We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.
In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.
What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.
Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
b) is false. Patent is not like copyright. You can infringe without ever knowing of the original patent.
The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.
There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.
I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another.
I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.
Well it's obvious that with 47 patent infringements that Apple has been using others patents without permission or compensation. I went ahead and explained my reasoning why I thought that is.
No need to go all fanboy rabid on me.
You didn't read the article just admit it. You are also acting like a child with your fanboy comment. Grow up.
Quote:
Since they are co-defendants and Microsoft has deeper pockets, yes it makes perfect sense for Apple to coordinate a defense against this suit, and it was only a suggestion if you re-read the post again. Notice the word "if" like "if Apple could combine this suit with Microsoft..."
I don't think who have deeper pocket will matter here. In fact, MS is in more trouble since they sell more OS then Apple.
Quote:
Uh, the last two years is not reflective of Microsoft's entire lawsuit history and Apple has settled a lot more before trial than Microsoft ever has.
As for research, you have to do that yourself. Enjoy.
I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another.
I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.
Why shouldn't the patent holder set the price? Don't you believe in the market. Instead you want an idepeneent third party. You mean something like executive compensation boards where they are all friends and reward eachother for nohing. Such a system would be stacked against the little guy.
Why is software any different? Don't you think pirated software is bad? Without protection such activity would be legal
Why shouldn't the patent holder set the price? Don't you believe in the market. Instead you want an idepeneent third party. You mean something like executive compensation boards where they are all friends and reward eachother for nohing. Such a system would be stacked against the little guy.
Why is software any different? Don't you think pirated software is bad? Without protection such activity would be legal
No, I don't believe in the market. The idea of the free market has failed spectacularly on several occasions.
Again, no, I mean something like an adjunct to the patent office.
Software is different because it is very akin to trying to patent a thought process, logical thought or language. Why not grant an author a patent on the use of a detective with ideosyncratic behaviours?
Software has always had the protection of Copyright to protect it from piracy
No, I don't believe in the market. The idea of the free market has failed spectacularly on several occasions.
Again, no, I mean something like an adjunct to the patent office.
Software is different because it is very akin to trying to patent a thought process, logical thought or language. Why not grant an author a patent on the use of a detective with ideosyncratic behaviours?
Software has always had the protection of Copyright to protect it from piracy
Just to play the devils advocate, while I agree that unfettered capatilism is not good for socities, centralized governmental controls do not work either as in the case of Russia or Jimmy carter's price contols of the 70's.
Also with the government setting prices can you imagine the lobbiests who would get involved. The little guy would surly get shafted.
That's what I was trying to explain, that Apple may have no other choice but to infringe on 47 patents and deal with the consequences later.
It all comes down to who has the money, time and effort to enforce their patents because the government(s) are certainly not enforcing anything for free, just acting like a paid referee.
Say if Apple comes up with a new device, does some patent research and finds it infringes on Microsoft's, Adobe's and some poor tiny company in Satoma respective patents.
I suspect how Apple handles each infringement depends upon how much it's going to cost, who is it going to benefit or risk Apple later on with.
1: For Microsoft, Apple might find a work around to the infringement as not to tell Microsoft of the new product or have to pay them money. If Apple infringes, Microsoft will be a hard fight in court as they have deep pockets and lots of experience.
2: For Adobe, Apple may approach them and work out a deal, as they work together (usually)
3: For the poor tiny company in Satoma: If Apple goes to them to make a license deal, they will want money, which would only make them more powerful and want to sue later when they renegotiate the terms of the license for even more money. So the best bet is to give them no money, no money means no fight later for more money.
Some companies like Nokia, who's technology is unavoidable, simply want too much and use patent trading to destroy the competition, much like Microsoft nearly copies everything Apple does.
It's corporate warfare, plain and simple. Companies and people with the biggest and deepest pockets usually win, even if they are wrong. Because courts, lawyers, researchers, investigators, mindfsck experts etc. cost plenty of money. If one side can't afford the best, they are beaten before they even start.
So Apple might have no choice but to take the risk and infringe, suffer the courts and the suits but come out making a profit anyway, perhaps being able to change things for the better in the meanwhile.
Warfare indeed. It is a shame the US Tax payer couldn't help defend US companies against this foreign law suit by withholding some of the money we send that particular country every year out of our hard earned taxes!
The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.
There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.
Except the Patent Office has granted patents that were later to found to be not new, were a duplicate, or infringed on somebody else and that is what is mammothly broken in the US patent system.
It takes money to prove that the patent that the braindead Patent Office was not valid in the first place. The wikipedia article on perpetual motions machine lists no less than five patents issues in direct violation of the no perpetual machine rule put for in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001 with the last listed granted May 27, 2008.
When the Patent Office can't follow its own rules then the system is broken.
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.
In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.
What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
Racist crap has no place here.
What Mossad did 40 years ago has no nexus with the current lawsuit, except for your imagined scenario that the Jews are (again!) perpetrating some sort of evil.
b) is false. Patent is not like copyright. You can infringe without ever knowing of the original patent.
You can also infringe a copyright without doing so knowingly, as George Harrison found out WRT "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on "She's So Fine".
He didn't realize that he copied the melody, but was found guilty anyways.
Except the Patent Office has granted patents that were later to found to be not new, were a duplicate, or infringed on somebody else and that is what is mammothly broken in the US patent system.
It takes money to prove that the patent that the braindead Patent Office was not valid in the first place. The wikipedia article on perpetual motions machine lists no less than five patents issues in direct violation of the no perpetual machine rule put for in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001 with the last listed granted May 27, 2008.
When the Patent Office can't follow its own rules then the system is broken.
The fact that an organization makes some mistakes does not indicate that the system is broken. Given the HUGE volume of applications that are submitted mistakes are bound to happen.
Based on your argument, every aspect of American life is broken because nothing is mistake free.
You can also infringe a copyright without doing so knowingly, as George Harrison found out WRT "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on "She's So Fine".
He didn't realize that he copied the melody, but was found guilty anyways.
Not strictly correct. If you truly come up with something independently, then you cannot infringe copyright. I think you'll find in the case above (without having looked it up) that he subconsciously copied the work. Particularly in the cases like you mention the ability for the mind to retain memories unconsciously is given some weight in whether a copy was made. As you correctly suggest, he didn't realise he'd copied the melody.
Not strictly correct. If you truly come up with something independently, then you cannot infringe copyright. I think you'll find in the case above (without having looked it up) that he subconsciously copied the work. Particularly in the cases like you mention the ability for the mind to retain memories unconsciously is given some weight in whether a copy was made. As you correctly suggest, he didn't realise he'd copied the melody.
Yes. Access to the underlying work is something that the prosecution needs to prove in some copyright cases. I didn't mention that caveat.
Patent is different, in that the work must be publicly disclosed in the filing, leading to the legal fiction that everybody has had "constructive access" to the protected work.
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.
In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.
What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
That's great! I love the hypocrisy.
I love more is the fear everyone has of Apple. Finally a small company, almost dead on its feet, and rescued from the ashes like a phoenix, is make some bank with its excellent products and what do we hear? The fear of those Microsoft Cronies scared shitless. Down with Microsoft and and Adobe for that matter.
Comments
There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.
We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.
In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.
What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.
Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
b) is false. Patent is not like copyright. You can infringe without ever knowing of the original patent.
The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.
There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.
I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another.
I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.
Well it's obvious that with 47 patent infringements that Apple has been using others patents without permission or compensation. I went ahead and explained my reasoning why I thought that is.
No need to go all fanboy rabid on me.
You didn't read the article just admit it. You are also acting like a child with your fanboy comment. Grow up.
Since they are co-defendants and Microsoft has deeper pockets, yes it makes perfect sense for Apple to coordinate a defense against this suit, and it was only a suggestion if you re-read the post again. Notice the word "if" like "if Apple could combine this suit with Microsoft..."
I don't think who have deeper pocket will matter here. In fact, MS is in more trouble since they sell more OS then Apple.
Uh, the last two years is not reflective of Microsoft's entire lawsuit history and Apple has settled a lot more before trial than Microsoft ever has.
As for research, you have to do that yourself. Enjoy.
Can you prove that?
I beg to differ. The idea of patenting things which appear in nature, the existence of which did not come about through any intellectual endeavour of man is one; and the patenting of software is another.
I would add to that allowing a patent holder to set the price for use of an idea, rather than having the fee determined and set by a third party is another flaw.
Why shouldn't the patent holder set the price? Don't you believe in the market. Instead you want an idepeneent third party. You mean something like executive compensation boards where they are all friends and reward eachother for nohing. Such a system would be stacked against the little guy.
Why is software any different? Don't you think pirated software is bad? Without protection such activity would be legal
Why shouldn't the patent holder set the price? Don't you believe in the market. Instead you want an idepeneent third party. You mean something like executive compensation boards where they are all friends and reward eachother for nohing. Such a system would be stacked against the little guy.
Why is software any different? Don't you think pirated software is bad? Without protection such activity would be legal
No, I don't believe in the market. The idea of the free market has failed spectacularly on several occasions.
Again, no, I mean something like an adjunct to the patent office.
Software is different because it is very akin to trying to patent a thought process, logical thought or language. Why not grant an author a patent on the use of a detective with ideosyncratic behaviours?
Software has always had the protection of Copyright to protect it from piracy
No, I don't believe in the market. The idea of the free market has failed spectacularly on several occasions.
Again, no, I mean something like an adjunct to the patent office.
Software is different because it is very akin to trying to patent a thought process, logical thought or language. Why not grant an author a patent on the use of a detective with ideosyncratic behaviours?
Software has always had the protection of Copyright to protect it from piracy
Just to play the devils advocate, while I agree that unfettered capatilism is not good for socities, centralized governmental controls do not work either as in the case of Russia or Jimmy carter's price contols of the 70's.
Also with the government setting prices can you imagine the lobbiests who would get involved. The little guy would surly get shafted.
That's what I was trying to explain, that Apple may have no other choice but to infringe on 47 patents and deal with the consequences later.
It all comes down to who has the money, time and effort to enforce their patents because the government(s) are certainly not enforcing anything for free, just acting like a paid referee.
Say if Apple comes up with a new device, does some patent research and finds it infringes on Microsoft's, Adobe's and some poor tiny company in Satoma respective patents.
I suspect how Apple handles each infringement depends upon how much it's going to cost, who is it going to benefit or risk Apple later on with.
1: For Microsoft, Apple might find a work around to the infringement as not to tell Microsoft of the new product or have to pay them money. If Apple infringes, Microsoft will be a hard fight in court as they have deep pockets and lots of experience.
2: For Adobe, Apple may approach them and work out a deal, as they work together (usually)
3: For the poor tiny company in Satoma: If Apple goes to them to make a license deal, they will want money, which would only make them more powerful and want to sue later when they renegotiate the terms of the license for even more money. So the best bet is to give them no money, no money means no fight later for more money.
Some companies like Nokia, who's technology is unavoidable, simply want too much and use patent trading to destroy the competition, much like Microsoft nearly copies everything Apple does.
It's corporate warfare, plain and simple. Companies and people with the biggest and deepest pockets usually win, even if they are wrong. Because courts, lawyers, researchers, investigators, mindfsck experts etc. cost plenty of money. If one side can't afford the best, they are beaten before they even start.
So Apple might have no choice but to take the risk and infringe, suffer the courts and the suits but come out making a profit anyway, perhaps being able to change things for the better in the meanwhile.
Warfare indeed. It is a shame the US Tax payer couldn't help defend US companies against this foreign law suit by withholding some of the money we send that particular country every year out of our hard earned taxes!
The patent system works on the premise that the first to submit a new, non-duplicate, non-infringing work gets the patent for X amount of time.
There is nothing broken needing to be fixed far as I can tell.
Except the Patent Office has granted patents that were later to found to be not new, were a duplicate, or infringed on somebody else and that is what is mammothly broken in the US patent system.
It takes money to prove that the patent that the braindead Patent Office was not valid in the first place. The wikipedia article on perpetual motions machine lists no less than five patents issues in direct violation of the no perpetual machine rule put for in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001 with the last listed granted May 27, 2008.
When the Patent Office can't follow its own rules then the system is broken.
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.
In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.
What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
Racist crap has no place here.
What Mossad did 40 years ago has no nexus with the current lawsuit, except for your imagined scenario that the Jews are (again!) perpetrating some sort of evil.
Go away or shut up with your racist crap.
b) is false. Patent is not like copyright. You can infringe without ever knowing of the original patent.
You can also infringe a copyright without doing so knowingly, as George Harrison found out WRT "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on "She's So Fine".
He didn't realize that he copied the melody, but was found guilty anyways.
Except the Patent Office has granted patents that were later to found to be not new, were a duplicate, or infringed on somebody else and that is what is mammothly broken in the US patent system.
It takes money to prove that the patent that the braindead Patent Office was not valid in the first place. The wikipedia article on perpetual motions machine lists no less than five patents issues in direct violation of the no perpetual machine rule put for in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001 with the last listed granted May 27, 2008.
When the Patent Office can't follow its own rules then the system is broken.
The fact that an organization makes some mistakes does not indicate that the system is broken. Given the HUGE volume of applications that are submitted mistakes are bound to happen.
Based on your argument, every aspect of American life is broken because nothing is mistake free.
You can also infringe a copyright without doing so knowingly, as George Harrison found out WRT "My Sweet Lord", which was found to infringe on "She's So Fine".
He didn't realize that he copied the melody, but was found guilty anyways.
Not strictly correct. If you truly come up with something independently, then you cannot infringe copyright. I think you'll find in the case above (without having looked it up) that he subconsciously copied the work. Particularly in the cases like you mention the ability for the mind to retain memories unconsciously is given some weight in whether a copy was made. As you correctly suggest, he didn't realise he'd copied the melody.
Not strictly correct. If you truly come up with something independently, then you cannot infringe copyright. I think you'll find in the case above (without having looked it up) that he subconsciously copied the work. Particularly in the cases like you mention the ability for the mind to retain memories unconsciously is given some weight in whether a copy was made. As you correctly suggest, he didn't realise he'd copied the melody.
Yes. Access to the underlying work is something that the prosecution needs to prove in some copyright cases. I didn't mention that caveat.
Patent is different, in that the work must be publicly disclosed in the filing, leading to the legal fiction that everybody has had "constructive access" to the protected work.
An Israeli company claiming someone else is using their IP without paying for it is actually almost funny.
In 1968, Mossad stole 250,000 blueprints for the Mirage III jet fighter from French company Dassault and then put them into production.
What's hebrew for hypocrisy? Is it anything similar to chutzpah
That's great! I love the hypocrisy.
I love more is the fear everyone has of Apple. Finally a small company, almost dead on its feet, and rescued from the ashes like a phoenix, is make some bank with its excellent products and what do we hear? The fear of those Microsoft Cronies scared shitless. Down with Microsoft and and Adobe for that matter.