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 2

post #41 of 186

What's the issue? Oh, you think we don't need patents in the software industry. It's not fair that Apple works hard a PAYS employees money to make software, how is fair the Google can come in and just steal the direct code for that piece of software? How is that fair? Tell me. There wild be no competition, it wouldn't even be a true American business. It would be just like the government owning all businesses and having only one business per Field of work. Give me 10 legitimate reasons why that is fair. Then I will even CONSIDER agreeing with you. 

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #42 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

 

Interesting. 

 

Coming from a Java developer here, he is right.  How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption?  10, 15 years at least?  Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most?  Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data.  It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary.  A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply
post #43 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?

So you are incapable of looking past someones position of power to see that their words are wrong? Let's accept your assertion that he is a great man.  Does that mean he can't be wrong? Are you too small to think for yourself?  Think what you want about software patents, the Judge's comments clearly show a complete lack of understanding of software development.  I know he was speaking extemporaneously. He may actually have some good points -- based in law.  He did not make any of them in the interview.

post #44 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

 

Coming from a Java developer here, he is right.  How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption?  10, 15 years at least?  Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most?  Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data.  It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary.  A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.

 

The comparison he made was completely unfair. 

 

Posner's comments amount to a big fat middle finger to developers. 

post #45 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yes, his past scholarship and jurisprudence are stunningly impressive, and have had wide impact.

 

But when he starts to make silly statements like these, one has to wonder if he is approaching his sell-by date.....

 

It would be more productive to wonder at his intent.  Note that Posner was speaking - voluntarily - to Reuters.  Ask yourself what his purpose might be in making such a seemingly outrageous statement.  Consider the uses of hyperbole as a rhetorical device in a culture of mass media and little journalism.  Ponder the perspective of a long and distinguished life on the bench, having seen much and been impressed by little, and having become gruesomely and humorously aware of the ludicrous seriousness with which the henchmen of the egregiously rich regard themselves.

 

And finally, remember that for anyone to speak through the media, that person must first manipulate the media into carrying a message, and try to encode the message in such a way that its content will survive manipulation by the medium itself.

 

Some of the performers in the circus know they're performing in a circus and some don't, but we must never, ever forget we're watching one.

post #46 of 186

The judge does not have a good understanding of software engineering.

 

Soft Engineering is every bit as patentable as hardware.

The fact that a single person can engineer very advanced and large scale software without help from manufacturing does not make it less patentable or less important.

 

This judge may know law but he needs to get a clue about software engineering.

 

Time will tell.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 7/5/12 at 9:02am
post #47 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

 

Coming from a Java developer here, he is right.  How long does it take to get a medicine just right, effective, or safe for human consumption?  10, 15 years at least?  Whereas we can have a new software or upgrade done in a year to 2 years... 5 at most?  Plus, in most cases (I say most, because there are exceptions) when a developer makes a mistake, the costs are low to fix the system and/or repair the data.  It is usually just a function of time and money - all monetary.  A pharmaceutical has to worry about physically impairing/killing actual people.

So we should only patent things that can kill people?  People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications.  Is that not worthy of protection?  All patents aren't based on 15 years of research..  Watch shark tank.  There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel.  Does that kill people?  Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop?  Was she the first one to think to patent it?  Good for her.  Why should it be different for software.

post #48 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.

That's very different - Apple is protected by trademark and copyright laws. Other companies can't sell phones with the Apple logo on them, or with iOS installed on them. They can't call their phones iPhones, or even jPhones or iFones. They can't even write code that would emulate an iPhone and make it so that iPhone apps are used. Even design patents (which are separate from software patents) protect the appearance of the devices - see the Galaxy Tab injunction, for example.

 

For pharma though, you can't copyright chemical compounds. So you spend $500 million testing and developing a drug, and as soon as you release it, the guy down the street can just sell a generic version of the same pill for a fraction of the cost. So pharma needs patents, otherwise nobody will front the half billion dollars needed to bring a drug to market.

 

In contrast, with software patents, the barrier is much lower. If you gave a touchscreen to 100 designers, and asked them to come up with a way to unlock it, I bet more than a few of them would come up with "swiping across the screen in a pattern." And it would cost them a lot less than half a billion dollars. Here's where trademarks come in - companies can't have the text "Slide to unlock" or the same appearance as the Apple unlock screen.

 

What it comes down to is that software patents lack specificity. A pharma patent is for a specific chemical compound, the equivalent software patent would be "A method and apparatus for preventing illness using a variety of configurations of chemical compounds." And that hurts innovation a lot. If a drug company discovers and patents a way to stop headaches, it doesn't mean that they should have a monopoly on all headache prevention drugs, but in the software patent world, they would.

post #49 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

So we should only patent things that can kill people?  People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications.  Is that not worthy of protection?  All patents aren't based on 15 years of research..  Watch shark tank.  There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel.  Does that kill people?  Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop?  Was she the first one to think to patent it?  Good for her.  Why should it be different for software.

 

The judge recognizes software patents are broken (taken to the extreme) and wants to do away with it entirely.  No, what I'm getting at is the patent system is broken, and is not a good fit for software.  There needs to be a system, just not the current patent system.  (And I don't have any idea what it should look like)

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Reply
post #50 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

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. 

 

JUDICIAL INCOMPETENCE is nothing new. Misconduct is nothing new, either.

 

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/12/when-judges-are-racist/

 

 

 

why the straw man argument?  i don't think the article you quoted refers to Posner at all.

post #51 of 186
I don't understand why people want software copywritten instead of patented.

Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #52 of 186

Posner is an incompetent, activist judge. He should never have taken this case. He has basically admitted to not have done his job and should be removed with prejudice.

post #53 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

 

 

why the straw man argument?  i don't think the article you quoted refers to Posner at all.

 

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't need to. 

post #54 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don't understand why people [wouldn't] want software copywritten instead of patented.
Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.

 

??? Are you serious ???

 

Software companies want copyrights and patents.

Look what copyright law got Oracle in its suit against Google over java: Google was busted for copying 9 lines of original java code.

post #55 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

That's very different - Apple is protected by trademark and copyright laws.

They cover entirely different things. You can't cover patentable items with a copyright or trademark or vice versa.

Copyright:
"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."

Patent:
"A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time. "

Trademark:
"A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer. "

They're entirely unrelated and people suggesting that one can substitute for the other simply don't understand IP.
"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 #56 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

 

The judge recognizes software patents are broken (taken to the extreme) and wants to do away with it entirely.

 

 

yes.  software patents are broken. it is quite possible that someone has independently developed some clever algorithm to solve a particular problem.  an algorithm is derived from an abstract idea.  i doubt there's a patent law that protects, outright, abstract ideas as it relates to software applications.

post #57 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post
Copyright is totally ineffective for ideas or fact embedded in the words or symbols.

..and there you have it. Ineffective for ideas...

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 186

He may or may not be right, but he's in the wrong branch of government to fix it. I hope he keeps that in mind. To many judges think they can legislate from the bench.

post #59 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?

I love it. You're jumping right into the middle of the "circle jerk". Sounds like someone is looking to get a sticky face.

post #60 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post


yes.  software patents are broken. it is quite possible that someone has independently developed some clever algorithm to solve a particular problem.  an algorithm is derived from an abstract idea.  i doubt there's a patent law that protects, outright, abstract ideas as it relates to software applications.

Whether software patents are broken or not, they are the law of the land. His job is to enforce the law.

Furthermore, patent law does not protect abstract ideas (software or not). It is expected to protect inventions or IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. You can't patent an idea.
"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 #61 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Copyrights never expire. Ever. 

 

For work created after 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.  For jointly created or corporate authorship, the copyright expires the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.  Long enough, but not never, ever.

post #62 of 186

Sounds to me like grounds for recusal.

post #63 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why wouldn't copyright laws fill the need quite nicely if the concern is truly "copying"?

You prefer a 120 year Copyright versus a 20/25 year patent?

post #64 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

Because software does not protect in any way what the software does.  If I systematically rewrite code to do exactly what the original does, using minor variations from the original, I have not violated any copyright.

 

If I copy all the names and numbers from the phone book and publish a phone book of my own, with my own header and format, I do not violate the original copyright.

 

Copyright is totally ineffective for ideas or fact embedded in the words or symbols.

 

If you systematically rewrote from the original source, your version could be considered a derivative work, which would violate copyright law. The same could apply to reverse engineering. The problems, however, are (at least) twofold: 1. If you changed it enough, it would make it difficult to prove it was derivative. 2. Copyright law doesn't even address the concept of reverse engineering.

 

This would make Google very happy, I'm sure, which is why GG is suggesting it. But, no, as it exists today, copyright law would not protect and promote innovation is the tech industry. (And, it also doesn't protect hardware design at all. And, as hardware and software become more closely integrated, it would be a big mess to sort out what's what. Another point that Google might like, since it would make it easier to ripoff the competition and hide behind a smokescreen of confusion.)

post #65 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You prefer a 120 year Copyright versus a 20/25 year patent?

What difference does it make? Googleguy simply mirrors the Google agenda - and Google has demonstrated that they don't respect copyrights any more than patents. Read up on the history of Google Books, for example.
"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 #66 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

He may be right, but his editorializing on the subject he is litigating makes me think we might be better served by his turning in his judicial robes in exchange for a Congessional seat.

You hit the nail on the head.  At the least, he should recuse himself from hearing any patent litigation cases.  

post #67 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

..and there you have it. Ineffective for ideas...

 

And ineffective for specific processes, like data detectors, which are, in fact, a sort of machine, making patent law, given the current state of patent and copyright law, the proper venue for protecting these inventions.

post #68 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


What difference does it make? Googleguy simply mirrors the Google agenda - and Google has demonstrated that they don't respect copyrights any more than patents. Read up on the history of Google Books, for example.

 

Well, GG was just throwing that out there for discussion, he wasn't saying it was a good idea... Ha, ha, ha... At least that's what he usually ends up claiming when he makes a particularly bone-headed or completely false post that he gets called out for.

post #69 of 186

Smart Judge....

post #70 of 186

I agree with most of what he said except for only major industries like Pharmaceutical Companies needing them. There are companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on software development. Why shouldn't they be protected? As a developer, I feel strongly that software patents need major reform. There needs to be at least some protection to very specific procedures. None of this "system that holds data that points to data" nonsense.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #71 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



Furthermore, patent law does not protect abstract ideas (software or not). It is expected to protect inventions or IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas. You can't patent an idea.

 

yes.  so it appears that Apple was not able to make the irrefutable assertion that Motorola implemented (as an example)

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,663,607.PN.&OS=PN/7,663,607&RS=PN/7,663,607

 

in a similar fashion, at the software level.

post #72 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan View Post

"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."

 

-John Carmack
 

That's why patents are important, versus say, trademarks.

post #73 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

ATTENTION DEVELOPERS:

 

I hope you're sitting before you read this. 

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.

post #74 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.

 

 

 

 

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.

post #75 of 186

Seems to me (not being any kind of expert in American law) that Posner is using the wrong platform at the wrong time for the wrong message.

 

He may well have an interest in patent litigation, which is why he requested a case of this nature in the first place but having sat through two years of this, he seems to be using it as a springboard to get himself heard for an agenda that is separate to the case he just dismissed.

 

Whatever his intention in speaking to the press is he will be aware of the implications and ready to answer for them. I wonder if his intellectual curiosity in this field has put at risk his objectivity thereby leaving both parties feeling that they just wasted a lot of time and money and still did not get a fair hearing. 

 

If his intention is to raise true level of debate he may well be successful and he may even be a catalyst in changing the system to better reflect the needs of software innovators.

 

Any change will almost certainly take years and in the meantime it is only reasonable to expect that the current laws offering protection to all industries be properly safeguarded by fair hearings and sound judgements by courts and judges with a respect for the law as it stands until a new law (or laws) supersede it/them. 

post #76 of 186
Talk about a bunch of unqualified whiners on AppleInsider!!!

Do you really think "1-click shopping" is worthy of the same level of patent protection as a drug that takes 10 years to develop? Most software patents are absurd at best, and should never have been granted. They might be worthy of a 3-5 year monopoly, but that is stretching things. The same goes for business process patents.

Copyright can currently protect Apple quite adequately, and there might be some room to move design patents into this realm, albeit for less than 100 years...

The real question is how do you reform things like h.264 and wireless standards, where some of these patents do involve tremendous investment, but they still hinder progress.

While I may not be a lawyer, I have been following IP issues for 15 years. Anything in our economy that just makes more CPA or Law jobs is non-productive.
post #77 of 186

apple should ask for a change of venue, or at the very least, a different judge.

post #78 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

That's why patents are important, versus say, trademarks.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand your response?
 
What John Carmack is saying is that, at least in this case, the patent would be impeding legitimate development.


Edited by gwjvan - 7/5/12 at 10:31am
post #79 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrolan View Post

For work created after 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.  For jointly created or corporate authorship, the copyright expires the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.  Long enough, but not never, ever.

And what happens when that date of expiry rolls around? Disney forces Congress to extend it. Disney will always force Congress to extend copyright. Therefore copyright is permanent.

And don't complain about my use of 'always' there. Compared to some of the other atrocities committed by Disney that have gone completely unchecked and ignored, their ability to pay off people to extend copyright terms is small change. They'll get their extension. lol.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #80 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

..... henchmen of the egregiously rich ....

Huh!?

 

When/where do you think we live -- feudal England? 

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