Originally Posted by jnjnjn
No, we discussed this before. By implementation I mean an actual working physical implementation or the complete blueprint of that (and a full simulation to prove that it works, and how it works).
And by the way it's a fact that a lot of patents are to generic and ambiguous, are they all issued wrongly? And even so, you have to look at the actual reality of the process and not it's idealization.
Simply stating that patents are generic and ambiguous doesn't make it true. A patent that is truly generic and ambiguous would either be rejected by USPTO or by the courts when someone moves to invalidate it.
The problem is that the Android shills here are incapable of understanding the difference between "unlocking a phone" (which would be generic) and "swipe along a pre-determined path with a graphical icon which follows your finger" (which is not).
Originally Posted by MicroNix
Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.
Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.
There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?
And, once again, you're confusing ideas with patents. Rendering a web page on a mobile device or using an application are ideas and are, by definition, unpatentable. A specific method for doing those things might be patentable (as long as it's not obvious). So Microsoft could not patent rendering a web page on a mobile device. They could, however, patent a specific implementation of rendering a web page onto a mobile device if their method was not obvious.
Similarly, Apple could not patent 'unlocking a phone'. That's generic. They could (and did) patent a very specific method of doing so.
Originally Posted by MicroNix
While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.
So far, most of the courts have declined to reject Apple's patents. And, at least in the US, the patents are considered valid until a court or the USPTO rejects them.
Originally Posted by freediverx
Patent trolls don't exist? You do realize I'm referring to true patent trolls and not companies like Apple, right?
Have you ever heard of Intellectual Ventures? Explain to me how their practices and business model encourage innovation or help promote business. This company and others like them are like leeches on technology and the economy. The patent system is broken because it allows counter-productive behavior like patent trolling, which defeats the original purpose of allowing patents in the first place - to encourage innovation.
The patent system, just like copyrights, is an artificial construct that was created specifically to encourage creativity and innovation by providing the inventor, writer, or composer with a limited time of exclusivity over their creations so they can profit from them. Patent trolls turn this concept on its head - they bring nothing of value to the system.
Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.
If I own a patent, I'm free to do whatever I want with it. I can give it away, use it, sell it, or license it. If I choose to sell it to someone, it is then their property to do whatever they want to do with. They can sell it, license it, use it, or do nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires a patent holder to practice their patent in order to enforce their rights. In fact, the law very specifically does NOT require the patent holder to practice the invention.
What you're calling a patent troll is actually a critical part of the process for allowing an inventor to be compensated for his invention. If the invention is in a field which requires massive infrastructure, a single inventor would probably not be able to get any benefit from his invention unless he could sell it or license it to someone. He could do that directly, but would have very little clout. A patent suit costs millions of dollars and few individuals could afford that, so a larger entity could just steal the invention and the inventor would be left out in the cold. Or maybe the individual inventor is no good at selling or negotiating. With "patent trolls", he can sell his invention to a group that is in a much better position to get reasonable value for it. He gets his money up front and it's up to them to try to negotiate a good enough deal to make money. Without "patent trolls", small inventors would be far less likely to get compensated for their work.
In many regards, intellectual property is no different than physical property. Let's say that my company builds a factory to make widgets, but later decides that we don't want to be in the widget market. We also don't want to be in the real estate market. At that point, our option is to sell the factory or let it sit empty. Now, let's say a real estate investment firm comes along and offers to buy it with the intent to rent it to someone who wants to make widgets. I sell them the property and have no further interest in it. They lease the factory to a widget manufacturer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that.
An IP firm which buys my patent and licenses it (i.e., leases it) to someone who will use it is doing exactly the same thing as the real estate investment company in the above example.
If the real estate investment company has not yet found a renter, you don't have the right to move in and start making widgets. Similarly, "the patent owner isn't using the invention" isn't justification for someone else using it.