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 3

post #81 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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.

That's good. Nobody should ever be allowed to copy Siri's binary and make it run on a Windows phone (without Apple's consent). Nobody should be allowed to use Apple's source code without their consent either. 10 years from now, 50 years from now, ever. Same with trademark - nobody should be allowed to release a phone called the iPhone, or a piece of software called Siri, or put the Apple logo on their device, except for Apple. I'm totally happy with Apple having a monopoly on the term "iPad". I don't think that anyone would disagree here. I think that is more than enough to protect Apple's brand and products.

 

Patents are about limited monopolies over ideas, and in the case of software patents, over very vague and broad ideas. So someone gets a monopoly over the idea of swiping on a screen to unlock it - not a profound. What if Microsoft had patented the popup soft keyboard on a mobile device (which they had in Windows Mobile long before the iPhone), and had been granted an injunction against the iPhone and iPad - would you be championing their right to do this, and lambasting Apple for ripping off Microsoft's ideas? I bet not. Even worse, what if the company that had this patent was a non practicing entity, and all that they wanted was huge settlements for use of their "idea"? You can't abuse trademarks or copyrights like this (well you can, but to a much more limited scope).

post #82 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.....


That is exactly what I thought about Posner a month ago...

 

"I'm wondering if this judge at 73 is still learning from experience - and thus improving and more rational in his thoughts and decisions... or is he past his sell-by date and thinking more about the easy life of putting his feet up in a retirement garden... so tossing out the difficult cases on a whim!"

 

...in the http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150539/judge-cancels-apple-patent-infringement-trial-against-motorola#post_2123173 thread.

post #83 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent. 

 

 

I know for a fact that one very prominent law firm only hires IP attorneys with strong undergraduate degrees in a science or engineering.


Edited by Hudson1 - 7/5/12 at 10:32am
post #84 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

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?

 

What about a new kind of light switch that someone develops in their garage over a single weekend. Traditionally, that, the "better mousetrap", has been exactly the sort of thing that patents are supposed to protect, particularly for the small "inventor". Under your reasoning (and apparently Posner's), the light switch deserves even less protection than software, since most software takes longer to develop than a weekend, probably including "1-click checkout" (which probably should have been invalidated due to prior art). The problem with Posner's argument, which is a pretty fundamental problem, is that, if we grant patent protection based on how long something takes to develop, we get into situations where things that previously were clearly the sort of thing that should be covered by patents suddenly aren't because, "not enough effort" went into developing them. Who exactly will decide how much effort is necessary to qualify for a patent, and who will police/verify exactly how much effort went into developing something? (And, the drug companies aren't a reliable source of self reporting, are they?) Will it be nough for someone to say, I was thinking about how to make a better light switch for years, or would it need to be documented? Would a eureka moment following vague ideas of several years duration be sufficient, or would more concrete work be necessary?

 

Posner's ideas on patents would create more problems than they pretend to solve, more confusion than we have now. I don't think he's really bothered to think it through, but that he did apply his bias in the Apple v. Motorola case.


Edited by anonymouse - 7/5/12 at 10:33am
post #85 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

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

Too late. They could have asked for a different judge at the beginning, but they didn't. At this point, the only way to get a different judge would be convincing an appeals court that he's incapable of setting aside his personal opinions - and that's difficult to do.

I think it's quite likely that an appeal will be granted - but it will go back to Posner for the re-hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

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?.

Well, yes. Under US law, there isn't really any distinction between 'valuable patent' and 'less valuable patent'. If you meet the requirements for getting a patent, you have the exclusive right to that invention. The field of study doesn't matter (there are some differences in the actual execution of that 'exclusive right' in some cases, but the general principle doesn't change. It's either patentable or it's not. There's no such thing as 'more patentable'.

The other difference is that it is possible, in theory, for the courts to rule that a patent is essential and force licensing. That is far more likely to happen in the pharmaceutical industry than in other industries. Posner's argument that Apple should be forced to license its computer technologies is, AFAIK, unprecedented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

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.

Again, you're missing the point. That patent does not cover an IDEA - which is what someone was asking about earlier. A patent covers a process or a composition of matter. The particular patent you cited is a composition of matter patent. It describes a specific type of touch panel - not 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 #86 of 186

That is an outrageous statement. Pharmaceutical  can patent but not tech? So a small guy, who has a brilliant idea.... gets it stolen by a big firm who can get it to market first, promote the heck out of it and make billions but too bad, your not selling drugs or something this old dude want. (I'm an old dude too, but me thinks this guy has shares in viagra)

post #87 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
 


Thank you.  I'm glad to see there are some here who understand the problems that proliferation in software patents have created.

post #88 of 186

What a thread! Altogether, about as logical is all the nonsense in the Monty Python intro, leading up to Judge Posner's big foot stamping everything flat with a loud raspberry.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rutX0I6NxU

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #89 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

...

 

Some of us here have the sneaking suspicion that Posner is tired of software patent cases because he doesn't appreciate the impact of software, and this might influence his opinions, which have an even chance of finding their way into his adjudication. Especially since he's known to be "outspoken." So if every judge has an opinion, this one will *really* have one. And depending on his interests, it might not be the most informed opinion. 

 

Maybe his views are based on the possibility that he does appreciate the impact of software.  Let's face it, software patent litigation is being used more and more as a means of stifling innovative efforts of others and I suspect Posner recognizes that.

post #90 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.

Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original.  A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post


Thank you.  I'm glad to see there are some here who understand the problems that proliferation in software patents have created.

 

I used to agree, but, in reality, software is no different than any other kind of machine, and this problem, of someone having already patented it, exists in all fields -- it's not a problem unique to software development, and software developers don't deserve some sort of special status... unless you can present a compelling argument that creating machines in software in somehow fundamentally different than creating all other machines.

post #92 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original.  A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.

 

Yes, but, as you well know, it doesn't keep the reverse engineers away, who are really no different than the "copyists". Your arguments today are particularly self-serving and disingenuous.

post #93 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original.  A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.

And, once again, copyrights do not cover the same things as patents. See the definitions I already provided since you're apparently still confused after being told multiple times.
"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 #94 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


And, once again, copyrights do not cover the same things as patents. See the definitions I already provided since you're apparently still confused after being told multiple times.

I'm not the least bit confused about it. You just don't want to discuss the actual article premise that software should not be patentable for the most part. Cling to your "no one understands there's a difference" meme while some of us discuss the real issues of software protection.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

 

Maybe his views are based on the possibility that he does appreciate the impact of software.  Let's face it, software patent litigation is being used more and more as a means of stifling innovative efforts of others and I suspect Posner recognizes that.

 

Android doesn't represents the innovate efforts of others, it represents a cheap knockoff of iOS.

post #96 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

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.

 

Doesn't it all depend on which side of the fence you're sitting on?  Patenting truly innovative and never done before approaches to solve a problem is one thing.  Patenting an idea that makes sense and then using that patent to stop others from solving problems is an entirely different issue.  My suspicion is Posner realizes this and we should, too.

post #97 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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.

 

It's because you can't copyright ideas, per se.  You can copyright actual code.

post #98 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Android doesn't represents the innovate efforts of others, it represents a cheap knockoff of iOS.

 

I think you're getting into why this is such a difficult subject.  The patent system was created to protect inventions.  Actually, it was created so that people could publicly disclose their inventions while claiming an exclusive right to it for a set period of time.  It's easy to understand how something like a pneumatic tire is an invention.  It's a lot harder to define what's an invention when it comes to software.  Posner is hardly alone in recognizing that people are trying to claim every idea they get as some kind of "invention" that's worthy of patent protection.

 

If there was a clear way to sort "idea" from "invention" when it comes to information, this problem would have been solved long ago.  Posner obviously sees that the co-mingling of the two concepts has gone way too far and it's only causing the legal system to get rich and, most likely, no one else.

post #99 of 186

Activist judges. Gotta love them.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #100 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Doesn't it all depend on which side of the fence you're sitting on?  Patenting truly innovative and never done before approaches to solve a problem is one thing.  Patenting an idea that makes sense and then using that patent to stop others from solving problems is an entirely different issue.  My suspicion is Posner realizes this and we should, too.

Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.

Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.

For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not the least bit confused about it. You just don't want to discuss the actual article premise that software should not be patentable for the most part. Cling to your "no one understands there's a difference" meme while some of us discuss the real issues of software protection.

You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.

Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.
"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 #101 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original.  A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever written a line of code in your life?

 

You could have a "method" of performing something and if you gave the task to 10 programmers you could end up with 10 different samples of code. Each one could be copyrightable since they would all be different. This is why you're wrong on the idea of copyright keeping the "copyists" away.

 

I posted this before, but it's relevant in this discussion (I'll try to keep this short).

 

I worked at software company A. After many years I switched to work for company B. While at company B I came across the same problem that neeed solving that I previously solved at company A. To save time I "re-used" the same methods I figured out for company A and made a note in my "to-do" list that I have to re-write that portion of code before the software was released since it violated IP of company A.

 

I did this to save time to be able to get to a point where we could test the software with the intention of replacing it later on. However, before that point came my employer found out what I did and was not happy. Even though they understood my reasoning they said if the code was released they could be in serious trouble.

 

If company A had copyright protection on the software, then I could simply make a few changes to the software and company B could use the same ideas (IP) without worrying about copyright issues. This is why it's important to have protection for systems and methods, rather than the code itself.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #102 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.

 

And this further illustrates why this is such a difficult issue for our current laws and legal system to sort out.  What you are calling an "invention", many others would call an "idea".

 

Let me offer this example from another era so that the discussion can be removed a bit from the Apple/Motorola case:

 

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.

post #103 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
 

How is that relevant? Patents are not supposed to be issued for obvious methods.

post #104 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

And this further illustrates why this is such a difficult issue for our current laws and legal system to sort out.  What you are calling an "invention", many others would call an "idea".

Not anyone who's the least bit conversant in intellectual property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Let me offer this example from another era so that the discussion can be removed a bit from the Apple/Motorola case:

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.

And you'd be wrong.

If throwing a curve ball met the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, it could have been patented. The law is pretty clear on what requirements an invention needs to meet to be patentable. If your invention meets those requirements, it is patentable - whether you like the result or not.

And your logic is ridiculous. By your logic, NOTHING should ever be patentable. After all, once someone explains how to do it, anyone with access to a machine shop or IC foundry could make anything that's covered by patents. That is why "ability to copy an invention" does not preclude something being patentable.
"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 #105 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

It's also quite funny how Fandroids are praising this judge all of a sudden, yet they were completely trashing that other judge who granted the injunctions against Samsung recently.


Yes.  It's pretty much the same thing over and over.  Fandroids are the biggest hypocrites.  Siri was stupid because people "look stupid talking to their phones'.  Of course now that Samsung and Google have something similiar, it's "actually pretty neat".

 

This judge should be disbarred for allowing his personal f'ing feelings to interfere with a legal decision.  The guy is worthless.

post #106 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

 

Interesting. 

 

It's not just "interesting", it's insane.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #107 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent. 

 

Addendum:

However, substantive mastery of math and the sciences is no guarantee of quality thinking outside of that particular area. The habits of thought that brought this mastery must likewise be applied to the soft areas. I assume, without evidence, that a majority of those commenting on this site have at least mastered some aspects of IT. It is therefore disappointing to read the opinions and confusion expressed about IP laws: trademarks, copyrights (literature and computer programs, algorithms), patents (there are many kinds (business methods, utility, design, biological)), trade secret, NDAs (contracts). Different IP laws protect different kinds, and properties of IT products. 

 

You all really need to put some effort into the IP areas, and stop making statements regarding these areas until you do. 

 

As someone who has earned mathematics, science and legal degrees and skills, I understand the hard work necessary to have acquired some degree of mastery in these areas, but there is no shortcut. IP laws are quite difficult, made more so by opinions of those in power and with influence without any STEM knowledge. 

 

Posner believes in the mechanisms of government over people. He's a dangerous person... the kind of vile person that usually ends up in Congress.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #108 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

It's funny - I was just thinking how the legal system is plagued by a proliferation of laws...

 

I wonder whether Judge Judy is retiring soon...?  It'd be nice to find just the right spot for this gentleman's dotage.

 

As long as he can be kept in a padded cell, he'll be fine.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #109 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

Posner's right. What we need are strong copyright and trademark laws - patent laws are too arbitrary, too difficult to enforce, and end up creating these huge legal deadlocks. I think that the comparison to pharma is correct - trademark laws aren't going to protect a drug that a company spent $500 million bringing to market, when a generic company can synthesize it for $2 a pill.

 

Nonsense. The recent changes to patent law ("first to file" instead of "first to invent") will eliminate many of the legal cases. It should vastly increase the amount of buying and selling of IP, though.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #110 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Not anyone who's the least bit conversant in intellectual property.
And you'd be wrong.
If throwing a curve ball met the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, it could have been patented. The law is pretty clear on what requirements an invention needs to meet to be patentable. If your invention meets those requirements, it is patentable - whether you like the result or not.
And your logic is ridiculous. By your logic, NOTHING should ever be patentable. After all, once someone explains how to do it, anyone with access to a machine shop or IC foundry could make anything that's covered by patents. That is why "ability to copy an invention" does not preclude something being patentable.

 

 

I already gave an example of the kinds of things that patents can be issued for.  Go read my prior post.

post #111 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Again, you're missing the point. That patent does not cover an IDEA - which is what someone was asking about earlier.

 

 

that patent link i referenced came from http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/30/apple_countersues_motorola_over_multi_touch_iphone_patents.html

 

if you are aware of the specifics of the Apple-Motorola case, in which Posner is referring to, that would assist in this discussion

post #112 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

How is that relevant? Patents are not supposed to be issued for obvious methods.


Without getting into a debate that I'm not really equipped to get into, I want to at least point out two things.

a) What he is specifically pointing out is that the uniqueness of a solution is often simply in the uniqueness of the problem and the tools/resources available.

b) What is obvious to John Carmack might not be obvious to you. Why should intelligent people be held back from creating things because they can more quickly recognize/formulate solutions which exceed whatever threshold "obvious" happens to be at the moment?

post #113 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Activist judges. Gotta love them.

 

An activist judge is any judge who issues an opinion one doesn't agree with

post #114 of 186
My knowledge in all things regarding patent law is non-existent. However, having read a lot of these patent war articles it is obvious that something needs to be overhauled. The first thing that comes to mind is the length of time that a patent is protected. I can understand that 200 (even 50) years ago, protecting something for a period of 20 years was totally understandable. But we are now in a time where 5 years in the tech world, is the distant past from where we are. I'd argue that once patented you've got 7 years to make it all you can.
post #115 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.

 How long did it take you to come up with that list of ideas? They are at least as novel as Slide to Unlock. If you were to pay some money to patent all of those, do you think that you would deserve a 20 year monopoly on all of those methods of unlocking a phone? That's 6 patents, that'd cost you about $20,000. Not a ton of money. Heck, you could probably patent "recognizing a predefined pattern from the accelerometer to unlock a phone.", and only need one patent for #3, 4 and 5. How would you unlock a phone now?

 

Copyrights (along with trademarks) are absolutely used to protect software. Apple has copyrights on their branding, iconography, logos, fonts, sounds, marketing slogans, etc. - ie. the stuff that makes the iPhone the iPhone. Likewise, it would be incredibly illegal for someone to write an iOS emulator and sell Siri on an Android device without Apple's approval. Trademarks prevent other people from saying "slide to unlock" on the device screen. Design patents provide even further protection. I think that this is more than sufficient.

 

Patenting "sliding to unlock" is like patenting "using a pill to cure a headache". Sure, there are countless ways to get drugs into your body, but do you think such a patent would be fair or reasonable?

post #116 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
 

I didn't read the entire text of the speech, but this line is troubling in the context of his just having thrown out a patent-related case.  It's not a judge's job to decide what laws we "really need" or should have.  It's his job to fairly apply the laws that we do have.  This certainly raises the question as to whether he stepped over that line in this case.  The fact that he "only uses his iPhone for mail" is somewhat troubling too.  Doesn't sound like the best guy to understand the implications of software innovation.  It's also troubling that he didn't get the Apple-Motorola case by the luck of the draw but went out of his way to take the case in the first place.  He used his influence to take a high-profile software patent case; he dismisses said case; and then goes on the record saying that he doesn't believe we actually need software patents.  Well, perhaps we don't need judges legislating from the bench either.

Your post is most refreshing.  Thank you for attempting to illuminate in this climate of wild wild west thinking and culture of getting something for nothing.  

post #117 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


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

 

Ahhh I see, you use hypothetical or imaginary realities to base your arguments on, rather than actual ones.  That explains a lot of the "logical arguments" tossed around here.  This place beats the Onion for trenchant satire.

post #118 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrolan View Post

Ahhh I see, you use hypothetical or imaginary realities to base your arguments on, rather than actual ones.

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

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #119 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

 How long did it take you to come up with that list of ideas? They are at least as novel as Slide to Unlock. If you were to pay some money to patent all of those, do you think that you would deserve a 20 year monopoly on all of those methods of unlocking a phone? That's 6 patents, that'd cost you about $20,000. Not a ton of money. Heck, you could probably patent "recognizing a predefined pattern from the accelerometer to unlock a phone.", and only need one patent for #3, 4 and 5. How would you unlock a phone now?

If I were the first person to think up those ideas, if they were determined to be non-obvious, and I were willing to spend the money, why shouldn't I be able to get patents? Our system allows for patents that meet the specific requirements for novelty. If someone comes up with something novel and non-obvious, they SHOULD be able to get a patent. Why do you have a problem with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

 Copyrights (along with trademarks) are absolutely used to protect software. Apple has copyrights on their branding, iconography, logos, fonts, sounds, marketing slogans, etc. - ie. the stuff that makes the iPhone the iPhone. Likewise, it would be incredibly illegal for someone to write an iOS emulator and sell Siri on an Android device without Apple's approval. Trademarks prevent other people from saying "slide to unlock" on the device screen. Design patents provide even further protection. I think that this is more than sufficient.

I never said that copyrights couldn't be used to protect software. I said that copyrights protect different things than patents - which is true.

As for making an iOS emulator, there's no law against that. There may be contractual agreements that prohibit it (which may or may not be enforceable), but simply making an OS emulator is perfectly legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

 Patenting "sliding to unlock" is like patenting "using a pill to cure a headache". Sure, there are countless ways to get drugs into your body, but do you think such a patent would be fair or reasonable?

No, it's not. You're not thinking about this clearly. To use your analogy:

"unlocking your phone" is equivalent to "taking a pill to cure a headache"

"Slide to unlock" is equivalent to "taking a very specific, patented pill to cure a headache".

The first is an idea. The second is a specific implementation. If you can't comprehend such a simple concept, you really out to sit back and learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

An activist judge is any judge who issues an opinion one doesn't agree with

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post


that patent link i referenced came from http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/30/apple_countersues_motorola_over_multi_touch_iphone_patents.html

if you are aware of the specifics of the Apple-Motorola case, in which Posner is referring to, that would assist in this discussion

Which still doesn't prove the point. That is not an idea. It's a specific implementation of how you unlock. See above for information.
"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 #120 of 186
Quote:

Again, still not never, ever.  What will happen in the future is only conjecture.  'Cos you know, if history teaches us anything, its that things always stay the same over the course of a hundred years. lol.gif

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