or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge who tossed Apple-Motorola suit questions need for software patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge who tossed Apple-Motorola suit questions need for software patents - Page 4

post #121 of 186

I think the problem with software patents is that they have no physical embodiment for laymen (Patent clerks) to be able to "see" and "Feel" and therefore make wise judgments on issuing patents. This leads to some vague patents, which when held by a small company/individual, will be easily invalidated by a large corporation in court, but when held by a large corporation, can be pretty much undefeatable.

For example:

There is a recent suit claims World of Warcraft and Call of Duty violate a software patent;

Not a patent that describes a novel rendering engine, or networking code, but a patent that (I'm Summarizing here) covers the idea of "representing players as 3-d avatars in a virtual space and allowing other players to see them"  (This patent is held by a small company, and will probably be invalidated)

 

I think that software should be patentable, but, my common sense (as a small web-developer) says that these patents need to be significantly novel, AND specific, AND be tied to an IMPLIMENTATION.

I guy i know holds that patent to the idea of "displaying web site users who are looking a specific product, other products that were commonly purchased together by other consumers" He makes quite a bit of money from this.

This IS NOT a patent on the METHOD he uses to track the most popular products or the way he structured his Database or his specific implementation of code, But the “IDEA” of LISTING commonly purchased products.

 

As someone else here mentioned, when dealing with ethereal things as software, it’s hard to distinguish IDEAS from INVENTIONS, and too many IDEAS are being patented as INVENTIONS.

post #122 of 186
Quote:

 

Woah woah woah, did you even read the wiki page? You're twisting their words! These people aren't asking for forever - that would be unconstitutional! They're much too reasonable for that - all that they want is "forever less one day". ;)

post #123 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

 

 

yes, i agree.  which leads me to believe that most people, here, who disagree with Posner do not / have not ever worked as the software application developer.

Just the opposite. Maybe a programmer who is just a hack might see it Posner's way, but those programmers who have been in the field for decades can attest to the high level of invention that has been involved in the work we are able to do today. LIke most consumers, with heads in the sand, too many seem to believe what we see and can do today was not the result of hard work of often many people. Much were given away, most supported by governments paying the salaries and supporting the mathematicians and scientists who did the work. If the inventions were basically paid for the taxpayers, then it makes some sense for the IP to be publicly available. Much other inventions were under the auspices of private companies (often under contract with the government). 

 

But, make no mistake, just because it is software does not mean it should not protected. In every case, it would be possible to render software in hardware, and thus be subject to IP protection under the old concepts of what a protectable invention is. That fact that due to Alan Turing, John Von Neuman, Alonzo Church, and Kurt Goedel, we have general purpose computers that allow us to render machines in software, it should not mean that our soft machines should not be protected.

post #124 of 186
This guy is overdue for retirement!

How is it possible that a 73 year old chap with obviously no clue of technological requirements can be in in a position to judge about cases like this!
This is absolutely outrageous!
post #125 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Just the opposite. Maybe a programmer who is just a hack might see it Posner's way, but those programmers who have been in the field for decades can attest to the high level of invention that has been involved in the work we are able to do today. 

 

Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.

post #126 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Can you imagine 100 years ago a baseball pitcher being granted a patent on a curve ball?  Applying what you wrote, the ideal is "how do I make a pitch curve?" and the invention is "spinning the ball as I release it".  I can say with full certainty that a curve ball could never have been patented (as we all know it never was).  Anybody with a baseball, in theory, can spin a baseball pitch and maybe even make it curve.  Likewise, anyone with a phone can slide their finger across the phone.  That's why I don't believe it's an invention.

 

No, you stole that from cricket.

 

:P

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #127 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Under the US Constitution, a judge's job is to INTERPRET the law. A judge who says "I don't like the law" and then refuses to enforce it is an activist judge.

 

That's exactly why, what this senile, old fart has done is wrong.

 

I can't see his dismissal "with prejudice" surviving an appeal.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #128 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

And what about Apple? They spent a pretty penny too on developing their phone and other devices. They built all sorts of expensive test chambers etc. And along comes other companies trying to release their own generic versions of Apple's innovation.

I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote: 

 

“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”

 

It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.

post #129 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?

Ah yes, telling others to become great instead of trolling on forums. I'm sure the irony of that is lost on you, no?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #130 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl View Post

I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote: 

“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”


It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.

Why is that any different than any other patent?

You don't even need to change the words (although it probably makes more sense if you replace 'program' with 'device'):
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”

Like it or not, our Constitution allows for inventors to get exclusivity for their invention for some time period. That's the law of the land and no amount of whining will change it.
Edited by jragosta - 7/5/12 at 3:17pm
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #131 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.

I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?

 

+1

 

This man's been doing this for decades, and some fanboy taking 5 minutes away from playing a game or updating FB thinks they have a better understanding of patent law and jurisprudence... Ugh.
 

post #132 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post

I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?

 

There's no need to be blinded by expertise. 

 

Posner is a "great man", obviously. He's educated and a leader in his field. So were the participants at the Wannsee Conference (distinguished lawyers, legal scholars, legislators.) But that's for a different thread. 

 

 Really?  The Hitler card?  So soon into the debate?

post #133 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvanleuvan View Post

I think the problem with software patents is that they have no physical embodiment for laymen (Patent clerks) to be able to "see" and "Feel" and therefore make wise judgments on issuing patents. This leads to some vague patents, which when held by a small company/individual, will be easily invalidated by a large corporation in court, but when held by a large corporation, can be pretty much undefeatable.

For example:

There is a recent suit claims World of Warcraft and Call of Duty violate a software patent;

Not a patent that describes a novel rendering engine, or networking code, but a patent that (I'm Summarizing here) covers the idea of "representing players as 3-d avatars in a virtual space and allowing other players to see them"  (This patent is held by a small company, and will probably be invalidated)

 

I think that software should be patentable, but, my common sense (as a small web-developer) says that these patents need to be significantly novel, AND specific, AND be tied to an IMPLIMENTATION.

I guy i know holds that patent to the idea of "displaying web site users who are looking a specific product, other products that were commonly purchased together by other consumers" He makes quite a bit of money from this.

This IS NOT a patent on the METHOD he uses to track the most popular products or the way he structured his Database or his specific implementation of code, But the “IDEA” of LISTING commonly purchased products.

 

As someone else here mentioned, when dealing with ethereal things as software, it’s hard to distinguish IDEAS from INVENTIONS, and too many IDEAS are being patented as INVENTIONS.


Excellent summary - vague "business methods" patents and "ideas" are stifling innovation, not helping it.  Patents are supposed to be novel inventions, not great (but nebulous) ideas.

post #134 of 186

"For software, the patent system has become so unwieldy as to be useless. Many have opined on this. It is currently almost impossible to write a new line of code that doesn't infringe on some software patent somewhere. I don't think that's what Jefferson intended.


Patents were written into the Constitution to promote the development of new ideas by providing a government-granted monopoly for a fixed period, after which the ideas would pass into the public domain. We as a country benefited from the advancement of knowledge, and inventors benefited from the fruit of their labors. Life was good." - http://lminfernaloptimist.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-biotech-and-patents-when-worlds.html

 

For those that think patents for software is a good thing doesn't have a clue about software development.

post #135 of 186

I chuckle at the arguement regarding hardware patents which are custom implementations of software algorithms to that of software algorithm designs which are the same and not considered innovative.

 

So, it's innovation if I use an IC with a DSP and EEPROM memory to perform actions that I can leverage with a GPGPU or CPU and the first example due to it being a custom chip is considered an invention but the unique use of the CPUs options and/or the GPGPU is not?

 

Classic.
 

post #136 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.

 

The bean counters in our organisations might disagree though.

 

Stop. Please don't speak for most developers. I personally never authorized you to speak for me and I doubt the thousands of developers I've met and worked with would either.

post #137 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why is that any different than any other patent?
You don't even need to change the words (although it probably makes more sense if you replace 'program' with 'device'):
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
Like it or not, our Constitution allows for inventors to get exclusivity for their invention for some time period. That's the law of the land and no amount of whining will change it.

But the Supreme Court has voiced concerns with extending patent protection to software, which they declined to do on two previous occasions, and continuing questions with more recent cases. Changes may eventually come despite business interest protests.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/01/resurrecting-the-supreme-courts-software-patent-ban-not-ready/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/supreme-court-orders-do-over-on-key-software-patent-ruling/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-should-call-for-the-elimination-of-software-patents/


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/5/12 at 5:13pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by pragmatous View Post

"For software, the patent system has become so unwieldy as to be useless. Many have opined on this. It is currently almost impossible to write a new line of code that doesn't infringe on some software patent somewhere. I don't think that's what Jefferson intended.


Patents were written into the Constitution to promote the development of new ideas by providing a government-granted monopoly for a fixed period, after which the ideas would pass into the public domain. We as a country benefited from the advancement of knowledge, and inventors benefited from the fruit of their labors. Life was good." - http://lminfernaloptimist.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-biotech-and-patents-when-worlds.html

 

For those that think patents for software is a good thing doesn't have a clue about software development.

 

Thanks for coming on and creating a profile solely to bitch about the fact your job of solving a problem in software now will require you to implement a new procedure to avoid patent infringement. Who in the hell would pay you $90K+ a year to just copy and paste other creators work? Perhaps the Linux Community who has seen $10 Billion+ infused by Corporations who are selling hardware paired with the OS?

Or perhaps you are cutting your teeth on a well known GPLv3 application and hope to duplicate methods and operations other patented applications already perform but are getting sick and tired of not being able to just borrow their code, cite their copyright and then move on?

post #139 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Or perhaps you are cutting your teeth on a well known GPLv3 application and hope to duplicate methods and operations other patented applications already perform but are getting sick and tired of not being able to just borrow their code, cite their copyright and then move on?

 

Don't Google use Apache in Android specifically so they can keep parts of it closed?

 

Unlike what they'd have to do under GPLv3.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #140 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.

 

You make a good point. Artists and musicians tend to hold a similar mindset, which is why they are often poor business people.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #141 of 186

What a very smart judge. His strategy is to essentially his head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #142 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl View Post

I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote: 

 

“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”

 

It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.

 

The fact is that Carmack holds a number of patents that has enabled him and his company to become very rich. I doubt he complains about that.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #143 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

But the Supreme Court has voiced concerns with extending patent protection to software, which they declined to do on two previous occasions, and continuing questions with more recent cases. Changes may eventually come despite business interest protests.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/01/resurrecting-the-supreme-courts-software-patent-ban-not-ready/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/supreme-court-orders-do-over-on-key-software-patent-ruling/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-should-call-for-the-elimination-of-software-patents/

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

As of today, software patents are legal and valid. Under US patent law, when the USPTO grants a patent, it is presumed valid. If the Supreme Court ever issues a ruling invalidating them, then that would change. But as of today, the law states that they are valid.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #144 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

The fact is that Carmack holds a number of patents that has enabled him and his company to become very rich. I doubt he complains about that.


 

If that is true, can you please provide references?

 

As far as I know, he is outspoken against software patents. Here is an excerpt from something Carmack wrote in 2005:

 

  "Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone."

 

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745

post #145 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
As of today, software patents are legal and valid. Under US patent law, when the USPTO grants a patent, it is presumed valid. If the Supreme Court ever issues a ruling invalidating them, then that would change. But as of today, the law states that they are valid.

It's completely relevant to the thread topic "questioning the need for software patents".

 

Irrelevant to you perhaps since you're having a different discussion about what is rather than what should be.  I don't think anyone here is disagreeing about what is the current state of software patentability, including me.


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/5/12 at 6:09pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #146 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl View Post

I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote: 

 

“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”

 

It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.

You think the iPhone didn't cost a pretty penny to develop, manufacture and market? Why can't a supposedly creative company like Google innovate around Apple patents?

 

First-to-file is a perfectly fair criterion. It pushes innovation faster. Everybody knows the rules.

 

If anything is broken, it's Mr. Posner. He doesn't warrant the title of Judge, since he can't fulfill the obligations of the position.

post #147 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

How can you be so smart and so wrong? Patents are the lifes-blood of innovation. Without them, we'd eventually be ruled by oligarchs, since power would centralize as competition dropped away. Patents mean the pirates only win sometimes, not always. Doh!

Patenting an idea like "unlocking a phone" should not be patentable... Although, the code behind that, YES! that should be patentable... 

post #148 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by werdnanotroh View Post

Patenting an idea like "unlocking a phone" should not be patentable... Although, the code behind that, YES! that should be patentable  copyrighted... 

...suggested correction. :)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #149 of 186

Most software patents are ridiculed all over the world, and the US will have to fix their patent office mess one day or another.

post #150 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Most software patents are ridiculed all over the world, and the US will have to fix their patent office mess one day or another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.

I really love these blanket, unsubstantiated statements.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #151 of 186

I suspect, that judge knows more about the law, then all people in this thread combined.

Patent wars started blocking progress. Taking in account speed of tecnological progress, patents should't last more than couple of years, imho.

post #152 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Copyrights never expire. Ever. 
 

That is just plain wrong.  Completely and totally wrong.  It would be unconstitutional to have copyrights that never expire.  

 

Please learn the basics of the  facts prior to stating opinions.

post #153 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by igorsova View Post

I suspect, that judge knows more about the law, then all people in this thread combined.
Patent wars started blocking progress. Taking in account speed of tecnological progress, patents should't last more than couple of years, imho.

Good thing no one cares about your opinion - humble or not.

In many industries, a patent that's only good for a couple of years would be worthless. It can take a decade or more to bring a pharmaceutical product to market. Your idea would basically make patents useless.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #154 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by werdnanotroh View Post

Patenting an idea like "unlocking a phone" should not be patentable... Although, the code behind that, YES! that should be patentable... 

 

And, no one has patented the idea of unlocking a phone. What's been patented is the specific method for unlocking a phone, just like the specific way a physical lock works is patented. The code behind it is already copyrighted, but that's irrelevant, since you don't need the code behind it to steal the specific method, just like you don't need the exact alloy to steal the specific way a physical lock works. And, just like other lock manufacturers have no problem designing around competitors patents to make their own locks, Google, et al. should have no problem coming up with their own way of unlocking a phone, if they weren't lazy, dishonest and bent on copying the details of the iPhone as closely as possible, with the specific intent of confusing the general public into believing that there isn't a difference between iOS and the cheap knockoff known as Android.

 

That's the bottom line here, not that there aren't many ways to do things, and really, unlocking a phone is one that has any number of ways that it could be cleverly accomplished, but that certain software companies, with no integrity (i.e., Google), don't want to innovate their own ways, they simply want to copy the innovators. Patents are stifling innovation. Google is stifling innovation, or at the very least, showing now interest in it. In reality, patents do promote innovation by not allowing you to copy your competitors inventions, but forcing you to come up with your own. Google imply want to steal other people's work, and give it away for free to destroy markets. Do you want creativity or destruction?

post #155 of 186
Oh boy.

Judge Posner didn’t say we don’t need patents in most industries. He said it’s not clear that we do. Huge difference. With regards to software patents (and “most industries” I guess), it’s a matter of incentives, and I think his point is that the patent incentive system as it stands is not necessary to drive innovation. Many commentators feel the same, but of course many disagree too. If you’re charitable, you can take his comments as shorthand for the proposition that the one-size-fits-all patent regime could be redesigned to be more efficient, with different schemes tailored to different industries in an effort to maximize social welfare.

If you get a bad taste in your mouth from a sitting judge discussing policy, that’s quite reasonable, but get used to it. Many judges have been professional scholars most of their lives and aren’t about to quit. But one shouldn’t just assume that these judges apply their policy beliefs instead of the law when they are on the bench.

On that note, I see a lot of accusations of bias as to Judge Posner; he dislikes software patents so he threw out the case. But in this entire thread, no one has even tried to explain how his alleged dislike of software patents resulted in dismissal. Remember, he threw the case out because neither party could prove harm (damages or the right to an injunction), even assuming valid and infringed patents. Does anyone think then that his damages analysis was an overly strict pretense to dismiss the case? (While he was certainly less forgiving than most other judges, I would attribute that to his economics background as opposed to an alleged animus for software patents. And no-nonsense is not per se grounds for appeal.)

P.S. My take on the idea/invention/implementation debate is that it’s a not-very-useful semantic argument. “Slide to unlock” is an idea, and “slide to unlock horizontally” is also an idea, just more specific. Either could be an invention, but the more specific idea is more likely to be novel and nonobvious. “Slide to unlock horizontally” is an implementation of “slide to unlock,” but “slide to unlock” is also an implementation of (say) “unlock.” One could argue that even the specific algorithms are a set of ideas, and the “true” implementation is the code that carries out the algorithmic ideas. Looking at copyright, there is an idea–expression dichotomy, where the just expression is copyrightable. In contrast, the idea can be patented, if it is patentable. I think where people get tripped up is that abstract ideas such as laws of nature or mathematical formulae cannot be patented. There is a line of Supreme Court cases that tries to explain when an idea is sufficiently rooted in the real world—when is an idea no longer “just an idea”? I feel like I’ve used a lot of words to say very little, but that’s kind of the point; don’t be tripped up in the semantics.
post #156 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy View Post

On that note, I see a lot of accusations of bias as to Judge Posner; he dislikes software patents so he threw out the case. But in this entire thread, no one has even tried to explain how his alleged dislike of software patents resulted in dismissal. Remember, he threw the case out because neither party could prove harm (damages or the right to an injunction), even assuming valid and infringed patents. Does anyone think then that his damages analysis was an overly strict pretense to dismiss the case?

 

Absolutely.

 

I think he decided the case before it even came before him. The entire proceeding was a pretense, and a mockery of our legal system. This was clearly a case where the judge, based on his personal biases, and not the law, was looking a) for a specific outcome, and b) looking to use a high profile case to make a point.


Edited by anonymouse - 7/6/12 at 6:40am
post #157 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, an activist judge who does more than the law allows him to do. Under the US Constitution, a judge's job is to INTERPRET the law. A judge who says "I don't like the law" and then refuses to enforce it is an activist judge.

 

I don't exactly agree with your definition*, but the label is typically tossed around in a way where it does come to mean, "I don't like his/her/their decision," often in Supreme Court cases, particularly when those leveling the accusation tend to ignore the parts of the Constitution that they don't like. But, the nature of our legal system, the incompleteness of written laws and the ambiguity of intent is such that it's impossible for the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to not "make law" in many instances. The real question is whether they are acting in good faith, or deciding cases before they hear the arguments.

 

 

* I think that typically the accuser means that the judge(s) in question are legislating from the bench -- i.e., "making law", rather than "interpreting law"

post #158 of 186

I wonder if he can be held in contempt?

 

This is like a cop saying "well, the snatched purse didn't contain cash or valuables, so I let the thief go, and the victim should just get over it". Or "well, the rapist was not successful in his sexual assault, so I decided to save the system some time and money and let the perpetrator go".

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Absolutely.

 

I think he decided the case before it even came before him. The entire proceeding was a pretense, and a mockery of our legal system. This was clearly a case where the judge, based on his personal biases, and not the law, was looking a) for a specific outcome, and b) looking to use a high profile case to make a point.

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #159 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post I wonder if he can be held in contempt?

 

This is like a cop saying "well, the snatched purse didn't contain cash or valuables, so I let the thief go, and the victim should just get over it". Or "well, the rapist was not successful in his sexual assault, so I decided to save the system some time and money and let the perpetrator go".

To rule for an injunction there are four things that need to be established according to law. Proving damages is one of those. Apple could not satisfactorily establish the monetary damage they were claiming (and may have had a tactical reason not to set a reasonable and specific number) thus not fulfilling the requirements for an injunction. The judgement didn't come from thin-air when he denied both Apple and Motorola's requests.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #160 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

To rule for an injunction there are four things that need to be established according to law. Proving damages is one of those. Apple could not satisfactorily establish the monetary damage they were claiming (and may have had a tactical reason not to set a reasonable and specific number) thus not fulfilling the requirements for an injunction. The judgement didn't come from thin-air when he denied both Apple and Motorola's requests.

 

Being equally unfair to both sides, does not fairness make. And, it's unfair in the sense that neither side received justice because the judge did not listen to either side's arguments with an open mind, but merely to collect decision fodder to support his already made judgment. So, no, the judgement didn't come from thin air, it cam directly from Posner's pre-established biases.

 

It's more than curious that he specifically requested this case, then afterward made statements indicating his bias. It would seem that he had an agenda from the outset. I think the phrase judicial misconduct would be applicable, and his handling of the case grounds for impeachment.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Judge who tossed Apple-Motorola suit questions need for software patents
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge who tossed Apple-Motorola suit questions need for software patents