reason that Apple is giving a "slack pass" as you so quaintly put it, is perhaps because this site is titled APPLE INSIDER, and not [name your company here] INSIDER. So your assumption that they are the aggrieving party is equally invalid. What you seem to be suggesting are statements along these lines: "well, either Apple or Emblaze are in the wrong here" (sound of crickets chirping) from everyone. If this distresses you as much as it seems to, you might be better deserved by going to some other site that is not so closely aligned with any given interest and is coasting along on fluffy clouds of happiness and joy, diversity, equality, equanimity and somnambulence.

A couple of points. First, you are correct that the site is called APPLE INSIDER, not APPLE FANBOY BELIEVE EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT APPLE SITE. The site, IMHO, is about the rational discussion of issue, not a Apple Kool-Aid site.

I am not suggesting anything along the lines you state. I do not assume that one or the other part is "right", I am simply saying that quite a few posts ASSUME that Apple is right and Emblaze is a patent troll, without having read the complaint or the patent. Neither have I, but I do believe that the case will be decided on the "merits" and not some blind faith that Apple is always right.

How is the patent system broken and irrelevant. Simply stating it without offering evidence is pointless. Given the information presented here, the system seems to be working (Emblaze has patent, thinks Apple infringed, and Emblaze files suit). The only way the system is "broken" is if one thinks Apple is always innocent. And yes, I have had god knows how many copyrights, and worked in a couple of research groups where patents were considered.
post #42 of 58
The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.

There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post

We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?

An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.

In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.

What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.

Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.

b) is false. Patent is not like copyright. You can infringe without ever knowing of the original patent.
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.

There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.

I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another.

I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Well it's obvious that with 47 patent infringements that Apple has been using others patents without permission or compensation. I went ahead and explained my reasoning why I thought that is.

No need to go all fanboy rabid on me.

You didn't read the article just admit it. You are also acting like a child with your fanboy comment. Grow up.

Quote:
Since they are co-defendants and Microsoft has deeper pockets, yes it makes perfect sense for Apple to coordinate a defense against this suit, and it was only a suggestion if you re-read the post again. Notice the word "if" like "if Apple could combine this suit with Microsoft..."

I don't think who have deeper pocket will matter here. In fact, MS is in more trouble since they sell more OS then Apple.

Quote:
Uh, the last two years is not reflective of Microsoft's entire lawsuit history and Apple has settled a lot more before trial than Microsoft ever has.

As for research, you have to do that yourself. Enjoy.

Can you prove that?
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another.

I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.

Why shouldn't the patent holder set the price? Don't you believe in the market. Instead you want an idepeneent third party. You mean something like executive compensation boards where they are all friends and reward eachother for nohing. Such a system would be stacked against the little guy.

Why is software any different? Don't you think pirated software is bad? Without protection such activity would be legal
post #48 of 58
[CENTER]Nice...[/CENTER]
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Why shouldn't the patent holder set the price? Don't you believe in the market. Instead you want an idepeneent third party. You mean something like executive compensation boards where they are all friends and reward eachother for nohing. Such a system would be stacked against the little guy.

Why is software any different? Don't you think pirated software is bad? Without protection such activity would be legal

No, I don't believe in the market. The idea of the free market has failed spectacularly on several occasions.

Again, no, I mean something like an adjunct to the patent office.

Software is different because it is very akin to trying to patent a thought process, logical thought or language. Why not grant an author a patent on the use of a detective with ideosyncratic behaviours?

Software has always had the protection of Copyright to protect it from piracy
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

No, I don't believe in the market. The idea of the free market has failed spectacularly on several occasions.

Again, no, I mean something like an adjunct to the patent office.

Software is different because it is very akin to trying to patent a thought process, logical thought or language. Why not grant an author a patent on the use of a detective with ideosyncratic behaviours?

Software has always had the protection of Copyright to protect it from piracy

Just to play the devils advocate, while I agree that unfettered capatilism is not good for socities, centralized governmental controls do not work either as in the case of Russia or Jimmy carter's price contols of the 70's.

Also with the government setting prices can you imagine the lobbiests who would get involved. The little guy would surly get shafted.
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

That's what I was trying to explain, that Apple may have no other choice but to infringe on 47 patents and deal with the consequences later.

It all comes down to who has the money, time and effort to enforce their patents because the government(s) are certainly not enforcing anything for free, just acting like a paid referee.

Say if Apple comes up with a new device, does some patent research and finds it infringes on Microsoft's, Adobe's and some poor tiny company in Satoma respective patents.

I suspect how Apple handles each infringement depends upon how much it's going to cost, who is it going to benefit or risk Apple later on with.

1: For Microsoft, Apple might find a work around to the infringement as not to tell Microsoft of the new product or have to pay them money. If Apple infringes, Microsoft will be a hard fight in court as they have deep pockets and lots of experience.

2: For Adobe, Apple may approach them and work out a deal, as they work together (usually)

3: For the poor tiny company in Satoma: If Apple goes to them to make a license deal, they will want money, which would only make them more powerful and want to sue later when they renegotiate the terms of the license for even more money. So the best bet is to give them no money, no money means no fight later for more money.

Some companies like Nokia, who's technology is unavoidable, simply want too much and use patent trading to destroy the competition, much like Microsoft nearly copies everything Apple does.

It's corporate warfare, plain and simple. Companies and people with the biggest and deepest pockets usually win, even if they are wrong. Because courts, lawyers, researchers, investigators, mindfsck experts etc. cost plenty of money. If one side can't afford the best, they are beaten before they even start.

So Apple might have no choice but to take the risk and infringe, suffer the courts and the suits but come out making a profit anyway, perhaps being able to change things for the better in the meanwhile.

Warfare indeed. It is a shame the US Tax payer couldn't help defend US companies against this foreign law suit by withholding some of the money we send that particular country every year out of our hard earned taxes!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.

There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.

Except the Patent Office has granted patents that were later to found to be not new, were a duplicate, or infringed on somebody else and that is what is mammothly broken in the US patent system.

It takes money to prove that the patent that the braindead Patent Office was not valid in the first place. The wikipedia article on perpetual motions machine lists no less than five patents issues in direct violation of the no perpetual machine rule put for in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001 with the last listed granted May 27, 2008.

When the Patent Office can't follow its own rules then the system is broken.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.

In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.

What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah

Racist crap has no place here.

What Mossad did 40 years ago has no nexus with the current lawsuit, except for your imagined scenario that the Jews are (again!) perpetrating some sort of evil.

Go away or shut up with your racist crap.
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

b) is false. Patent is not like copyright. You can infringe without ever knowing of the original patent.

You can also infringe a copyright without doing so knowingly, as George Harrison found out WRT "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on "She's So Fine".

He didn't realize that he copied the melody, but was found guilty anyways.
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

Except the Patent Office has granted patents that were later to found to be not new, were a duplicate, or infringed on somebody else and that is what is mammothly broken in the US patent system.

It takes money to prove that the patent that the braindead Patent Office was not valid in the first place. The wikipedia article on perpetual motions machine lists no less than five patents issues in direct violation of the no perpetual machine rule put for in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001 with the last listed granted May 27, 2008.

When the Patent Office can't follow its own rules then the system is broken.

The fact that an organization makes some mistakes does not indicate that the system is broken. Given the HUGE volume of applications that are submitted mistakes are bound to happen.

Based on your argument, every aspect of American life is broken because nothing is mistake free.
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

You can also infringe a copyright without doing so knowingly, as George Harrison found out WRT "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on "She's So Fine".

He didn't realize that he copied the melody, but was found guilty anyways.

Not strictly correct. If you truly come up with something independently, then you cannot infringe copyright. I think you'll find in the case above (without having looked it up) that he subconsciously copied the work. Particularly in the cases like you mention the ability for the mind to retain memories unconsciously is given some weight in whether a copy was made. As you correctly suggest, he didn't realise he'd copied the melody.
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Not strictly correct. If you truly come up with something independently, then you cannot infringe copyright. I think you'll find in the case above (without having looked it up) that he subconsciously copied the work. Particularly in the cases like you mention the ability for the mind to retain memories unconsciously is given some weight in whether a copy was made. As you correctly suggest, he didn't realise he'd copied the melody.

Yes. Access to the underlying work is something that the prosecution needs to prove in some copyright cases. I didn't mention that caveat.

Patent is different, in that the work must be publicly disclosed in the filing, leading to the legal fiction that everybody has had "constructive access" to the protected work.
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.

In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.

What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah

That's great! I love the hypocrisy.

I love more is the fear everyone has of Apple. Finally a small company, almost dead on its feet, and rescued from the ashes like a phoenix, is make some bank with its excellent products and what do we hear? The fear of those Microsoft Cronies scared shitless. Down with Microsoft and and Adobe for that matter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple hit with streaming media patent infringement suit