or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential - Page 4

post #121 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

So, because there is a spotlight being shone on patent disputes now, versus the probably thousands of other cases on the books, it's suddenly MORE IMPORTANT to "do away with patent litigation"? No! 

 

Patent disputes should be sorted out in courtrooms or in voluntary mediation. Where else would disputes be handled? On Twitter? Here?

 

Patent disputes are no different from any other kind of property dispute and I believe rash changes to the USPTO for political points or to satisfy some nebulous public dissatisfaction would be bad for patents and have repercussions far beyond the intent.

 

Which of my proposed changes would be "rash"?

 

Better evaluation up front to ensure that patents are only granted to inventions that are non-obvious to engineers in the field and not already in the public knowledge through prior art?

 

Requiring reasonably prompt action on patents once a potentially infringing product is released?

 

Limiting the scope of patents to what they say the patents are for, or requiring a high burden of proof that the patent is being violated for out-of-scope claims of infringement?

post #122 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Why would you "hate" a company? What has Google done to you personally that you would use such strong language?

 

I HATE them tooooo!  I hate thieves and liars with a fiery passion.  My hate of them comes from the same place my distain for MS comes from.  Schmidt sat on Apple's board during the development of the iPhone and after its release when he knew Google was planning to compete with them head on in several markets.  Since he had insider info on what was coming they had a head start in the copy process.  Microsoft did the same thing with Windows because Word and Excel was created originally for the Mac, they had access to the code and famously trick management at the time into a poorly written license that didn't confine their use to the programs they were working on for the Mac.  I hate Samsung for the same reasons.  If companies are allowed to steal from Apple without consequence, they will be once again on the brink of death and the innovation we have seen come from their success will end.  So if those who steal from Apple are allow to run them out of business with their own creations, their customers loose.
 
post #123 of 271
Apple should accept this and have the courts make them essential standards and then collect megabucks.

Even if they only collect 1 dollar per patent that's 4 bucks per ever single android device out there. Kerching!!!!

That is far more acceptable than paying lawyers billions


ON THE OTHER HAND

Google have just backed up Apple in proving that these patents are unique, oops!
post #124 of 271

Typical Google's philosophy : Hey Buddy, be cool, what you think is yours is mine !

post #125 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

He did explain once why he did that. IIRC the s version was already taken.

that and I was 19 at the time lol
post #126 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I'm waiting for Google to argue that if enough civil liberties are taken away from the citizens, the citizens lose the right to have those civil liberties because depriving citizens of those rights has become "essential" to government. Same goddamn horseshit argument.

Sadly this seems to be the logic used by the current adminstration.

As to Google it is pretty clear that that the concept of do no evil has left the house long ago. It is extremely pathetic to hold up slide to unlock as something they can't design around. I mean really there has to be millions of ways to unlock a cell phone, slide to unlock is just one possible innovation here.

What I see here is Google saying that they are to damn lazy to think about design, new concepts or even a willingness to innovate. Not only is it pathetic but if successful would certainly screw over the concept of patents and their potential to spur innovation. It is like Google has missed the whole point of patents, you need to try harder, and come up with unique solutions consummers want. The reality is that those that respect the patent system are the ones in this country innovating.

As to patents and also copyrights Google has shown no respect at all for these rights that creators have. It is about time some of our federal money be spent determining why Google consistently violates rights holders ownership of their creations. Effectively Google is one of the most evil companies out there as they really don't give a damn about ownership of anything.
post #127 of 271
It is pretty clear that #3 below is pretty much how Google operates these days. Actually they have operated this way for years and have effectively ripped off many book authors and continues to do so. There attitude seems to be we are to big not to profit by ripping off others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Google:

"We aren't first movers. We're asking for something (free ride) in compensation for our slowness."

OR

"We had this kind of tech, too. We were just too friggin stupid to think of patenting it."

OR

"We just randomly steal shit without thinking of the repercussions, and then raise all hell when people start catching on."



You be the judge. 
post #128 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

I wonder if Apple could actually use this against Google/Motorola in court. Did Google specifically mention Apple's patents as being essential? Isn't that admission that it's innovative and no one else has been able to create something like it?


Purely nitpicking (since this is the most ridiculous argument ever brought forward by Mountain View...), it does not. You could have a company patenting something obvious or essential (double-click, for example, or the App Store concept that Linux users knew decades before Apple iOS). Patents are supposed to protect innovation, just like Justice is supposed to protect the innocent. As any human-enabled system, it has its failures. It's statistically working unless the process is gamed by specialists.

Obviously, the question here is: are  Apple/Google specialists (lawyers) gaming the patent system?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #129 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Google have just backed up Apple in proving that these patents are unique, oops!

No. They just proved the patents are an obstruction to their model, which was not a secret, and that they think/pretend those patents are a menace to the US economy, which is highly debatable, to be polite.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #130 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Sadly this seems to be the logic used by the current adminstration.
As to Google it is pretty clear that that the concept of do no evil has left the house long ago. It is extremely pathetic to hold up slide to unlock as something they can't design around. I mean really there has to be millions of ways to unlock a cell phone, slide to unlock is just one possible innovation here.
There is still the throw it at the wall to unlock method, seemingly quite suitable for most android phones. As far as I know, it's not patented yet. ;-)
post #131 of 271

"In the case of the smartphone patent wars, the first makes a cellphone a cellphone and the second makes it an iPhone," All Things D's John Paczkowski writes. "One is a core technology, the other is experiential product differentiation.""

 

This sums it up perfectly for me. It defines what most of Apple's lawsuits are about. It's about "experiential differentiation". In a market that has mostly been all about "standardizing and homogenization", with relatively minor cosmetic differentiators... until the iPhone came along and changed the game.

 

To me, Googles argument is a bit like the BandAid metaphor. People used 'bandages' for a long time… the one day someone invented a clever little combined package of gauze and adhesive, and named the resulting product the Band Aid…. it quickly became "ubiquitous" and almost the de facto standard of quickly patching small injuries...


Plenty of copycats hit the market soon after. But no-one could refer to theirs as a band aid. Nor could they use the same dimensions or even materials without paying a license or infringing.

 

To this day, "adhesive strips" and "adhesive bandages" sit alongside the (in its way) still unique Band Aid.

 

 

How is the iPhone, with the underlying iOS software and all of its experiential nuances any different?

 

The lines need to be made clear. For example, Apple invents a cool "it bounces at the end of the page" function (the 'over scroll' feature), that enhances the overall usability and experience. That's patented. By what POSSIBLE argument could anyone try to claim that invention should be free to all to use as an "essential standard"?

post #132 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post

There are two key problems with the current patent system, both of which if fixed would do away with much patent litigation now.

The first is procedural. Patents don't get the review they need, and so patents that the engineers in the business would consider obvious and patents with prior art get approved. Once a patent is approved, the burden of proof becomes very high to invalidate it - which would only be justified if the evaluation process before approval was sufficiently rigorous.

The second is legal. You can hold on to a patent for decades, and then say "wait, this product that's been shipping all this time, it's infringing on my stuff." There should be a period of time, say a year after wide release, where failure to file becomes an implied license.

Edit: Oh, I'll add a third. Someone has a patent for a process for a very specific purpose (creating an automated response bot for a chat system) and then squints real hard and says "Hey, Siri infringes on this". The burden of proof for infringement on a patent described as related to a completely different process should be very high, the presumption should be that if the patent sets forth a way to handle a chat system, it only applies to chat systems.

Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.

J.
post #133 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Ayn Rand's philosophy dovetails nicely into free market capitalism, quite different from Leninism and it perfectly illustrated the point being made.

 

Obviously you missed the point. I wasn't insinuating that Lenin and Rand shared similar philosophies. My point was that they represented annoyingly extreme viewpoints - on opposite ends of the political spectrum - that most educated people reject today as arrogant, cruel, selfish, and most of all, ineffective.

 
 
I want no part of any "free market capitalism" that embraces Rand's philosophies. Any philosophy taken to a ridiculous and callous extreme must be avoided. Love how Rand died of cancer while feeding off the government assistance she railed against. True sign of a selfish hypocrite.
 
 
post #134 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Apple should accept this and have the courts make them essential standards and then collect megabucks.
Even if they only collect 1 dollar per patent that's 4 bucks per ever single android device out there. Kerching!!!!
That is far more acceptable than paying lawyers billions
ON THE OTHER HAND
Google have just backed up Apple in proving that these patents are unique, oops!

Because that's not Apple's business model and they shouldn't be forced to sell their technology if they don't want to. They make far more than $4 per iPhone, so why would they be happy about having to give away all their differentiating features for a few bucks?

The law allows for companies to have an exclusive right to practice their patented invention and Google's inability to innovate is not justification for removing that protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.

Properly issued patents can not be 'to' generic nor should they exist without a working implementation. Read up on the patent process. A patent must already be unique and novel and the best implementation must be presented to the patent office. If something slips through, it can be thrown out in court.
"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 #135 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

I don't believe in "patent trolls". I believe in IP as property, and thus the property may be used in any form it's owner wishes.

 

I have nothing to add to that. Your position speaks for itself. That's what I love about free market extremists - you embrace the most extreme manifestations of your flawed political outlook, no matter how terrible the outcome. The rest of us prefer to live in a more civilized world.

 
post #136 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You're forgetting patent trolls. They are a clear sign of a failed patent system.
 

How is something that doesn't exist a sign of a failed patent system?

The problem is that all the people whining about 'patent trolls' don't understand the concept of intellectual property. A patent is property that you can buy, sell, license, use, not use, etc as you wish - just like any other property.

Think of a patent as a factory. If you own a factory, you have the right to leave it empty (unused) if you wish. You can use it yourself to product product. You can rent it out to someone else to produce product. You can wait until the rents increase to a higher level before renting it own. But no one else has the right to take over the factory simply because they don't like what the factory owner is doing with it.

 

 

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.

 
post #137 of 271
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

We had various forms of touch input for years and they all sucked until the first iPhone came out. It's not just about the hardware but the software as well.
 
 
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So? Why should that give others the right to steal Apple's ideas?

 

 

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that while touch input existed for a long time, it was Apple who perfected it and made it reliable and easy to use. As such, they deserve credit for doing so and if they were awarded a patent for it, it's perfectly valid. We're on the same side of this debate.

 

 

 

 
post #138 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.

 

The lack of implementation is the real, fundamental problem with the patent system today. By allowing patents to be issued without implementations, it allows the patent holder to treat them as generic patents. With no implementation actually defining what they are, it can be argued that practically any implementation of any remotely related technology infringes. This is the defining characteristic of the "patent troll": accumulating unimplemented patents with no intention to implement them, but simple to wait to see what surfaces that's profitable and what unimplemented patents can be argued to be infringed.

 

But, none of Apple's iPhone patents suffer from this problem, so that's a separate issue from what's under discussion in this thread. Google's proposal is of course ludicrous, hypocritical and self-serving, and it's also going nowhere.

post #139 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

 

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that while touch input existed for a long time, it was Apple who perfected it and made it reliable and easy to use. As such, they deserve credit for doing so and if they were awarded a patent for it, it's perfectly valid. We're on the same side of this debate.

 

 

 

 

So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.

post #140 of 271

So essentially what Google are saying is "we are just catching up to the original iphone so now that everyone is copying it, it should be a standard".

Hahaha, nice one but no!

post #141 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that while touch input existed for a long time, it was Apple who perfected it and made it reliable and easy to use. As such, they deserve credit for doing so and if they were awarded a patent for it, it's perfectly valid. We're on the same side of this debate.



 
So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.
No - I think you will find that freediverx is saying that they are entitled to apply for a patent for their implementation of it, which seems reasonable.
post #142 of 271
@fredaroony: I can't speak for freediverx but I believe his/her point is that Apple's implementation of multitouch deserves its patent because it was able to useable. Plus, Apple did purchase Fingerworks which had the base patents to build from anyway.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #143 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The lack of implementation is the real, fundamental problem with the patent system today. By allowing patents to be issued without implementations, it allows the patent holder to treat them as generic patents. With no implementation actually defining what they are, it can be argued that practically any implementation of any remotely related technology infringes. This is the defining characteristic of the "patent troll": accumulating unimplemented patents with no intention to implement them, but simple to wait to see what surfaces that's profitable and what unimplemented patents can be argued to be infringed.

But, none of Apple's iPhone patents suffer from this problem, so that's a separate issue from what's under discussion in this thread. Google's proposal is of course ludicrous, hypocritical and self-serving, and it's also going nowhere.

I second that completely.

J.
post #144 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.

C'mon. You can do better. What about all those graphical buttons and icons iOS displays? Weren't those shamelessly 'ripped off' from Xerox PARC 30 years ago? OMG what about copy and paste? Android had it first (cuz we ignore Windows Mobile had it firster). Or let's post more picturez and say Apple ripped off the grid of icons from Palm (because Newton was never a phone). If we can show that Apples phone isn't made from 100% original in-house ideas, maybe we can trick the stupider forum readers into thinking that it's a valid argument against Apple's patent rights.

"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 #145 of 271

People should have a choice to buy from Apple something Apple designed after much expense and hard work. 

 

People should have the choice to buy something else that does not have Apple IP in it.

 

The fact that thieves feel they are entitled to Apple's designs is despicable. When they proceed to rip both Apple and Apple investors off they should be struck down by our government as vigorously as possible if true justice were to prevail.

 

Sadly it appears that some of the lead culprits also are prominent American corporations. Many other self centered Americans, a generation of cyber scum, do not even care that about the damage done to Apple.

 

That is  major evidence in my humble opinion this country  is rotten to the core from the top down.

post #146 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

 

 

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.

 

 

I'm quite familiar with Intellectual Ventures. They sign agreements with patent holders or buy patents outright en masse or form patent consortiums to exploit to the fullest their property.

 

All companies exist to make a profit. That is their only real requirement. Not to employ people, not to make society a better place by making huge donations to charities, not to improve the quality of life... none of that. They are doing it right. They make huge profits, it is 100% legal and it is done in a very, very smart way. And you know what is the side benefit to their rampant, disgusting capitalism? People are employed. Huge donations can be made. Quality of life improves. Wow. Think about that.

 

Of course the patent and copyright systems are constructs... legal constructs. Property rights are still rights and a society that widely recognizes property rights seems to be a rare and diminishing thing. Rights are inherent, which means they cannot be given or taken from you. A legal system helps to enforce the rights you already have. In that way, the individual is as powerful as the biggest companies on Earth.


Edited by SpamSandwich - 7/21/12 at 7:32am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #147 of 271
Too much chaff on this thread to read through, but if you looked at things like FAT from MS, I would have to agree with Google's argument. It is truly a de-facto standard, and more importantly it is necessary for interoperability (due partly to MS's monopoly abuses in the past).

Multi-touch is not a de-facto standard. It might be something bordering on a law of nature, where the flicking motion to scroll should not be allowed, but pinch to zoom is much less so. (Can an ape figure it out within a minute?)

Patent reform is needed, but time limits are a more important first step in software.
post #148 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Properly issued patents can not be 'to' generic nor should they exist without a working implementation. Read up on the patent process. A patent must already be unique and novel and the best implementation must be presented to the patent office. If something slips through, it can be thrown out in court.

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.

J.
post #149 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Too much chaff on this thread to read through, but if you looked at things like FAT from MS, I would have to agree with Google's argument. It is truly a de-facto standard, and more importantly it is necessary for interoperability (due partly to MS's monopoly abuses in the past).
Multi-touch is not a de-facto standard. It might be something bordering on a law of nature, where the flicking motion to scroll should not be allowed, but pinch to zoom is much less so. (Can an ape figure it out within a minute?)
Patent reform is needed, but time limits are a more important first step in software.

 

Standards are created when businesses volunteer to set those standards. Google intends to force Apple to relinquish their property. That is wrong on every level.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #150 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


C'mon. You can do better. What about all those graphical buttons and icons iOS displays? Weren't those shamelessly 'ripped off' from Xerox PARC 30 years ago? OMG what about copy and paste? Android had it first (cuz we ignore Windows Mobile had it firster). Or let's post more picturez and say Apple ripped off the grid of icons from Palm (because Newton was never a phone). If we can show that Apples phone isn't made from 100% original in-house ideas, maybe we can trick the stupider forum readers into thinking that it's a valid argument against Apple's patent rights.

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?  

 

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.

post #151 of 271

I believe Google is saying, in a roundabout way, that the patent system is terribly broken, and is stifling innovation.

 

For the people saying Google should get out of the business, keep dreaming.  If it wasn't for Android, iOS6 wouldn't have new maps, notifications, NFC, larger screen, and a bunch of other things innovated on Android.  Competition is good, and since Android is the #1 smartphone platform, Apple clearly has some competing to do.

 

Advantage: Consumer.

post #152 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post


Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.

 

How do you know Apple doesn't have a working implementation? A working implementation doesn't mean the patent has to be used in a commercial product people can buy. It can be used on a prototype in the lab that isn't ready to be released, yet has still been defined enough to warrant a patent.

post #153 of 271

I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.

Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues

Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.

 

Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.

 

It won't happen.

post #154 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Standards are created when businesses volunteer to set those standards. Google intends to force Apple to relinquish their property. That is wrong on every level.

 

Bingo. Companies have to make a decision to offer their patents. When they do they lose some rights but gain other advantages. Once they make the decision they can't go back.

 

What Google is proposing is that if you have a patent on something it should only be moderately successful. If it becomes wildly successful, then you lose your rights and others are allowed to use it.

 

So from now on, patent holders need to tone down their ideas. Good ideas are acceptable, great ideas aren't.

post #155 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Huitson View Post

I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.

Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues

Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.

 

Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.

 

It won't happen.

 

Imagine no new medicines because companies will no longer spend billions on R&D if they won't be able to protect their IP or get back the money they invest.

 

Yeah, you've got a great idea there. /S

post #156 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

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.
J.

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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix View Post

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


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.
"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 #157 of 271
Seems like google is all but acknowledging infringement. They are now trying have their use of the infringed IP declared standards.

"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 #158 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

If Apple had tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock that's what Googke would want to use.

 

But before Google gets around to copying it, wouldn't Apple fans have already hailed "tap, shake, rattle or roll to unlock" as the best, easiest, and most innovative way to unlock a phone?

post #159 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Seems like google is all but acknowledging infringement. They are now trying have their use of the infringed IP declared standards.

Obviously.

Just like the Google Books fiasco. They got caught with their massive intellectual property theft, so they asked Congress to write a law making it OK.
"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 #160 of 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Jragosta has an exemplary posting history here and your reply to him is rather harsh.

 

How was the response any different from Apple fans saying to people who criticize Apple "If you don't like it, don't buy it", "Nobody forced you to buy it", etc?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential