AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google, Apple sued over Street View mapping tech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google, Apple sued over Street View mapping tech - Page 2

post #41 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:28am
Ash471, the point at which your argument falls apart for me is that you keep saying "the inventor".

I completely agree with you that the inventor should be allowed to make money from and protect his ideas.

But you know what PanoMap invented? Nothing! PanoMap contributed absolutely nothing to the world. This company is, to me, the textbook definition of a troll. It is a company that invents nothing and contributes nothing. All that it does is buy patents from real inventors (usually for a song) and then sues other real innovators, thus slowing actual innovation.

As I see it the best solution to the "troll" epidemic is to not allow for patents to be sold. If you submit a patent then it is your patent for the term of the patent. You may license its usage, but you cannot sell it. Therefore, the inventor is rewarded for his contribution to society, not some opportunistic patent trolling company like PanoMap.

In fact, I don't think that the Constitution even technically allows for the sell of intellectual property. It very clearly states, "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors". Once a patent or copyright is sold it is no longer securing for the "author or inventor" anything, and thus in my mind is outside of the laws allowed for by intellectual property law and should void any intellectual property that is sold.

But what do I know, I am not a Supreme Court justice with an agenda and a penchant to ignore the meaning of the Constitution whenever it suits me.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You have a point but the definition does seem to be shifting to those that hold patents with no intention of using them. Instead their goal is for someone else to "cross their bridge" so to speak so they can then use their patent to extract money from them. There is nothing illegal about this and there is no use in suing someone when you have a clearly invalid patent.

As I explained in another post, the term 'patent troll' is a ridiculous term and almost always indicates that the user does not understand patents or how they work or even the most basic elements of intellectual property law.

Simplest example:
I invent and patent a new process that will revolutionize integrated circuit manufacture. It allows line widths to 1/10 of the current level using materials that are less expensive and far more efficient. The resulting IC is 10 times as fast and uses 1/10 as much energy as existing products.

Now, I don't consider myself a salesman and don't have any contacts at Intel or any other foundries. I understand that it might take years to get to the right people with my invention and because I don't have good negotiating skills or any leverage, I probably won't get a good value for my invention. Furthermore, I need the money now, not in 3 years. So I sell the patent to an intellectual property firm who can then license it or sell it to the highest bidder.

That IP firm then finds out that Intel has been using my patented technology, so they offer a license. Intel declines, so the company sues. Since Intel does not legally own the rights to practice the invention, the law suit is perfectly legitimate and there's no reason to call them a patent troll. And the argument that Intel should be able to use the technology because I can't do so makes a mockery of the entire patent system.


There are analogies for real property. Let' say I inherit a factory in a busy part of town, but I don't have the resources or experience to set up a manufacturing operation in the factory, so the factory is sitting empty while a couple of businesses next door might need the space. But, again, I'm not confident of my ability to get the best value for the building if I have to negotiate a lease or sale with sophisticated businesses, so I sell it to a real estate management firm (plus, I get my money a lot quicker with a lot less hassle that way).

That real estate firm might decide to wait until property values recover a bit. Or maybe they want to clean and paint the building. Or they just might be too busy with other projects to mess with my building. So, for one reason or another, they don't get around to selling it for a couple of years.

Does that give the neighboring factories the right to move into my building? After all, I'm not using it and the real estate management company isn't using it. Does that make the real estate management company a 'real estate troll'?


Again, all this talk about 'patent trolls' is pretty strong indication that the person using the term doesn't understand intellectual property.

(That is not to say that the patent system couldn't be improved. There are clearly patents being issued that should never have been released, but there is a system in place to address that problem).
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Ash471, the point at which your argument falls apart for me is that you keep saying "the inventor".

I completely agree with you that the inventor should be allowed to make money from and protect his ideas.

But you know what PanoMap invented? Nothing! PanoMap contributed absolutely nothing to the world. This company is, to me, the textbook definition of a troll. It is a company that invents nothing and contributes nothing. All that it does is buy patents from real inventors (usually for a song) and then sues other real innovators, thus slowing actual innovation.

As I see it the best solution to the "troll" epidemic is to not allow for patents to be sold. If you submit a patent then it is your patent for the term of the patent. You may license its usage, but you cannot sell it. Therefore, the inventor is rewarded for his contribution to society, not some opportunistic patent trolling company like PanoMap.

Congratulations. You've just awarded the intellectual property of millions of small inventors to all the big companies. If patents could not be sold or licensed, most small companies or private inventors could never profit from their invention. If I invent an improvement in the manufacture of integrated circuits, should I lose it because I don't have a billion dollars to build a foundry? Or maybe I invent a new windshield wiper. Since I don't have $10 B to build an auto manufacturing company, I shouldn't have the right to that invention? Or maybe I patent a process to improve the safety and economics of nuclear reactors. Since I don't have a nuclear plant in the back yard, I shouldn't be able to sell the invention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

In fact, I don't think that the Constitution even technically allows for the sell of intellectual property. It very clearly states, "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors". Once a patent or copyright is sold it is no longer securing for the "author or inventor" anything, and thus in my mind is outside of the laws allowed for by intellectual property law and should void any intellectual property that is sold.

But what do I know, I am not a Supreme Court justice with an agenda and a penchant to ignore the meaning of the Constitution whenever it suits me.

You've left out half of the phrase to justify your claims. The full phrase is:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

'Right' means the right to do whatever you want with it. Including selling it. The right to sell property (including intellectual property) has been well established in common law and in U.S. law for longer than you've been alive. The fact that you don't grasp even that simple concept suggests strongly that perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on something you don't understand.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As I explained in another post, the term 'patent troll' is a ridiculous term and almost always indicates that the user does not understand patents or how they work or even the most basic elements of intellectual property law.

Simplest example:
I invent and patent a new process that will revolutionize integrated circuit manufacture. It allows line widths to 1/10 of the current level using materials that are less expensive and far more efficient. The resulting IC is 10 times as fast and uses 1/10 as much energy as existing products.

Now, I don't consider myself a salesman and don't have any contacts at Intel or any other foundries. I understand that it might take years to get to the right people with my invention and because I don't have good negotiating skills or any leverage, I probably won't get a good value for my invention. Furthermore, I need the money now, not in 3 years. So I sell the patent to an intellectual property firm who can then license it or sell it to the highest biddUer.

That IP firm then finds out that Intel has been using my patented technology, so they offer a license. Intel declines, so the company sues. Since Intel does not legally own the rights to practice the invention, the law suit is perfectly legitimate and there's no reason to call them a patent troll. And the argument that Intel should be able to use the technology because I can't do so makes a mockery of the entire patent system.


There are analogies for real property. Let' say I inherit a factory in a busy part of town, but I don't have the resources or experience to set up a manufacturing operation in the factory, so the factory is sitting empty while a couple of businesses next door might need the space. But, again, I'm not confident of my ability to get the best value for the building if I have to negotiate a lease or sale with sophisticated businesses, so I sell it to a real estate management firm (plus, I get my money a lot quicker with a lot less hassle that way).

That real estate firm might decide to wait until property values recover a bit. Or maybe they want to clean and paint the building. Or they just might be too busy with other projects to mess with my building. So, for one reason or another, they don't get around to selling it for a couple of years.

Does that give the neighboring factories the right to move into my building? After all, I'm not using it and the real estate management company isn't using it. Does that make the real estate management company a 'real estate troll'?


Again, all this talk about 'patent trolls' is pretty strong indication that the person using the term doesn't understand intellectual property.

(That is not to say that the patent system couldn't be improved. There are clearly patents being issued that should never have been released, but there is a system in place to address that problem).


That's all well and good, but it assumes that the big companies are always aware of the IP in question. In many cases, it's some obscure patent, and the holding company waits years to try to make a buck.

In limited use, "troll" is a very apt description. These holding companies sole purpose is to camp out along the road of progress, wait for someone to cross their "bridge", and then demand a toll.

It doesn't make it evil, and the existence of these companies often allows smaller inventors to sell their patents and make some money they otherwise wouldn't have made. But it is annoying to see these holding companies use the patent system, not to drive progress, but to collect a toll off the work of others (much IP is developed concurrently, and patents aren't published immediately).

People do misuse the term "troll" to be a negative description of any company being aggressive with patents. That is not correct. "Troll" should describe the specific action described above.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

If Apple bought the streetview data from Google for inclusion into their app, then Apple is still off the hook, because they did not steal. Only Google could be selling what they might not own. ....

Nope. The patent is on the implementation of something like "street view." The iOS mapping app was made by Apple and implements a street-view type of thing. If it turns out that street view infringes, then Apple's very similar implementation of it is still at fault.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 67
2/28/12 at 6:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As I explained in another post, the term 'patent troll' is a ridiculous term and almost always indicates that the user does not understand patents or how they work or even the most basic elements of intellectual property law.

...

That IP firm then finds out that Intel has been using my patented technology, so they offer a license. Intel declines, so the company sues. Since Intel does not legally own the rights to practice the invention, the law suit is perfectly legitimate and there's no reason to call them a patent troll. And the argument that Intel should be able to use the technology because I can't do so makes a mockery of the entire patent system.

I agree with your main point, but you touch on my pet peeve: the fact that by getting a patent on something you get the rights to that invention even if other people independently come up with the same idea.

So some guy comes up with some cool ideas about how to related photos with maps and GPS data and patents the idea. A team of people at Google who are working on maps eventually come up with the same idea. As computing power and technology advance it becomes almost a no-brainer. So they roll out their product. Then the first guy who has the patent who never went about trying to get people to use his idea (and never sold it to someone who would do that), pops up and say "aha! I thought of that 5 years ago, I win!" That's stupid. Google should be able to defend against this by showing that they invented the idea separately. (I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think that's how it works. And I don't know the facts of the case, so I don't know what Google knew.)

My point is that sometimes (oftentimes?) people seem to get patents on ideas that are literally only a year or two ahead of their time. So it's crazy that they can sue people who independently come up with the same (or similar) ideas later
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 67
2/28/12 at 6:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

That's all well and good, but it assumes that the big companies are always aware of the IP in question. In many cases, it's some obscure patent, and the holding company waits years to try to make a buck.

So? How does that change anything? If the patent is valid, it is enforceable. There's nothing that says that I have to enforce my rights at any given time. And if it is egregious, the judge and/or jury can take that into account when setting damages.

Now, there is some precedent for time limits in real property. Let's say that I have a piece of property and you decide to build a house on it. Under some circumstances, if I don't take action for a period of years, I may lose the right to recover the property via the principle of adverse possession (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4122/Adve...-Property.html). However, that takes a long time and only applies in specific and unusual situations.

If Congress wanted to put a statute of limitations (or a related statute of repose) on enforcing patents, they could do so. But they have not chosen to do so, so the law allows for the patent owner to delay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

In limited use, "troll" is a very apt description. These holding companies sole purpose is to camp out along the road of progress, wait for someone to cross their "bridge", and then demand a toll.

It doesn't make it evil, and the existence of these companies often allows smaller inventors to sell their patents and make some money they otherwise wouldn't have made. But it is annoying to see these holding companies use the patent system, not to drive progress, but to collect a toll off the work of others (much IP is developed concurrently, and patents aren't published immediately).

People do misuse the term "troll" to be a negative description of any company being aggressive with patents. That is not correct. "Troll" should describe the specific action described above.

Once again, you clearly don't understand patent law or the purpose of patents. See my examples.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 67
2/28/12 at 6:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

I agree with your main point, but you touch on my pet peeve: the fact that by getting a patent on something you get the rights to that invention even if other people independently come up with the same idea.

So some guy comes up with some cool ideas about how to related photos with maps and GPS data and patents the idea. A team of people at Google who are working on maps eventually come up with the same idea. As computing power and technology advance it becomes almost a no-brainer. So they roll out their product. Then the first guy who has the patent who never went about trying to get people to use his idea (and never sold it to someone who would do that), pops up and say "aha! I thought of that 5 years ago, I win!" That's stupid. Google should be able to defend against this by showing that they invented the idea separately. (I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think that's how it works. And I don't know the facts of the case, so I don't know what Google knew.)

My point is that sometimes (oftentimes?) people seem to get patents on ideas that are literally only a year or two ahead of their time. So it's crazy that they can sue people who independently come up with the same (or similar) ideas later

There is a defense to that patent claim. If the invention is obvious, the infringer can argue to have the patent invalidated. If the patent is not invalidated, then the court obviously thinks it's not obvious and is therefore protectable.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 67
2/28/12 at 6:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

I know everyone uses the term "troll" tongue in cheek. However, it really is a derogatory term that should be avoided unless the entity really is a troll. I don't think we have facts that support an allegation that this patentee is a troll. ...

Quote:
Originally, the '529 patent was issued to developer Jerry Jongerius in 2003 and subsequently transferred to a shell company called Empire IP in 2011. Finally, PanoMap acquired the patent rights earlier in February. ...PanoMap, which has no address and looks to be merely a patent holdings firm

This is why they are called patent trolls. They have no intention of creating anything from this patent, and have made no effort to market it to others. The quietly bought it years ago, sat on it, waited till they saw a good lawsuit opportunity, transferred it to a shell company, and sued. That's how you identify a patent troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

My point is that everyone should take a step back and ask themselves what is wrong with people getting patents for the purpose of extracting value out of whoever sells the product? ...

Because that's not the purpose for which the government grants patents. Patents are granted to inventors to incentivize innovation that improves our society. "Extracting value out of whoever, " "infringes" on the patent does not serve the purpose of patents, it perverts it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

... Once again, you clearly don't understand patent law or the purpose of patents. See my examples.

Once again, you've shown that your ideology prevents you from understanding for what purpose patents are granted. You were wrong in the other thread, and you're wrong in this one too.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 67
2/28/12 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

As if Apple doesn't have an indemnity clause for any integrated Google services.

Better luck next time!

Does Google ever indemnify anyone for anything?
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 67
2/28/12 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Does Google ever indemnify anyone for anything?

Well, if Lodsys ends up going away empty handed when trying to extort money from iOS developers you'll have Google to thank rather than Apple. It's Google who's going after Lodsys, challenging the validity of the patents, and with a good chance of winning.

By the way, did Apple say they will indemnify their developer's who received patent infringement letters from Lodsys?

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #52 of 67
2/28/12 at 8:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Well, if Lodsys ends up going away empty handed when trying to extort money from iOS developers you'll have Google to thank rather than Apple. It's Google who's going after Lodsys, challenging the validity of the patents, and with a good chance of winning.

By the way, did Apple say they will indemnify their developer's who received patent infringement letters from Lodsys?

I don't know, but I can understand you wanting to deflect the question I asked.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 67
2/28/12 at 8:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I don't know, but I can understand you wanting to deflect the question I asked.

I don't know what guarantees they've made to Apple or any other licensees of it's products.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #54 of 67
2/28/12 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know what guarantees they've made to Apple or any other licensees of it's products.

Me neither. That's why I asked. The poster to whom I replied seemed to imply Google provided indemnity. Sorry to have caused you to pull out your tattered "Apple is just as bad as Google" card.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 67
2/28/12 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Me neither. That's why I asked. The poster to whom I replied seemed to imply Google provided indemnity. Sorry to have caused you to pull out your tattered "Apple is just as bad as Google" card.

Not so tattered since I don't think either one is "bad".

The only indemnity in Android that I'm aware of is via the Apache license. That doesn't mean there isn't anything otherwise, but I've not seen any statements confirming yes or no.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #56 of 67
2/28/12 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

If you don't like patents, go live somewhere that doesn't have a patent law, like Iran or Iraq.

Iran and Iraq both have patent/copyright/trademark laws. They are both members of the WIPO.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 67
2/28/12 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is why they are called patent trolls. They have no intention of creating anything from this patent, and have made no effort to market it to others. The quietly bought it years ago, sat on it, waited till they saw a good lawsuit opportunity, transferred it to a shell company, and sued. That's how you identify a patent troll.

They are just waiting for someone to cross their bridge and then extract a feee for doing so.

Which is fine. It's legal. Even Apple could be a patent troll for wanting money from others for patents they use.

Perhaps the term troll is pejorative but it's also very apt in describing the type of action that goes on in this business.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #58 of 67
2/28/12 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Well, if Lodsys ends up going away empty handed when trying to extort money from iOS developers you'll have Google to thank rather than Apple. It's Google who's going after Lodsys, challenging the validity of the patents, and with a good chance of winning.

By the way, did Apple say they will indemnify their developer's who received patent infringement letters from Lodsys?

Apparently, you might not be entirely correct:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...sys-files.html

Cheers
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 67
2/28/12 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

Apparently, you might not be entirely correct:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...sys-files.html

Cheers

Not entirely correct about what? That article has to do with Apple asking the court if it can be involved. Google is going after Lodsys where it will hurt most, attempting to invalidate the patents altogether.

http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang...odsys-at-uspto

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #60 of 67
2/28/12 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Congratulations. You've just awarded the intellectual property of millions of small inventors to all the...

Nice, completely worthless tirade since you obviously didn't read, or didn't actually put the effort into understanding what I wrote.

IF you had actually paid attention to what I said, you would have seen that I said that patents could be licensed. I just do not believe that they should be legally able to be sold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You've left out half of the phrase to justify your claims. The full phrase is:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Actually, I left out well over half of the phrase to emphasize the exact verbage that I believe makes the sale of IP to be unconstitutional. None of the rest of the words affect the selling of IP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

'Right' means the right to do whatever you want with it. Including selling it.

And this is where you are wrong. The only "rights" that the Constitution guarantees are those that are to the authors and inventors for a limited time. You cannot sell those rights anymore than you can sell your right to free speech.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The right to sell property (including intellectual property) has been well established in common law and in U.S. law for longer than you've been alive.

Oh... I see now, you aren't actually capable of seeing beyond the smoke and mirrors waved by the media conglomerates where they fool people into believing that IP is actual property and thus should be subject to the same laws.

I am sorry to shatter that illusion for you, but no matter what lies the media conglomerates spew, intellectual property is not the same as real property. You have absolutely no intrinsic right to any ideas, sciences, or arts that you create. Once you share those then they are the property of humanity. It is only the artificial laws of man that restrict and thus give any non-intrinsic value to ideas and therefore create the idea of intellectual property.

Don't believe me? To see the truth of it simply look at the following.

In a region where there is no concept of IP (suppose a hypothetical very primitive tribe in some distant past) consider the following.

Ug discovers a new and better way to mount an axe head onto a shaft. Ug tells his friend Nog about his idea and Nog makes an axe with the new mount. Ug has lost nothing because of this. He can still use his idea to make a new and improved axe. The fact that Nog used his idea has denied Ug of nothing because the idea is not real property; Ug has not intrinsic rights to the idea.

Now, if Ug made an axe and Nog took Ug's axe and uses it then Ug has lost the use of his axe. He cannot cut wood nor hunt without his axe. That is real property because Ug had an intrinsic right to the axe, since when someone else takes his axe he is denied the usage of the axe.

Also, to put not too fine of a point onto it. I don't care how long it has been going on. If it is contrary to the Constitution then it is illegal. Don't think that is right? Then try arguing against a speeding ticket by claiming that you always speed through that stretch of road. It doesn't a matter for how long, nor how many times you break the law. It is still illegal.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 67
2/28/12 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Nice, completely worthless tirade since you obviously didn't read, or didn't actually put the effort into understanding what I wrote.

IF you had actually paid attention to what I said, you would have seen that I said that patents could be licensed. I just do not believe that they should be legally able to be sold.



Actually, I left out well over half of the phrase to emphasize the exact verbage that I believe makes the sale of IP to be unconstitutional. None of the rest of the words affect the selling of IP.



And this is where you are wrong. The only "rights" that the Constitution guarantees are those that are to the authors and inventors for a limited time. You cannot sell those rights anymore than you can sell your right to free speech.




Oh... I see now, you aren't actually capable of seeing beyond the smoke and mirrors waved by the media conglomerates where they fool people into believing that IP is actual property and thus should be subject to the same laws.

I am sorry to shatter that illusion for you, but no matter what lies the media conglomerates spew, intellectual property is not the same as real property. You have absolutely no intrinsic right to any ideas, sciences, or arts that you create. Once you share those then they are the property of humanity. It is only the artificial laws of man that restrict and thus give any non-intrinsic value to ideas and therefore create the idea of intellectual property.

Don't believe me? To see the truth of it simply look at the following.

In a region where there is no concept of IP (suppose a hypothetical very primitive tribe in some distant past) consider the following.

Ug discovers a new and better way to mount an axe head onto a shaft. Ug tells his friend Nog about his idea and Nog makes an axe with the new mount. Ug has lost nothing because of this. He can still use his idea to make a new and improved axe. The fact that Nog used his idea has denied Ug of nothing because the idea is not real property; Ug has not intrinsic rights to the idea.

Now, if Ug made an axe and Nog took Ug's axe and uses it then Ug has lost the use of his axe. He cannot cut wood nor hunt without his axe. That is real property because Ug had an intrinsic right to the axe, since when someone else takes his axe he is denied the usage of the axe.

Also, to put not too fine of a point onto it. I don't care how long it has been going on. If it is contrary to the Constitution then it is illegal. Don't think that is right? Then try arguing against a speeding ticket by claiming that you always speed through that stretch of road. It doesn't a matter for how long, nor how many times you break the law. It is still illegal.

OK. So you don't understand intellectual property OR the law.

Figures.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

They are just waiting for someone to cross their bridge and then extract a feee for doing so.

Which is fine. It's legal. Even Apple could be a patent troll for wanting money from others for patents they use.

Perhaps the term troll is pejorative but it's also very apt in describing the type of action that goes on in this business.

It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 67
2/28/12 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.

Off topic, but I wouldn't call what the USPTO does as granting intellectual property. They note a timeframe when potential intellectual property was officially recorded. It's still up to the courts to decide is a patent that has been granted is actually original and unique on a case by case basis.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #64 of 67
2/28/12 at 7:46pm
Do you guys remember Quicktime VR? Everything they are showing on the web site was done in Quicktime VR in 1994.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 67
2/29/12 at 4:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Off topic, but I wouldn't call what the USPTO does as granting intellectual property. They note a timeframe when potential intellectual property was officially recorded. It's still up to the courts to decide is a patent that has been granted is actually original and unique on a case by case basis.

Patents (and copyrights) are property granted by the government, specifically Congress, under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:

Quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The courts' role is simply to determine whether a particular grant was done in accordance with the law.


But, it's clear, if we look at the basis of patent law, that the Founders did not have in mind creating a leach industry of IP holding companies that did nothing but develop and buy patents to sit on and hope that someone develops an actual and possibly infringing product that makes money so they can siphon some off. That doesn't promote progress, it hinders it.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 67
2/29/12 at 5:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It is legal, but it's what's wrong with current patent law. Patents are property, granted by the government, to achieve a specific purpose. When that purpose isn't served, it's time to fix patent law so that it is served again.

Who is to say that the public purpose is not being achieved? Innovation is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in history (read "Future Shock" for some of the implications).

The fact that YOU don't like the outcome of a specific situation doesn't mean that the system is broken - or unconstitutional as you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Patents (and copyrights) are property granted by the government, specifically Congress, under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution:

The courts' role is simply to determine whether a particular grant was done in accordance with the law.

But, it's clear, if we look at the basis of patent law, that the Founders did not have in mind creating a leach industry of IP holding companies that did nothing but develop and buy patents to sit on and hope that someone develops an actual and possibly infringing product that makes money so they can siphon some off. That doesn't promote progress, it hinders it.

Sorry, but you're letting your political biases interfere with rational discussion.

It could just as easily be argued that IP holding companies FOSTER innovation because they create a mechanism where a small inventor can obtain payments from the big guys (indirectly) without having to go to expensive legal battles. IP holding companies simply level the playing field a bit and make it possible for the small inventor to benefit. That is clearly a positive in terms of public policy.

As for the Founders no having IP holding companies in mind, that's a spurious argument. They didn't have airplanes, computers, or nuclear reactors in mind, either. Does that mean that patents shouldn't apply to those things?

The Founders had a clear concept that people who invented something should benefit from it and gave the power to Congress to select a system by which that would occur. Congress did so and made intellectual property rights real, transferrable, defensible rights. End of story.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 67
2/29/12 at 9:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Who is to say that the public purpose is not being achieved? Innovation is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in history (read "Future Shock" for some of the implications).

The fact that YOU don't like the outcome of a specific situation doesn't mean that the system is broken - or unconstitutional as you claim.

Do I even need to name the fallacy you have committed above?

Quote:
Sorry, but you're letting your political biases interfere with rational discussion.

It could just as easily be argued that IP holding companies FOSTER innovation because they create a mechanism where a small inventor can obtain payments from the big guys (indirectly) without having to go to expensive legal battles. IP holding companies simply level the playing field a bit and make it possible for the small inventor to benefit. That is clearly a positive in terms of public policy.

As for the Founders no having IP holding companies in mind, that's a spurious argument. They didn't have airplanes, computers, or nuclear reactors in mind, either. Does that mean that patents shouldn't apply to those things?

The Founders had a clear concept that people who invented something should benefit from it and gave the power to Congress to select a system by which that would occur. Congress did so and made intellectual property rights real, transferrable, defensible rights. End of story.

The above is just utter nonsense. The idea that selling patents to holding companies who do nothing with them but wait for someone to sue somehow fosters innovation, rather than retarding it, defies reason. It's laughably absurd and self-contradictory as a notion.

And, no, the Founders did not express a notion that anyone who invented something should benefit from it. The Founders clearly expressed that, in order for The People to benefit from progress, they thought it a good idea to reward people for facilitating that progress. Current patent law flies in the face of that clearly expressed intent and perverts it to the interests of patent trolls.

I realize you are desperately trying to justify your ideology, but you have to actually use logic and reason to do that successfully. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google, Apple sued over Street View mapping tech