or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple opts out of latest patent acquisition fund from Intellectual Ventures
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple opts out of latest patent acquisition fund from Intellectual Ventures

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Prominent patent buyer Intellectual Ventures won't be able to count Apple among the participants in its latest IP purchase, as the iPhone maker has apparently opted out of its latest investment.

Supreme Court


Apple and Intel both declined to participate in the latest patent buy from Intellectual Ventures, though Microsoft and Sony are a part of the purchase, according to Reuters. One expert referred to the lack of participation from Apple and Intel as a "dramatic departure."

Apple's opt-out comes at a time when intellectual property investments are under major scrutiny. While so-called "patent trolls" target major corporations like Apple with lawsuits in an effort to profit, the smartphone industry is also filled with IP lawsuits, most prominently an ongoing worldwide battle between Samsung and Apple.

Previously, Apple and Intel joined Microsoft and Sony in buying IP through Intellectual Ventures. Those investments ensured low-cost licenses of protected patents, and also netted the companies a portion of royalties collected.

In February, Apple was joined by Google in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make changes that would curb patent abuse and allow stiffer penalties for "trolls" who bring frivolous lawsuits that can prove quite costly in the courtroom. They, along with Intel, Yahoo, Cisco and Facebook, asked the court to make it easier for companies to defend themselves against patent claims, which are frequently brought by companies that produce no products and simply profit from royalties and legal action.

Patents


In addition, earlier this month Apple joined a number of major U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, IBM, Ford and Pfizer, to form a lobbying group that opposes proposed changes to the American patent system. The "Partnership for American Innovation" has expressed concern that some proposed legislation in Congress intended to fight "trolls" could also hurt major, more legitimate corporations.

Last August it was revealed that those "trolls," or non-practicing intellectual property owning entities, had hit Apple with 171 lawsuits in the last five years. That made Apple handily the most-targeted corporation, easily beating the 137 lawsuits seen by No. 2 Hewlett Packard, and 133 complaints against third-place Samsung.

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook spoke with members of the U.S. Senate about patent issues during a testimony last May. But the CEO spoke of his own interest in strengthening companies' abilities to protect their own intellectual property, rather than warding off lawsuits from non-practicing entities.
post #2 of 49
Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application and any chance of it getting granted. And what's more, if you apply and follow all the rules correctly your granted patent has a limited life. Perhaps 20 years for hardware and 10 years for software.

Something along the lines of this would stop patent trolls in their tracks, would help stop powerful companies using patents as a weapon, and I think this would also help to make clear patent law, even to the layperson.
Edited by Ireland - 4/11/14 at 5:59am
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #3 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application and any chance of it getting granted. And what's more, if you apply and follow all the rules correctly your granted patent has a limited life. Perhaps 20 years for hardware and 10 years for software.

Something along the lines of this would stop patent trolls in their tracks, would help stop powerful companies using patents as a weapon, and I think this would also help to make clear patent law, even to the layperson.

I agree. Use it or lose it within 5 years or so after patent is granted. As long as you make a product using the patent, it won't expire.
post #4 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application

I think that's generally the law in Australia, but don't know if it's enforced. IIRC if a patented invention isn't produced by the applicant within 3 years then others may use it.

EDIT: Here's a citation that explains how Australia views it.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/27-compulsory-licensing/compulsory-licensing
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application and any chance of it getting granted. And what's more, if you apply and follow all the rules correctly your granted patent has a limited life. Perhaps 20 years for hardware and 10 years for software.

Something along the lines of this would stop patent trolls in their tracks, would help stop powerful companies using patents as a weapon, and I think this would also help to make clear patent law, even to the layperson.

Also, adding "on a computer", "on the internet" or "on a mobile device" to the end of an existing concept does not make it a new idea worthy of a patent.

post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I agree. Use it or lose it within 5 years or so after patent is granted. As long as you make a product using the patent, it won't expire.

Regrettably for small inventors and business owners that brief timeline would not only be disadvantageous, it would crush the idea of them participating entirely in the market of creating and utilizing intellectual property for their benefit. The timeline should remain the same. What I don't agree with is the Disney-spearheaded changes that led to the unreasonable extension of copyrights.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 49
Yesterday and today on different threads I mentioned that I think the days of active patent filing and most importantly protection are numbered, and not seen as being worth the trouble to defend even if you're 100% correct. The Apple vs. Samsung case(es) have led to this.

The fallout and so called fact discovery process leading to internal operations being laid open for the public to peruse and tear apart at will; the brand taking a major hit due to so very many people not understanding the process nor the patents; even more people that should have the sense to understand why there are patents in the first place and refuse to support them for whatever reason... leads me to believe that even Apple is throwing up it's hands and asking "why should we ever go through with this again"? What did it gain in the end and what was it's ROI, other than to satisfy an egocentric geniuses desire for revenge? Was this really "good for Apple"?

I supported SJ and Apple in just about everything they have ever done, even when they (to me) were obvious mistakes afterwards. I think we're all expected to learn from our mistakes or times when things didn't go as planned. This is one of those times to reassess, and try not to repeat the past, regardless of right and wrong.

It's a free-for-all out there and the courts and Wall Street are justifying theft. Hunker down, make the best products money can buy, and continue to stay focused on improving them and innovating/creating new ones. This is a fight (patents) that is rigged and can't be won... so don't play it.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #8 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Either build and use or build and sell publicly what you have said patent application for within a designated period of time (perhaps 3-5 years) or you lose the rights to the application and any chance of it getting granted. And what's more, if you apply and follow all the rules correctly your granted patent has a limited life. Perhaps 20 years for hardware and 10 years for software.

Something along the lines of this would stop patent trolls in their tracks, would help stop powerful companies using patents as a weapon, and I think this would also help to make clear patent law, even to the layperson.

Are you aware that one of the patents in the Apple v. Samsung trial is almost 20 yrs old?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I agree. Use it or lose it within 5 years or so after patent is granted. As long as you make a product using the patent, it won't expire.

The technology to use a patent isn't always there, or if it is then it's very expensive.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Yesterday and today on different threads I mentioned that I think the days of active patent filing and most importantly protection are numbered, and not seen as being worth the trouble to defend even if you're 100% correct. The Apple vs. Samsung case(es) have led to this.

The fallout and so called fact discovery process leading to internal operations being laid open for the public to peruse and tear apart at will; the brand taking a major hit due to so very many people not understanding the process nor the patents; even more people that should have the sense to understand why there are patents in the first place and refuse to support them for whatever reason... leads me to believe that even Apple is throwing up it's hands and asking "why should we ever go through with this again"? What did it gain in the end and what was it's ROI, other than to satisfy an egocentric geniuses desire for revenge? Was this really "good for Apple"?

I supported SJ and Apple in just about everything they have ever done, even when they (to me) were obvious mistakes afterwards. I think we're all expected to learn from our mistakes or times when things didn't go as planned. This is one of those times to reassess, and try not to repeat the past, regardless of right and wrong.

It's a free-for-all out there and the courts and Wall Street are justifying theft. Hunker down, make the best products money can buy, and continue to stay focused on improving them and innovating/creating new ones. This is a fight (patents) that is rigged and can't be won... so don't play it.

 

This only applies to software patents, which are somewhat of an anomaly anyway in patent law, and for that reason I don't think it would be a big loss if they were abolished altogether. The fundamentals of computer science as we know today were all developed before software patents started becoming popular. You don't have to look over your shoulder every time you sort a list using quicksort, for example. You don't have to pay Donald Knuth royalties to use TeX. Software is mostly about making iterative improvements to existing ideas, and this step-by-step evolution is what software patents hinder in practice. 

 

I haven't seen people crying about the patent system in other fields. It's mostly just software.

post #11 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I agree. Use it or lose it within 5 years or so after patent is granted. As long as you make a product using the patent, it won't expire.

The problem there is under that rule, Google and Samsung would be free to copy Apple's data detectors as Apple let that lay dormant for a long time.

post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

The problem there is under that rule, Google and Samsung would be free to copy Apple's data detectors as Apple let that lay dormant for a long time.

Why should that be an issue? If you look at the reason the US found a reference to patents to be valuable enough to be included in the Constitution it wasn't simply property rights. The stated purpose of US patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How does getting a software patent, not using it in a product, but trying to prevent anyone else from using it either meeting the founders rational for US patents enshrined in the Constitution?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why should that be an issue? If you look at the purpose of patents it wasn't to prevent the advancement of technology. The Constitutionally stated purpose of US patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How does getting a software patent, not using it in a product, but trying to prevent anyone else from using it either meeting the stated purpose of US patent law?

Patents are property and property rights are also recognized in the Constitution. There is no requirement whatsoever that a patent must be "used."

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution
Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/11/14 at 8:27am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #14 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Patents are property and property rights are also recognized in the Constitution. There is no requirement whatsoever that a patent must be "used."

Patents are not real property and not treated as such, evidenced by separate and unrelated laws for them on US books and separate special mention in the Constitution. What do you think the founders meant by "promote the progress of science" etc. as the stated reason for US patents?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why should that be an issue? If you look at the reason the US found a reference to patents to be valuable enough to be included in the Constitution it wasn't simply property rights. The stated purpose of US patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How does getting a software patent, not using it in a product, but trying to prevent anyone else from using it either meeting the founders rational for US patents enshrined in the Constitution?

He made a valid point to counter @jungmark
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

He made a valid point to counter @jungmark

I think you meant that for @Evilution 1wink.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

The problem there is under that rule, Google and Samsung would be free to copy Apple's data detectors as Apple let that lay dormant for a long time.

True but if there was a time limit, Apple would have been using it all those years in between.
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Patents are not real property and not treated as such, evidenced by separate and unrelated laws for them on US books and separate special mention in the Constitution. What do you think the founders meant by "promote the progress of science" etc. as the stated reason for US patents?

Of course patents are property. Anything that can be considered valuable and can be kept, sold, willed, traded, donated or licensed for a remuneration is property.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Of course patents are property. Anything that can be considered valuable and can be kept, sold, willed, traded, donated or licensed for a remuneration is property.

Intellectual property as opposed to real property where your ownership of it doesn't expire after a relatively short period of time. They are not one and the same or have the same rights granted them by the Constitution.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Intellectual property as opposed to real property where your ownership of it doesn't expire after a relatively short period of time. They are not one and the same or have the same rights granted them by the Constitution.

Intellectual property is real property and there is plenty of history supporting this view. The existence of the USPTO supports this view. If something can be bought or sold, it's "real." An embodiment or implementation is "real." There is "real" work attached to intellectual property.

If you spent 5,000 hours developing a brand for a global multi-billion dollar company, is the product of that work "real"?
Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/11/14 at 8:57am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Are you aware that one of the patents in the Apple v. Samsung trial is almost 20 yrs old?

Bon voyage to it IMO then.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #22 of 49

That is a terrible idea for two reasons. First, what if you invent something and it takes more than five years to get the resources or the secondary knowledge to build or implement it? It just goes away for free? Second if the patent stays valid as long as you keep making it, you would still be paying royalties on wheels, internal combustion engines, etc. 

 

A co-worker of mine thought he hit the jackpot when he patented an idea. Against another friend's advice, he licensed the patent to a company that made items of that type. The license was exclusive and had no minimum royalty or expiration. The company sat on the patent and made a product that was similar to the patent but did not require royalty payments. In your system, the company could do this for five years and then they and other companies could make items that used the now expired patent without any payment to the inventor.

post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Intellectual property is real property
No sir it is not. Yes, you may have expended effort on it. Yes, you may be able to sell it. But your legal term of ownership is limited unlike real property, the patent has no intrinsic value unlike real property, is not taxed as real property nor treated or valued by businesses as real property. Then there's the issue of proving ownership, in general relatively easy for real property, nearly impossible for patents whose supposed ownership claims are more often than not modified or taken away altogether after the fact if questioned.

Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?

We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 10:17am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 49
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
No sir it is not.

 

Oh boy. Here we go.

post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think you meant that for @Evilution 1wink.gif

No I meant towards you. I agreed with Evilution's response to jungmark.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Are you aware that one of the patents in the Apple v. Samsung trial is almost 20 yrs old?

Some things worth having a valid patent recognized for take more than a few years to develop, iterate on, and 'get right'.  Putting a time limit on it says you dictate to innovators that anything that requires any more time than such an arbitrary limit isn't worth their investment.  As such, it would stifle innovation except the low-hanging fruit.  Just try to imagine how many things we wouldn't have if there were a 5-year limit.  Ouch.  Imagine just the Apple products we wouldn't have if you basically removed their motivation to innovate.

 

As an aside, along the same lines is the flawed idea that redistribution of wealth is a good idea and will help poor people.  Remuneration for doing or creating something of value is correct, regardless of the amount of value created.  Undermining that disincentivizes people from working to do things of value, and is an idea that represents a disconnect with reality. (What is incorrect is cronyism.)  For a treatment of this, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/23/if-you-want-human-progress-to-stop-institute-a-maximum-income/

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
 

The problem there is under that rule, Google and Samsung would be free to copy Apple's data detectors as Apple let that lay dormant for a long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


True but if there was a time limit, Apple would have been using it all those years in between.

AI recently detailed in a feature how Apple had been working on 'getting it right' more or less all along.  And how difficult it was to do so.

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

This only applies to software patents, which are somewhat of an anomaly anyway in patent law, and for that reason I don't think it would be a big loss if they were abolished altogether. The fundamentals of computer science as we know today were all developed before software patents started becoming popular. You don't have to look over your shoulder every time you sort a list using quicksort, for example. You don't have to pay Donald Knuth royalties to use TeX. Software is mostly about making iterative improvements to existing ideas, and this step-by-step evolution is what software patents hinder in practice. 

I haven't seen people crying about the patent system in other fields. It's mostly just software.

Good post. I'm starting to see that point of view as well.

I clung to the initial idea (too long) that patents... even of the software variety... could be beneficial to a little programmer or "thinker"... the "tinkerers of our times", against uncouth Big Business stealing their ideas because they were too small to do anything about it and fight.

That fantasy bubble has come crashing around my ears of late.

Do you suggest simple copyright protections for software and/or implementations of coded ideas?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why should that be an issue? If you look at the reason the US found a reference to patents to be valuable enough to be included in the Constitution it wasn't simply property rights. The stated purpose of US patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How does getting a software patent, not using it in a product, but trying to prevent anyone else from using it either meeting the founders rational for US patents enshrined in the Constitution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Patents are not real property and not treated as such, evidenced by separate and unrelated laws for them on US books and separate special mention in the Constitution. What do you think the founders meant by "promote the progress of science" etc. as the stated reason for US patents?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Intellectual property as opposed to real property where your ownership of it doesn't expire after a relatively short period of time. They are not one and the same or have the same rights granted them by the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No sir it is not. Yes, you may have expended effort on it. Yes, you may be able to sell it. But your legal term of ownership is limited unlike real property, the patent has no intrinsic value unlike real property, is not taxed as real property nor treated or valued by businesses as real property. Then there's the issue of proving ownership, in general relatively easy for real property, nearly impossible for patents whose supposed ownership claims are more often than not modified or taken away altogether after the fact if questioned.

Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?

We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.

While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.

Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

Some things worth having a valid patent recognized for take more than a few years to develop, iterate on, and 'get right'.  Putting a time limit on it says you dictate to innovators that anything that requires any more time than such an arbitrary limit isn't worth their investment.  As such, it would stifle innovation except the low-hanging fruit.  Just try to imagine how many things we wouldn't have if there were a 5-year limit.  Ouch.  Imagine just the Apple products we wouldn't have if you basically removed their motivation to innovate.

As an aside, along the same lines is the flawed idea that redistribution of wealth is a good idea and will help poor people.  Remuneration for doing or creating something of value is correct, regardless of the amount of value created.  Undermining that disincentivizes people from working to do things of value, and is an idea that represents a disconnect with reality. (What is incorrect is cronyism.)  For a treatment of this, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/23/if-you-want-human-progress-to-stop-institute-a-maximum-income/

AI recently detailed in a feature how Apple had been working on 'getting it right' more or less all along.  And how difficult it was to do so.

5 yrs may be too short but there should be a limit. You shouldn't be able to patent things if you can't eventually use it. While future companies shouldn't be able to patent it either, you shouldn't be allowed to sit on it until someone violates it.

I did read the ADD article. Apple did use it until Jobs came back.
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

5 yrs may be too short but there should be a limit. You shouldn't be able to patent things if you can't eventually use it. While future companies shouldn't be able to patent it either, you shouldn't be allowed to sit on it until someone violates it.

I did read the ADD article. Apple did use it until Jobs came back.

Sometimes the inventor can't use his own indentation, and needs a company to either purchase it or license it. The best example being Robert Kearns who invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism. The Big Three rejected his proposal in 1964 yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969. There was absolutely no way for him to implement it on his own.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Sometimes the inventor can't use his own indentation, and needs a company to either purchase it or license it. The best example being Robert Kearns who invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism. The Big Three rejected his proposal in 1964 yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969. There was absolutely no way for him to implement it on his own.

He didn't want to license or sell his patent. His dream was to build the units himself in his own factory and sell a finished product to the auto manufacturers.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post




While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.

Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.

Right you are sir.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post




While the document you point to was a very important part of what helped make America into what it is today, I doubt very (very!) much that even the collective genius that wrote it some 220+ years ago could envision what the country they fought for has become.

Maybe that document is due for some small alterations... not only for patent reform. Just sayin'.

Oh, definitely not. I guarantee this already ignored and abused document would be gutted wholesale if left to the politicians. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee the protection of individual rights and to restrain out of control federal power. On both counts there have been massive frontal assaults by Washington and I'm not convinced it will survive the next several presidential elections.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No sir it is not. Yes, you may have expended effort on it. Yes, you may be able to sell it. But your legal term of ownership is limited unlike real property, the patent has no intrinsic value unlike real property, is not taxed as real property nor treated or valued by businesses as real property. Then there's the issue of proving ownership, in general relatively easy for real property, nearly impossible for patents whose supposed ownership claims are more often than not modified or taken away altogether after the fact if questioned.

Related to that can you imagine the economic disruptions if patents were treated as real property? You want to borrow money to buy some real property and open a factory to produce a suddenly popular type of widget for which you believe you have secured intellectual property rights. Before you close on the real property a title search is done to make sure there are no other claims on the land. Should there be a search for other potential intellectual property claims before the real property purchase can be closed? How would you do an effective ownership search since it seems to be something beyond the reach of even large companies like Apple, Google or ATT? Is the business opportunity lost by the time a thorough search for potential intellectual property challenges is completed?

We're not even getting into the patent-ability of computer-aided software which has only been legally possible since the 80's, and now being reined back in by the courts that made it possible in the first place.

The value of something is determined between at least two parties, so it is up to the patent holder to exploit their property. In some cases, a patent may be more valuable if it is NOT implemented. That's a determination left to the property holder to decide.

http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/opa/museum.jsp

"What is Intellectual Property?

It is imagination made real. It is the ownership of dream, an idea, an improvement, an emotion that we can touch, see, hear, and feel. It is an asset just like your home, your car, or your bank account.
Just like other kinds of property, intellectual property needs to be protected from unauthorized use. There are four ways to protect different types of intellectual property:

PATENTS provide rights for up to 20 years for inventions in three broad categories:

Utility patents protect useful processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter. Some examples: fiber optics, computer hardware, medications.
Design patents guard the unauthorized use of new, original, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The look of an athletic shoe, a bicycle helmet, the Star Wars characters are all protected by design patents.
Plant patents are the way we protect invented or discovered, asexually reproduced plant varieties. Hybrid tea roses, Silver Queen corn, Better Boy tomatoes are all types of plant patents.
TRADEMARKS protect words, names, symbols, sounds, or colors that distinguish goods and services. Trademarks, unlike patents, can be renewed forever as long as they are being used in business. The roar of the MGM lion, the pink of the Owens-Corning insulation, and the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle are familiar trademarks.

COPYRIGHTS protect works of authorship, such as writings, music, and works of art that have been tangibly expressed. The Library of Congress registers copyrights which last the life of the author plus 50 years. Gone With The Wind (the book and the film), Beatles recordings, and video games are all works that are copyrighted.

TRADE SECRETS are information that companies keep secret to give them an advantage over their competitors. The formula for Coca-Cola is one of the most famous trade secrets.

If you are an intellectual property owner, you should protect your rights. If you are a user, you should respect them. It is just as wrong to steal intellectual property as it is to break into a home, steal a car, or rob a bank."

Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/11/14 at 5:09pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The value of something is determined between at least two parties, so it is up to the patent holder to exploit their property. In some cases, a patent may be more valuable if it is NOT implemented. That's a determination left to the property holder to decide.

I'd still like your opinion on what you believe the founders meant by "promote the progress of science"? The other questions I put to you probably aren't as important.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'd still like your opinion on what you believe the founders meant by "promote the progress of science"? The other questions I put to you probably aren't as important.

What did they mean by that? They meant the works of artists and inventors were property that belonged to THEM, not to a king or government.

Read this: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_319.htm
Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/11/14 at 12:23pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Oh, definitely not. I guarantee this already ignored and abused document would be gutted wholesale if left to the politicians. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee the protection of individual rights and to restrain out of control federal power. On both counts there have been massive frontal assaults by Washington and I'm not convinced it will survive the next several presidential elections.

Ya... you're probably right there. Better to just leave it alone.

However some things seem to go too far, causing unforeseen future complications that I seriously doubt the framers could have remotely considered... again... no matter how intelligent and visionary they were. It's so close to perfection, that you truly have to be in awe of the accomplishment for it's time.

To be honest... I also hate the way it has been bent and twisted by politicians and the justices that they've nominated since. Also the way GatorBoy was repeatedly pointing to it as a defining reason to his argument. There surely must be a better way to buttress an argument than to pointing to the US Constitution, which there happens to be only one of, for one country.

In this day and age of globalism, it doesn't necessarily garner the respect it should demand, but it's also not so inclusive of the world community sensabilities either. For assorted good and bad reasons that are not appropriate on this board to get into.... I'll leave it at that.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Ya... you're probably right there. Better to just leave it alone.

However some things seem to go too far, causing unforeseen future complications that I seriously doubt the framers could have remotely considered... again... no matter how intelligent and visionary they were. It's so close to perfection, that you truly have to be in awe of the accomplishment for it's time.

To be honest... I also hate the way it has been bent and twisted by politicians and the justices that they've nominated since. Also the way GatorBoy was repeatedly pointing to it as a defining reason to his argument. There surely must be a better way to buttress an argument than to pointing to the US Constitution, which there happens to be only one of, for one country.

In this day and age of globalism, it doesn't necessarily garner the respect it should demand, but it's also not so inclusive of the world community sensabilities either. For assorted good and bad reasons that are not appropriate on this board to get into.... I'll leave it at that.

The Constitution of the US does not extend to the rest of the world. There is no global government and I am not convinced there is a need for any such body.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What did they mean by that? They meant the works of artists and inventors were property that belonged to THEM, not to a king or government.

Read this: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_319.htm

So you just ignore the words "promoting progress"?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you just ignore the words "promoting progress"?

I wonder if your definition of "progress" meshes with the Constitutional one? Have you bothered to read the link? I don't believe you have, because the actual quote is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Lifting words (not even an accurate quote, by the way) out of context is dishonest and completely undermines what you seem to be arguing.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/11/14 at 1:47pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple opts out of latest patent acquisition fund from Intellectual Ventures