or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers - Page 5

post #161 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

I originally thought this way, but the fact is, Android copies the iPhone in SO MANY ways, I'm fine with them getting tagged based on a technicality.
post #162 of 210
Who has the patent on hyperlinks? I s'pose I should be worried about getting sued for using them....

Quote:
While hyperlinking among webpages is an intrinsic feature of the web,...

Making hot links out of phone numbers and addresses? Same thing. Things that are intuitive shouldn't be patent-able. Otherwise, I'll patent a directional methodology of wiping me arse and sue everyone else who does it the same way....
post #163 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by artificialintel View Post

The problem is that up until the early 90s was also the period when software tended not to be interoperable and software companies were tiny compared to hardware companies. I was just a tadpole hacking around on a C64 in the mid-80s, but I do remember having to check software for specific hardware for which it was built, loading a bunch of buggy, stolen TRS-80 games from a cassette tape, and other adventures with early GUI-based computers. I won't go so far as to say that software back then sucked because of a lack of patent protection, but I definitely think software was taken much, much less seriously then.

That's not really true, but I can see how it would have seemed so. The 80s were a time when platforms were being born, so naturally there were a ton of competing platforms, and massive incompatibility between devices. MSoft was already profitable though, and it went from strength to strength without needing patent protection - even in the mid 90s when the windows monopoly had conquered the desktop and was entering the workstation and server market in earnest MS was relying primarily on copyright and not patent to protect itself.

The trend towards compatibiilty of hardware and software was driven by MS dominance and partly by their anti-trust issues which limited their ability to impose incompatibility. Another way you can see that patents haven't been important for software innovation, can you actually think of more than a handful of big patent suits between software firms in the last decade?

Quote:
It's also worth noting how much Dan Bricklin's objections in 1995 revolved around changing the rules late in the game: "With the law interpreted one way for so long, and an entire industry structuring itself around that interpretation, allowing the patenting and enforcement of patents of pure software this late in the life of the art is an unusual hardship for a thriving industry that is crucial to the world's economy. While it may theoretically have been appropriate to have pure software patents, the opportunity has passed."

He makes the point more clearly elsewhere, changing the rules mid-game imposed an exceptional burden on prior art discovery. It's not the only argument against software patents, but it's one that i think he hoped would be more likely to make sense to non-technical law makers and judges because it's an entirely legal argument.

There is difficult access to potential prior art in the software industry, especially from the pre-World Wide Web days. The software industry did not grow up with patents having much import (they were rare before the Supreme Court decisions in the early 1980's that opened the gates) so it was not the practice to publish or save what was commonly known or to follow other practices you would expect in an area where patents, and patent litigation, are common.


http://www.bricklin.com/patents2006.htm

Quote:
As for trade dress, I was just thinking that if one made the look and feel distinctive to another covered under trade dress, then you'd be fine. Basically, one could implement the same features, as long as they were implemented distinctively. Or something like that. Jurisprudence invariably establishes much of the meaning of IP law and IANAL.

I suppose it would depend on how functional the design elements could be. I mean consider the scroll bar - would the old xt scrollbars ( the funky ones that used all 3 mousebuttons) be considered the same as the motif scrollbar, or the apple scrool bar?

The other problem of trade dress is that you have to be a leading presence in the industry to acquire trade dress protection.

I see where you're coming from, but I think that GUI design patents would seem a better bet. Strictly non-functional design protection, 20 years, accessible to all market participants. GUI design seems more like the kind of place where patents should work well - where there is a large population of roughly equally valid solutions to the same problem.
post #164 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Who has the patent on hyperlinks? I s'pose I should be worried about getting sued for using them....

British Telecom believed that they had it, no kidding. Thank god we dodged that bullet

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strat...-case-2121257/
post #165 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.

All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.

I agree but no stakeholders will go along with this. Until perhaps the developer community at large starts infringing on so many patents that it becomes like the music industry trying to sue every person who has downloaded an mp3. As it is now the only people profiting from this system are the lawyers. How many of them do you think honestly understand the cases they are fighting?
post #166 of 210
Apple has gotten too big and powerful. As consumers, we are suffering because Apple is just resting on their laurels. This victory against HTC is making Steve Jobs' head larger than it already is so I have a plan to bring back some competition and make Apple innovate. First things first, the US federal government should seize Apple, not buy them out, but nationalize them.

Apple has a $70 billion cash hoard. That's too much. It's the cause of all the problems, such as Apple buying up too many components. Therefore, every quarter, after paying Apple's employees, the rest of Apple's earnings will be placed in a pot that will be evenly shared among all of Apple's competitors, such as RIM, Motorola, HTC, and so on and so forth.

Hereafter, Apple is barred from making any design decisions. RIM will be responsible for developing iOS. Various OEMs such as Samsung, HTC, etc. will be given the opportunity to bid to produce iOS devices.

Hereafter, Apple the only part that Apple may design is the Apple logo. Apple will be responsible for designing pretty-looking stickers that will be stamped on the back of the manufactured iOS devices.

This will make things more competitive. After all, competition is good for the consumer, right?
post #167 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Although his statement is erroneous, calling him a troll is silly. Some of you treat any opinion that is not pro-Apple as hostile. Invest some of that passion in a real life.

(Applauding)
post #168 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

Apple has gotten too big and powerful. As consumers, we are suffering because Apple is just resting on their laurels. This victory against HTC is making Steve Jobs' head larger than it already is so I have a plan to bring back some competition and make Apple innovate. First things first, the US federal government should seize Apple, not buy them out, but nationalize them.

Apple has a $70 billion cash hoard. That's too much. It's the cause of all the problems, such as Apple buying up too many components. Therefore, every quarter, after paying Apple's employees, the rest of Apple's earnings will be placed in a pot that will be evenly shared among all of Apple's competitors, such as RIM, Motorola, HTC, and so on and so forth.

Hereafter, Apple is barred from making any design decisions. RIM will be responsible for developing iOS. Various OEMs such as Samsung, HTC, etc. will be given the opportunity to bid to produce iOS devices.

Hereafter, Apple the only part that Apple may design is the Apple logo. Apple will be responsible for designing pretty-looking stickers that will be stamped on the back of the manufactured iOS devices.

This will make things more competitive. After all, competition is good for the consumer, right?

Is....is that you, President Obama? Welcome to the AI forum.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #169 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

That is patentable? But this is trivial and obvious code. In most modern high level programming languages it is a single line of code. This is as bad as the Amazon one click patent. I'm actually surprised there isn't plenty of examples of prior art.

All this makes me think is the entire patent system is a joke and should be scrapped.

Wrong:

Quote:
Abstract

A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure

No programming language solves this scenario in a single line of code.

Keep dreaming.

An analogy would be applying the laws of Mathematics and Physics to a specific solution you show to be novel and you coming back and saying, ``I can show how this solution is derived using Calculus and Physics so this should not be a Patent,'' and the rest of the world will laugh at you.

A programming language supplying POSIX Regular Expressions is not the Control System discussed in this Abstract. There are several actors in the scenario, but you're ignoring that and the actual architecture behind it.
post #170 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Is....is that you, President Obama? Welcome to the AI forum.

Spare us your ignorance. Obama would praise Apple and be the first to cite that 11% of US PC sales is not too big.

Grow up and don't cry to hard when the GOP implodes in 2012.
post #171 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Worse case scenario and Apple shuts down ALL Androids sales...would that leave a hole in the market for MS and Windows 7 Phone????

Well... all those smartphone manufacturers would have to look somewhere else for phone OS. Unless HP starts licensing WebOS, there isn't much more out there but Windows Phone 7. MeeGo?

Additionally, we don't know how would WebOS and MeeGo stand patent probing by Apple and MS. WebOS should have some decent guns in Palm's patent portfolio, but since Nokia gave up on MeeGo, I don't really think they have too many telecomm-related patents remaining to defend themselves. Though, Intel has some big guns to keep it afloat if they would decide to use it.

All this presuming that all modern smartphone OSs share many underlying technologies.

Second question would be: would majority of Android users - once the time for replacing their Android phones is due (and there are no new Android phones around) - move to iPhone, or stay loyal (while showing defiance against Apple) to brands they already have, no matter what OS runs on units from those brands.

All in all, banning Android phones could be the best thing ever for WP7 and WebOS, even more than for Apple.
post #172 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You're looking at it wrong.

If all patent holders were forced to cross licence, then there isn't much point to having a patent system in the first place. Anyone could copy anyone else and know that all they have to do is pay them a bit of cash to cover off stealing their ideas.

The patent system is indeed broken, but it's broken the *other* way.

Here we have a case of an industry leader, creating a brand new category of device loaded with innovations and every one of them is solidly patented. But at the end of the day, they are going to win only on these two obscure old patents (from OS-X days no less), when in fact they should have won on all the other stuff as well.

I would suggest the patent system is broken not because Apple won this minor victory, but because they lost almost everything else. I mean they literally *invented* multi-touch computing for the desktop and mobile devices and they own all the basic patents on it, and yet it doesn't seem to matter at all. Apple seems to have no power to stop anyone else from doing anything they want with it.

Now *that's* evidence of a broken system. Not this.

Nice reply, thanks! As to

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

because they lost almost everything else.

Are you saying that they have last Court Cases for "almost everything else" literally? I don't know how verbatim I should take that "almost everything else"... I only hope that you are somewhat overstating that... I don't follow that stuff anywhere near as closely as probably some folks here, thus I am not in a position to argue...

I also guess that Apple simply can't run to court for every single paragraph, violation! They probably consolidate a bunch of items into one case, and have several such cases going on at the same time!!!

All I am saying that I wish there was no need for such patent litigation, but it's probably going to become a norm in that industry...

Go  Apple!!!

Reply

Go  Apple!!!

Reply
post #173 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radjin View Post

If a company has a patent on something, nobody should be able to use that technology unless they work out an agreement that satisfies the owner of the patent. Otherwise they need to develop their own technology. When Apple steps on others toes, they have had to pay up to correct the issue, that same rule should apply to those who step on Apple's toes.

Yes, but how are patents being issued?

Is patent bureau only looking if similar patent has already been issued, or are they actually probing it in terms of prior art and generic-ness?

Because we have learned so far that many patents don't hold water on court. I personally think that getting a patent should be so much harder, but likewise defending it on court should be so much easier than it is today.
post #174 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


Grow up and don't cry to hard when the GOP implodes in 2012.

I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.

Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.

I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #175 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I mean they literally *invented* multi-touch computing for the desktop...

Multi-touch overview
post #176 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiekiduk View Post

Have you considered that the only troll here is yourself?

No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).

Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.

Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
post #177 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by aknabi View Post

No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).

Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.

Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage


The first "smartphone" hit the market in 1996.
Keep on trolling brother.
post #178 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.

Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.

I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.

I think you may have gotten confused. This is the Apple Insider forum, not the Glenn Beck Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-atheist-anti-Semite-in-league-with-nazi-Jewish-financiers conspiracy board. Though I'm sure Obama sat down with all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley to lecture them about how they should give their companies to the proletariat, because I got an email from my Aunt Edna that said it was TOTALLY TRUE!!!1!
post #179 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by aknabi View Post

No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).

Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.

Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage

You created a smartphone in 1994?! Incredible! Literally incredible, in fact.
post #180 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

Those who steal expensive to develop leading edge designs, should pay dearly for same.
post #181 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by artificialintel View Post

I think you may have gotten confused. This is the Apple Insider forum, not the Glenn Beck Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-atheist-anti-Semite-in-league-with-nazi-Jewish-financiers conspiracy board. Though I'm sure Obama sat down with all the tech leaders in Silicon Valley to lecture them about how they should give their companies to the proletariat, because I got an email from my Aunt Edna that said it was TOTALLY TRUE!!!1!



Remember Aunt Enda and her kin all watch Faux news around the clock so they know what to think, it's not really their fault.
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 #182 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Who has the patent on hyperlinks? I s'pose I should be worried about getting sued for using them....



Making hot links out of phone numbers and addresses? Same thing. Things that are intuitive shouldn't be patent-able.

If it was THAT obvious why hadn't it been done like this before?
post #183 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

If it was THAT obvious why hadn't it been done like this before?

By that argument every single patent is non-obvious, which is clearly not the court's view. If the mere fact that something was done first was proof of non-obviousness there would be no need for the law to specify both novelty and non-obviousness as requirements.

Also, you're rather assuming that it never had been done before - all you actually know is that it hadn't been done before on a smartphone platform. IDE's were doing pattern recognition on user entered data and allowing the user to then execute actions based on that back in the 90s. As I've already pointed out emacs folding mode was written back in 1991.
post #184 of 210
I think the problem is, in some cases patents have been approved on some things that they probably shouldn't have been.

A company that invests heavily in R & D should be rewarded for that investment without the fear of everyone and their brother waiting to see what they do and then copying them.

Why don't they allow time-limits, like the drug industry? Say a company invents a new way of doing something on a smartphone. They alone can use this technique (if they so wish, or license it to others) after a set period, perhaps five years, that technique is open for others to freely use.

I don't know that this should be used in all cases necessarily, but I can see where this might benefit the industry as a whole while still rewarding those who innovate.
post #185 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

False, false, false. Linux is a reimplementation of some of Unix ideas, but definitely not a copy. In any case, a copy would be a copyright violation, not a patent violation. Much of Unix was never patented -- the idea of a software patent had not been determined in 1970, when Unix was developed. The US Supreme Court did not rule that software was patentable until 1981 in Diamond v Diehr.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "copy" in a patent fight.

I didn't mean that Linux was patent encumbered *because* "it's a copy of Unix" but it's true that Linux has not been examined sufficiently closely (IMO of course), to ensure that it doesn't infringe. Unix is was you say for the most part not patented.

I meant only "copy" in the colloquial sense of Linux obviously being a copy of Unix and therefore a "Unix-like system." I also meant to imply from that, that Linux is not an "original" (and therefore copyrighted system) in and of itself.
post #186 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

I think the problem is, in some cases patents have been approved on some things that they probably shouldn't have been.

A company that invests heavily in R & D should be rewarded for that investment without the fear of everyone and their brother waiting to see what they do and then copying them.

Why don't they allow time-limits, like the drug industry? Say a company invents a new way of doing something on a smartphone. They alone can use this technique (if they so wish, or license it to others) after a set period, perhaps five years, that technique is open for others to freely use.

I don't know that this should be used in all cases necessarily, but I can see where this might benefit the industry as a whole while still rewarding those who innovate.

There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.
post #187 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I meant only "copy" in the colloquial sense of Linux obviously being a copy of Unix and therefore a "Unix-like system." I also meant to imply from that, that Linux is not an "original" (and therefore copyrighted system) in and of itself.

Linux is most definitely a copyrighted system, the source is copyright, the fact that it's available under various open source licenses doesn't detract from that.
post #188 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.

14 years according to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
post #189 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Patents are fine. Software patents are ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree. I see no reason why money spent on R & D in the area of software design or UI should not be at least somewhat protected.

Apple spends a lot of time and money focussing on creating the best possible end user experience. The success of their products seems to indicate that they are doing a pretty good job. Why should their competition get to copy features and designs that Apple created?

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that virtually every feature should be a patentable feature, but I do feel that the look an feel of the UI and trade dress should most definitely be patentable. Apple has proven time and time again, that the UI and end user experience is vitally important to the success of the device, so why shouldn't they be allowed to protect their UI innovations?
post #190 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadGoat View Post

As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.

I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.

Ok gotta fry Apple again...here is the catch, the CEO of the Apple stands up and stated "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, is absolutely NUTS.

They just lost a patent war with Nokia that cost them over $600 million US dollars. Had they followed there own statement and not stolen use of those patents the iPhone whould not exist
post #191 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfweezel View Post

Ok gotta fry Apple again...here is the catch, the CEO of the Apple stands up and stated "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, is absolutely NUTS.

They just lost a patent war with Nokia that cost them over $600 million US dollars. Had they followed there own statement and not stolen use of those patents the iPhone whould not exist

1) Your point is moot in regardless because you'd have Apple pay for the patent use which means that they aren't "creat[ing] their own original technology" which means you're taking Jobs comment too literally.

2) Note that Apple also buys companies whose IP fits in with their needs, thus making it their own, but they aren't the originators or a great deal of the tech, just the ones that refine and mainstream it.

3) As I recall, the original issue wasn't Apple's unwillingness to pay for patents but unwillingness to pay Nokia the excessive, above and beyond the rest of the industry fee, they were charging Apple, and only Apple.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #192 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

14 years according to Wiki

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

It's slightly more complicated than 14 vs. 20 years. For a utility patent, the life span is 20 years, counting from the date of filing. For a design patent, it is 14 years, counting from the date of issue.
post #193 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.

Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.

I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.

And yet many countries with Democratic Socialist aspects of government far beyond ours have healthy private industries with healthier levels of political participation, more equitable access to healthcare, and believe it or not, MORE entrepreneurialism than does the US.
post #194 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by nondual View Post

And yet many countries with Democratic Socialist aspects of government far beyond ours have healthy private industries with healthier levels of political participation, more equitable access to healthcare, and believe it or not, MORE entrepreneurialism than does the US.

Not just more equitable access to healthcare - more cost-effective too.

But more entrepreneurialism, or rather entrepreneurship? How is that measured? What data are you looking at?
post #195 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

It's slightly more complicated than 14 vs. 20 years. For a utility patent, the life span is 20 years, counting from the date of filing. For a design patent, it is 14 years, counting from the date of issue.

It's even more complicated than that

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

In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.)
post #196 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

It's even more complicated than that

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

In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.)

Given the convolutions in the wording of patents, it is only appropriate that their life spans require a mainframe to determine.
post #197 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Good link. Thank you!

And, as that video makes clear, it makes as much sense to claim Xerox "stole" antecedents to their work as it does to make that claim of Apple.

Typically, when anyone wants to deny Apple's contributions to the field of computing, they either claim that they stole key components or that they dumbed down preexisting technologies or that they simply lucked out and mainstreamed a paradigm that was "obvious."

This, of course, makes a hash of the creative process so well described in the Everything Is a Remix series. It's a strategy that can deny authorship to literally any work, ever. The Parthenon, Moby Dick, the printing press, penicillin, abstract expressionism, the internet, The Sopranos, etc., etc., etc: none can stand up to the criteria demanded of Apple to prove their originality, because that's not how originality works.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #198 of 210
It used to be the case if you won a patent infringement case, the federal court would generally issue an injunction on any infringing products. It was essentially a matter of course. The Supreme Court's decision was relevant because it said it wasn't appropriate to issue as a matter of course an injunction. Instead, after a judgement is entered, a Court should weigh a variety of factors, including the public interest, to figure out if an injunction is appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That applies mostly to preliminary injunctions and very unusual cases. The Supreme Court has allowed companies to refuse to license their technologies.
post #199 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

By that argument every single patent is non-obvious, which is clearly not the court's view. If the mere fact that something was done first was proof of non-obviousness there would be no need for the law to specify both novelty and non-obviousness as requirements.

Of course this is true if the original statement is taken as a blanket statement, but it's relevant that the technological ability to implement the feature had existed ever since smartphones have existed, yet no one had thought to do so. Many obvious patents are of the form "oh, put emerging technology a with existing technology b and now it's a new thing!" In those cases it's really just the first party who manages get the patent office to swallow a bunch of obvious applications of a technology wins the gold rush. However, there was nothing 'emerging' about the capability in the 2007 iPhone except that it was the first to actually *do* it. We could say things about obviousness with touch screens and other features that were still new, but the basic capability would have been useful and technically feasible ever since the advent of stylus smartphones.

So, it's clear that it wasn't so obvious. Having said that, the actual patent may be obvious even if the application/embodiment clearly wasn't. I don't have anything approaching the skills to enter those legal weeds.
post #200 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by aknabi View Post

No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).

Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.

Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage

Interesting you like picked a year before the patent was filed, too bad there were no smartphones...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sumjuan View Post

The first "smartphone" hit the market in 1996.
Keep on trolling brother.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › ITC ruling against HTC may spell trouble for other Android makers