or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple to pay $8M in damages over iPod playlist patent suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to pay $8M in damages over iPod playlist patent suit - Page 4

post #121 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

It's only in 'the square mile'. Medieval guild privileges still exist there.

Fascinating. But I thought Guilds were kind of proto-unions. Organizations of tradesmen to protect the "secrets" of their crafts. How did the privileges granted workers accrue to corporations run by the very class the Guilds were counterbalance to?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #122 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

My background here is not as a patent attorney or a patent expert of any kind. Does anyone commenting here have those levels of expertise and is holding out on us? Note that I have not offered any opinion with respect to the validity of any given patent because I lack the background or knowledge to make any such judgment. I see that others are not similarly constrained, and further feel that they can out of hand dismiss if not condemn a legal process about which they also have little knowledge or expertise. Perhaps this only troubles me.

There are two different knowledge domains that are relevant here. The first is legal, and relates to whether, as the law currently stands, these patents are valid and Judge Ward's court is fair. I"m agnostic about that - and I don't think it really matters much either way because the problem is much deeper.

Then there is the broader political case of whether software patents should be permitted at all. That doesn't require legal expertise, but instead knowledge of how software development and innovation take place. As a professional developer my opinion is that they are unnecessary and indeed pernicious, in all but a handful of cases. This isn't a minority belief amongst developers, so if the aim of software patents is to enable and reward software innovation - and software creators feel that they instead constrain and threaten innovation- then they are no longer fit for purpose.
post #123 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Fascinating. But I thought Guilds were kind of proto-unions. Organizations of tradesmen to protect the "secrets" of their crafts. How did the privileges granted workers accrue to corporations run by the very class the Guilds were counterbalance to?

Those early guilds weren't really Trade Unions though, they were more like small business owners, and were very much the capitalists of their day. Their purpose wasn't to counterbalance corporations, which didn't exist except amongst guilds themselves. Their purpose was to represent business interests to the government - they were more like prototype industry lobbies than proto-unions.

It's all very odd and mysterious but this would be the relevant wiki if you're curious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_of_london
post #124 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

There are two different knowledge domains that are relevant here. The first is legal, and relates to whether, as the law currently stands, these patents are valid and Judge Ward's court is fair. I"m agnostic about that - and I don't think it really matters much either way because the problem is much deeper.

Then there is the broader political case of whether software patents should be permitted at all. That doesn't require legal expertise, but instead knowledge of how software development and innovation take place. As a professional developer my opinion is that they are unnecessary and indeed pernicious, in all but a handful of cases. This isn't a minority belief amongst developers, so if the aim of software patents is to enable and reward software innovation - and software creators feel that they instead constrain and threaten innovation- then they are no longer fit for purpose.

Fair enough. I don't have an opinion on the need for or usefulness of software patents. I presume you mean that copyrights are sufficient protection for the intellectual property represented by software and that patents only confuse the issues.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #125 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I made a statement you said I needed to prove it, I simply pointed out that I had absolutely no need to prove it, it could stand in this discussion simply as opinion. One could just as easily say that if you disagree with it you must disprove it, or prove your own claim that these patent holders are mostly inventors who were unable to bring their product to market, despite their pockets being deep enough to both patent their idea and sue to enforce it.

Can you prove



Since many egregious patents stand up in court it clearly isn't just a problem of patent office salaries.

Can you prove



(Good luck with that one)

You make statements that you cannot prove all the time, are they not germaine? Do they not matter? Would you like me to demand proof everytime you make one in future? I strongly suggest you drop this line because it isn't going to go well for you.

Oh and the idea that a troll aids innovation is completely ridiculous on many levels.
  1. The troll has patented the most natural way to accomplish something, often at a UI level. Unnatural UIs aren't innovative, they're generally just bad.
  2. If you're trolled then you're already being held as infringing, so unless you're big enough to fight you're going to have to pay up - for small software firms that is likely to be a painful, perhaps fatal experience - not conducive to innovation.
  3. If you attempt to subsequently avoid the patent but you are a small firm, the troll can still sue again, and you don't have the money to fight them, so you'll pay again. The only way to avoid the troll is to write a completely new piece of software in a new problem domain, which may have patent issues of its own.

You have really gone over the edge. Don't you understand when someone wants to end something, and leave it alone? I guess not. This post isn't something that is worth responding to, point for point. Again, forget it.
post #126 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Fair enough. I don't have an opinion on the need for or usefulness of software patents. I presume you mean that copyrights are sufficient protection for the intellectual property represented by software and that patents only confuse the issues.

Exactly. The problem with software patents is that it's very easy to infringe them accidentally without being aware that the Patent existed, whereas it's impossible to do that with copyright, you can't accidentally plagiarize. There are a few cases where software patents would be hard to accidentally infringe such as very specific compression or encryption schemes, but they're exceptions.
post #127 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You have really gone over the edge.

You would have to prove that

Quote:
Don't you understand when someone wants to end something, and leave it alone? I guess not. This post isn't something that is worth responding to, point for point. Again, forget it.

Let me give you some helpful ways of ending something in a neutral way, you can feel free to use these in future without attribution.

'I guess we have a difference of opinion on that point'
'We'll have to agree to disagree'
'I don't agree with you but I see what you're saying'


Here's how to not

'You would need to prove that'
'You have really gone over the edge.'
post #128 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Edison patented the light bulb, and Michelin the tire, unless I'm mistaken, and both were amazing inventions. What you are essentially saying is "if some invention is really useful, it should not be patented". This is not how you favor research.

The problem is not what you can patent, it's effectively deciding how much money you can make from a patent that you don't use. I think none, but that's my personal opinion and I won't force it upon anyone... yet. (I am honing my taking-over-the-world plan).

Seems like the biggest issue is what companies are able to do with patents once they buy them off someone else. Patents were meant to protect the inventor's intellectual property, not the money grubbing lawyers that setup shop as patent trolls. That's the real problem with the system and the fix really needs to be changing what they can use a purchased patent for.
post #129 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Exactly. The problem with software patents is that it's very easy to infringe them accidentally without being aware that the Patent existed, whereas it's impossible to do that with copyright, you can't accidentally plagiarize. There are a few cases where software patents would be hard to accidentally infringe such as very specific compression or encryption schemes, but they're exceptions.

Point taken, but it doesn't scratch this particular itch. A change would have to be made worldwide to have any useful force and effect. For now courts still have to determine whether software patents are being infringed upon and there's simply no infallible way to do that.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple to pay $8M in damages over iPod playlist patent suit