not sure if this applies here - but seems like this and many are cases where an idea should not be patented but the implementation of that idea.
it is one thing if Apple came knocking and said may we use your code please and the patent holder said sure here ya go - that'll be $x per shipping unit (or whatever) and Apple said thanks for the tech but we are not paying - and something else entirely if Apple developed independently code that happened to perform a very similar without any knowledge of the other company's work or patent.
The way it works is that if you develop work that infringes, it infringes. That's all that matters. That's the point to patents. Knowledge of a patent doesn't matter. It's considered to be up to the person or company working on new products to do a patent search. It's then up to the patent holder to check out whatever seems to be infringing, and inform them.
no, you can't patent ideas, but if your product is close enough, then it infringes.
Yes, this is the spin-off group. A quick search reveals no physical home web address for the company, no actual trades or transactions in the last year, no executives listed, etc...
This is a troll company with no intent to actually produce anything for the betterment of consumers or society. Instead, it sues other companies to get pay-offs. Another word that comes to mind is leech. I hope judges start seeing companies like this for what they are and stop these frivolous lawsuits from continuing.
The news of the joint Apple Microsoft el at patent (anti-tolling) acquistion confirm that big companies with a lot at stake are taking a more pre active stance against this type of thing.
The way it works is that if you develop work that infringes, it infringes. That's all that matters. That's the point to patents. Knowledge of a patent doesn't matter. It's considered to be up to the person or company working on new products to do a patent search. It's then up to the patent holder to check out whatever seems to be infringing, and inform them.
no, you can't patent ideas, but if your product is close enough, then it infringes.
It seems logical that if you have a software patent, you should have some code that proves your invention. Sure there are various forms of filings that are integrated hardware/software/user interface in nature but video compression is pure software. I wonder if they actually have any working code or is it just some ideas.
I don't understand why Apple, and other companies don't have small teams to find these patents and buy them before these other companies do. It would be much cheaper in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
In the case of Apple their lawyers are forbidden to use Google Patent Search and the uspto site is impossible to navigate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Ok, that's funny, but it was a serious question.
It is odd...
Considering that Jack Purcher does an excellent job of discovering Apple Patents:
Jack's wife is an attorney and Jack is a techie with an unique capability to locate, read, understand and present the information found in patents -- so that mortals can understand them.
In the case of patent searches, someone like jack would need to be told what Apple is developing (at least general areas of interest). Then perform exhaustive patent searches. These can take months or years.
What might be interesting is for Apple to contract someone like Jack on a "bounty" system where his fees are based on hits for potential patent conflicts.
It seems logical that if you have a software patent, you should have some code that proves your invention. Sure there are various forms of filings that are integrated hardware/software/user interface in nature but video compression is pure software. I wonder if they actually have any working code or is it just some ideas.
Of course, the code is the product. If they have no code, then they have no product.
I assume they have the code, or they wouldn't be suing. Whether that code is relevant is something else. The problem is that all of these big companies have worked on products like this, and so they all have some product that uses their own code, which may be patented.
While I feel that it is important to allow software patents, after all, a product is a product, the time is too long. The software industry moves too quickly for 20 year patents. I've felt that it should be between 7 and 10 years. This would fix many of the problems we have with software patents.
In addition, it should also be that the time the lawsuit is filed is the time the recovery period should be started from, if the suite is won. I think it's a bad idea to allow suites just before a patent expires to recover income from the very beginning. In the beginning, most patents are worth less, as it may not look as though the product will do well. so license terms would be less. But as the product becomes more popular, if it does, then the license is renegotiated.This would also help to ensure more timely lawsuits.
One of my companies had 43 patents. We didn't license them out, as we used them for our own products. We only had one company infringe, where they settled, and discontinued their product that used it. It seems that more companies are willing to step on another's IP these days then in the past. Maybe because most products are so complex they need a dozen, or more, patented technologies to work. Sometimes they need dozens.
Patent searches are also much more difficult today, with so many technologies so complex, and yet so similar to others, that it's tough for even qualified patent attorneys, who are also experts in the various fields they work in, to understand how one patent differs from another.
I feel certain that a lot of infringement is unintentional, and when a company gets contacted by another, their response, is; "What? No way!"
The way it works is that if you develop work that infringes, it infringes. That's all that matters. That's the point to patents. Knowledge of a patent doesn't matter. It's considered to be up to the person or company working on new products to do a patent search. It's then up to the patent holder to check out whatever seems to be infringing, and inform them.
no, you can't patent ideas, but if your product is close enough, then it infringes.
I think what I am saying is more along the lines of if there are multiple ways to achieve the same effect then perhaps the overall description is too vague to be patented.
For example - Thomas Edison did not patent "the light bulb" he patented a specific design with a screw in base etc - if someone else develops "a device which shall produce a visible light emission through the application of electricity" that is entirely different in materials and construction and design etc - then it should qualify for a separate patent - and a patent troll that uses the description I just gave vs the specifics of a given product should not be allowed.
How many patents are there for Mouse Traps? Isn't that the example used of innovation? so where is the patent troll who has a patent on "a device which stops a rodent" ? or perhaps a better question what is so very different about that case and a case of software code that achieves the same result but which may do so in an entirely different way.
I think what I am saying is more along the lines of if there are multiple ways to achieve the same effect then perhaps the overall description is too vague to be patented.
For example - Thomas Edison did not patent "the light bulb" he patented a specific design with a screw in base etc - if someone else develops "a device which shall produce a visible light emission through the application of electricity" that is entirely different in materials and construction and design etc - then it should qualify for a separate patent - and a patent troll that uses the description I just gave vs the specifics of a given product should not be allowed.
How many patents are there for Mouse Traps? Isn't that the example used of innovation? so where is the patent troll who has a patent on "a device which stops a rodent" ? or perhaps a better question what is so very different about that case and a case of software code that achieves the same result but which may do so in an entirely different way.
That's why I said "if your product is close enough, then it infringes". There may be many ways to do the same thing, and possibly all are valid. Your product can't be a simple derivation of another's patented product. It must show a unique way of accomplishing the same task, or giving the same result.
But, there is something interesting in patent law that goes all the way back. This is also where a lot of these lawsuits get confused.
Company "A" has two patents, and two products use them, one in each.
Company "B" takes those two patents, and builds a product that combines them. Is this allowed? Take a quick guess without looking it up.
Patent searches are also much more difficult today, with so many technologies so complex, and yet so similar to others, that it's tough for even qualified patent attorneys, who are also experts in the various fields they work in, to understand how one patent differs from another.
I feel certain that a lot of infringement is unintentional, and when a company gets contacted by another, their response, is; "What? No way!"
I wonder if some of the infringements are intentional -- to test the validity of the patent, or as an alternative to long, drawn-out negotiations.
Pure anecdote:
I worked for IBM in the 1960s (Las Vegas, NV sub-office of Riverside, CA Branch) when Xerox dominated the copier market. IBM released a direct competitor -- high quality, lower price, larger marketing and support organization.
Xerox sued for infringement of various patents.
Because IBM was continuously involved in litigation, IBM personnel (especially those with customer contact) were routinely briefed on current suits -- what was involved, and what we could say (usually nothing) about them.
I remember the particular meeting where the Xerox litigation was discussed. Apart from being told we could not comment on the suit -- we were told that the copier had some new (IBM patented) features and was designed to break/test the validity of key Xerox patents.
The line that resonates is when the presenter said: "IBM has a lot of attorneys -- they might as well earn their salaries."
Of course, the code is the product. If they have no code, then they have no product.
I assume they have the code, or they wouldn't be suing. Whether that code is relevant is something else. The problem is that all of these big companies have worked on products like this, and so they all have some product that uses their own code, which may be patented.
The code from 1990 and 1996 cannot possibly be relevant. If they look at the source code, libraries, compilers, and functions of those days, they would have little resemblance to today's OOP programming style. Assuming that there is no borrowing of code, they would have to argue that the patent is on achieving an end goal or a general theory and method. Something as vague as:
Evaluate the pixels of a frame > find redundant color values between that frame and the next frame > load the data into a buffer > only read the changed pixels. Of course that describes every compression scheme ever used in the history of computing.
That's why I said "if your product is close enough, then it infringes". There may be many ways to do the same thing, and possibly all are valid. Your product can't be a simple derivation of another's patented product. It must show a unique way of accomplishing the same task, or giving the same result.
But, there is something interesting in patent law that goes all the way back. This is also where a lot of these lawsuits get confused.
Company "A" has two patents, and two products use them, one in each.
Company "B" takes those two patents, and builds a product that combines them. Is this allowed? Take a quick guess without looking it up.
I wonder if some of the infringements are intentional -- to test the validity of the patent, or as an alternative to long, drawn-out negotiations.
Pure anecdote:
I worked for IBM in the 1960s (Las Vegas, NV sub-office of Riverside, CA Branch) when Xerox dominated the copier market. IBM released a direct competitor -- high quality, lower price, larger marketing and support organization.
Xerox sued for infringement of various patents.
Because IBM was continuously involved in litigation, IBM personnel (especially those with customer contact) were routinely briefed on current suits -- what was involved, and what we could say (usually nothing) about them.
I remember the particular meeting where the Xerox litigation was discussed. Apart from being told we could not comment on the suit -- we were told that the copier had some new (IBM patented) features and was designed to break/test the validity of key Xerox patents.
The line that resonates is when the presenter said: "IBM has a lot of attorneys -- they might as well earn their salaries."
Where were all those lawyers in the IBM PC BIOS reverse engineering case? they lost that one, no?
I wonder if some of the infringements are intentional -- to test the validity of the patent, or as an alternative to long, drawn-out negotiations.
Pure anecdote:
I worked for IBM in the 1960s (Las Vegas, NV sub-office of Riverside, CA Branch) when Xerox dominated the copier market. IBM released a direct competitor -- high quality, lower price, larger marketing and support organization.
Xerox sued for infringement of various patents.
Because IBM was continuously involved in litigation, IBM personnel (especially those with customer contact) were routinely briefed on current suits -- what was involved, and what we could say (usually nothing) about them.
I remember the particular meeting where the Xerox litigation was discussed. Apart from being told we could not comment on the suit -- we were told that the copier had some new (IBM patented) features and was designed to break/test the validity of key Xerox patents.
The line that resonates is when the presenter said: "IBM has a lot of attorneys -- they might as well earn their salaries."
That's why I wasn't absolute about it. I feel as though most infringement isn't intentional. i also feel that most of the rest is uncaring, that is, it's done with knowledge, but thought that it will slip by. The rest, a small amount, is intentional for the reasons you state.
i can see IBM doing that for a product that doesn't mean all that much to the company. It's an isolated product line. but with Apple, much of the patents cover vast swaths of their products, and are almost a make or break company situation. If they lose a wide ranging patent suit, product pricing could be affected, which could affect their competitive stance. It could also affect their ability to be independent. Sometimes that's more important than the dollar amount the patent is worth. With all of Apple's money in the bank, they should assign a chunk to buying out these companies, even at inflated prices.
The code from 1990 and 1996 cannot possibly be relevant. If they look at the source code, libraries, compilers, and functions of those days, they would have little resemblance to today's OOP programming style. Assuming that there is no borrowing of code, they would have to argue that the patent is on achieving an end goal or a general theory and method. Something as vague as:
Evaluate the pixels of a frame > find redundant color values between that frame and the next frame > load the data into a buffer > only read the changed pixels. Of course that describes every compression scheme ever used in the history of computing.
It's the borrowing of code that the problem. Remember that was the SCO issue over Linux. Of course, SCO couldn't actually prove that there was a code similarity, but that's an issue.
Only if the new product has unique properties that the two individual patents didn't have on their own, that the two patents are responsible for.
If all they do is to duplicate the functions of the individual patents in the new device, then they can't be used. That's even if the new device does have unique properties overall. The unique properties must be from the combination of those two patents.
Comments
who is cannon and what do they make? I know who canon is, but not cannon.
boom!
not sure if this applies here - but seems like this and many are cases where an idea should not be patented but the implementation of that idea.
it is one thing if Apple came knocking and said may we use your code please and the patent holder said sure here ya go - that'll be $x per shipping unit (or whatever) and Apple said thanks for the tech but we are not paying - and something else entirely if Apple developed independently code that happened to perform a very similar without any knowledge of the other company's work or patent.
The way it works is that if you develop work that infringes, it infringes. That's all that matters. That's the point to patents. Knowledge of a patent doesn't matter. It's considered to be up to the person or company working on new products to do a patent search. It's then up to the patent holder to check out whatever seems to be infringing, and inform them.
no, you can't patent ideas, but if your product is close enough, then it infringes.
Multimedia Patent Trust ... asserted that the company and its existing licensees have suffered "irreparable injury,"...
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
That's nothing compared to what you are going to suffer when Steve's black helicopter full of ninjas comes for your a$$.
I wonder if anyone else licenses this tech from them or if they are just patent trolls.
Patent Trolls!!
Great wording there! Very useful and adequate phrase nowadays.
Hehe.
Yes, this is the spin-off group. A quick search reveals no physical home web address for the company, no actual trades or transactions in the last year, no executives listed, etc...
This is a troll company with no intent to actually produce anything for the betterment of consumers or society. Instead, it sues other companies to get pay-offs. Another word that comes to mind is leech. I hope judges start seeing companies like this for what they are and stop these frivolous lawsuits from continuing.
The news of the joint Apple Microsoft el at patent (anti-tolling) acquistion confirm that big companies with a lot at stake are taking a more pre active stance against this type of thing.
The way it works is that if you develop work that infringes, it infringes. That's all that matters. That's the point to patents. Knowledge of a patent doesn't matter. It's considered to be up to the person or company working on new products to do a patent search. It's then up to the patent holder to check out whatever seems to be infringing, and inform them.
no, you can't patent ideas, but if your product is close enough, then it infringes.
It seems logical that if you have a software patent, you should have some code that proves your invention. Sure there are various forms of filings that are integrated hardware/software/user interface in nature but video compression is pure software. I wonder if they actually have any working code or is it just some ideas.
I don't understand why Apple, and other companies don't have small teams to find these patents and buy them before these other companies do. It would be much cheaper in the long run.
In the case of Apple their lawyers are forbidden to use Google Patent Search and the uspto site is impossible to navigate.
Ok, that's funny, but it was a serious question.
It is odd...
Considering that Jack Purcher does an excellent job of discovering Apple Patents:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/
Jack's wife is an attorney and Jack is a techie with an unique capability to locate, read, understand and present the information found in patents -- so that mortals can understand them.
In the case of patent searches, someone like jack would need to be told what Apple is developing (at least general areas of interest). Then perform exhaustive patent searches. These can take months or years.
What might be interesting is for Apple to contract someone like Jack on a "bounty" system where his fees are based on hits for potential patent conflicts.
... I think I'll ask Jack!
It seems logical that if you have a software patent, you should have some code that proves your invention. Sure there are various forms of filings that are integrated hardware/software/user interface in nature but video compression is pure software. I wonder if they actually have any working code or is it just some ideas.
Of course, the code is the product. If they have no code, then they have no product.
I assume they have the code, or they wouldn't be suing. Whether that code is relevant is something else. The problem is that all of these big companies have worked on products like this, and so they all have some product that uses their own code, which may be patented.
While I feel that it is important to allow software patents, after all, a product is a product, the time is too long. The software industry moves too quickly for 20 year patents. I've felt that it should be between 7 and 10 years. This would fix many of the problems we have with software patents.
In addition, it should also be that the time the lawsuit is filed is the time the recovery period should be started from, if the suite is won. I think it's a bad idea to allow suites just before a patent expires to recover income from the very beginning. In the beginning, most patents are worth less, as it may not look as though the product will do well. so license terms would be less. But as the product becomes more popular, if it does, then the license is renegotiated.This would also help to ensure more timely lawsuits.
One of my companies had 43 patents. We didn't license them out, as we used them for our own products. We only had one company infringe, where they settled, and discontinued their product that used it. It seems that more companies are willing to step on another's IP these days then in the past. Maybe because most products are so complex they need a dozen, or more, patented technologies to work. Sometimes they need dozens.
Patent searches are also much more difficult today, with so many technologies so complex, and yet so similar to others, that it's tough for even qualified patent attorneys, who are also experts in the various fields they work in, to understand how one patent differs from another.
I feel certain that a lot of infringement is unintentional, and when a company gets contacted by another, their response, is; "What? No way!"
The way it works is that if you develop work that infringes, it infringes. That's all that matters. That's the point to patents. Knowledge of a patent doesn't matter. It's considered to be up to the person or company working on new products to do a patent search. It's then up to the patent holder to check out whatever seems to be infringing, and inform them.
no, you can't patent ideas, but if your product is close enough, then it infringes.
I think what I am saying is more along the lines of if there are multiple ways to achieve the same effect then perhaps the overall description is too vague to be patented.
For example - Thomas Edison did not patent "the light bulb" he patented a specific design with a screw in base etc - if someone else develops "a device which shall produce a visible light emission through the application of electricity" that is entirely different in materials and construction and design etc - then it should qualify for a separate patent - and a patent troll that uses the description I just gave vs the specifics of a given product should not be allowed.
How many patents are there for Mouse Traps? Isn't that the example used of innovation? so where is the patent troll who has a patent on "a device which stops a rodent" ? or perhaps a better question what is so very different about that case and a case of software code that achieves the same result but which may do so in an entirely different way.
I think what I am saying is more along the lines of if there are multiple ways to achieve the same effect then perhaps the overall description is too vague to be patented.
For example - Thomas Edison did not patent "the light bulb" he patented a specific design with a screw in base etc - if someone else develops "a device which shall produce a visible light emission through the application of electricity" that is entirely different in materials and construction and design etc - then it should qualify for a separate patent - and a patent troll that uses the description I just gave vs the specifics of a given product should not be allowed.
How many patents are there for Mouse Traps? Isn't that the example used of innovation? so where is the patent troll who has a patent on "a device which stops a rodent" ? or perhaps a better question what is so very different about that case and a case of software code that achieves the same result but which may do so in an entirely different way.
That's why I said "if your product is close enough, then it infringes". There may be many ways to do the same thing, and possibly all are valid. Your product can't be a simple derivation of another's patented product. It must show a unique way of accomplishing the same task, or giving the same result.
But, there is something interesting in patent law that goes all the way back. This is also where a lot of these lawsuits get confused.
Company "A" has two patents, and two products use them, one in each.
Company "B" takes those two patents, and builds a product that combines them. Is this allowed? Take a quick guess without looking it up.
Patent searches are also much more difficult today, with so many technologies so complex, and yet so similar to others, that it's tough for even qualified patent attorneys, who are also experts in the various fields they work in, to understand how one patent differs from another.
I feel certain that a lot of infringement is unintentional, and when a company gets contacted by another, their response, is; "What? No way!"
I wonder if some of the infringements are intentional -- to test the validity of the patent, or as an alternative to long, drawn-out negotiations.
Pure anecdote:
I worked for IBM in the 1960s (Las Vegas, NV sub-office of Riverside, CA Branch) when Xerox dominated the copier market. IBM released a direct competitor -- high quality, lower price, larger marketing and support organization.
Xerox sued for infringement of various patents.
Because IBM was continuously involved in litigation, IBM personnel (especially those with customer contact) were routinely briefed on current suits -- what was involved, and what we could say (usually nothing) about them.
I remember the particular meeting where the Xerox litigation was discussed. Apart from being told we could not comment on the suit -- we were told that the copier had some new (IBM patented) features and was designed to break/test the validity of key Xerox patents.
The line that resonates is when the presenter said: "IBM has a lot of attorneys -- they might as well earn their salaries."
Of course, the code is the product. If they have no code, then they have no product.
I assume they have the code, or they wouldn't be suing. Whether that code is relevant is something else. The problem is that all of these big companies have worked on products like this, and so they all have some product that uses their own code, which may be patented.
The code from 1990 and 1996 cannot possibly be relevant. If they look at the source code, libraries, compilers, and functions of those days, they would have little resemblance to today's OOP programming style. Assuming that there is no borrowing of code, they would have to argue that the patent is on achieving an end goal or a general theory and method. Something as vague as:
Evaluate the pixels of a frame > find redundant color values between that frame and the next frame > load the data into a buffer > only read the changed pixels. Of course that describes every compression scheme ever used in the history of computing.
That's why I said "if your product is close enough, then it infringes". There may be many ways to do the same thing, and possibly all are valid. Your product can't be a simple derivation of another's patented product. It must show a unique way of accomplishing the same task, or giving the same result.
But, there is something interesting in patent law that goes all the way back. This is also where a lot of these lawsuits get confused.
Company "A" has two patents, and two products use them, one in each.
Company "B" takes those two patents, and builds a product that combines them. Is this allowed? Take a quick guess without looking it up.
Yes... It is allowed!
I wonder if some of the infringements are intentional -- to test the validity of the patent, or as an alternative to long, drawn-out negotiations.
Pure anecdote:
I worked for IBM in the 1960s (Las Vegas, NV sub-office of Riverside, CA Branch) when Xerox dominated the copier market. IBM released a direct competitor -- high quality, lower price, larger marketing and support organization.
Xerox sued for infringement of various patents.
Because IBM was continuously involved in litigation, IBM personnel (especially those with customer contact) were routinely briefed on current suits -- what was involved, and what we could say (usually nothing) about them.
I remember the particular meeting where the Xerox litigation was discussed. Apart from being told we could not comment on the suit -- we were told that the copier had some new (IBM patented) features and was designed to break/test the validity of key Xerox patents.
The line that resonates is when the presenter said: "IBM has a lot of attorneys -- they might as well earn their salaries."
Where were all those lawyers in the IBM PC BIOS reverse engineering case? they lost that one, no?
I wonder if some of the infringements are intentional -- to test the validity of the patent, or as an alternative to long, drawn-out negotiations.
Pure anecdote:
I worked for IBM in the 1960s (Las Vegas, NV sub-office of Riverside, CA Branch) when Xerox dominated the copier market. IBM released a direct competitor -- high quality, lower price, larger marketing and support organization.
Xerox sued for infringement of various patents.
Because IBM was continuously involved in litigation, IBM personnel (especially those with customer contact) were routinely briefed on current suits -- what was involved, and what we could say (usually nothing) about them.
I remember the particular meeting where the Xerox litigation was discussed. Apart from being told we could not comment on the suit -- we were told that the copier had some new (IBM patented) features and was designed to break/test the validity of key Xerox patents.
The line that resonates is when the presenter said: "IBM has a lot of attorneys -- they might as well earn their salaries."
That's why I wasn't absolute about it. I feel as though most infringement isn't intentional. i also feel that most of the rest is uncaring, that is, it's done with knowledge, but thought that it will slip by. The rest, a small amount, is intentional for the reasons you state.
i can see IBM doing that for a product that doesn't mean all that much to the company. It's an isolated product line. but with Apple, much of the patents cover vast swaths of their products, and are almost a make or break company situation. If they lose a wide ranging patent suit, product pricing could be affected, which could affect their competitive stance. It could also affect their ability to be independent. Sometimes that's more important than the dollar amount the patent is worth. With all of Apple's money in the bank, they should assign a chunk to buying out these companies, even at inflated prices.
The code from 1990 and 1996 cannot possibly be relevant. If they look at the source code, libraries, compilers, and functions of those days, they would have little resemblance to today's OOP programming style. Assuming that there is no borrowing of code, they would have to argue that the patent is on achieving an end goal or a general theory and method. Something as vague as:
Evaluate the pixels of a frame > find redundant color values between that frame and the next frame > load the data into a buffer > only read the changed pixels. Of course that describes every compression scheme ever used in the history of computing.
It's the borrowing of code that the problem. Remember that was the SCO issue over Linux. Of course, SCO couldn't actually prove that there was a code similarity, but that's an issue.
Yes... It is allowed!
Only if the new product has unique properties that the two individual patents didn't have on their own, that the two patents are responsible for.
If all they do is to duplicate the functions of the individual patents in the new device, then they can't be used. That's even if the new device does have unique properties overall. The unique properties must be from the combination of those two patents.
Where were all those lawyers in the IBM PC BIOS reverse engineering case? they lost that one, no?
Found this:
http://startupgallery.org/gallery/story.php?ii=57
Looks like the lawyers did their job, but the geeks did an end run around.
Where were all those lawyers in the IBM PC BIOS reverse engineering case? they lost that one, no?
Clean room implementations of how stuff works is legal.
MPEG4 came out in 1998, and earlier versions like around 1993. But, waiting to 2007 and then suing over it is quite trollish to me.
Hey, where's your video codec format? Don't have one? Don't actually make a product? Well, then, fuck off.
I'm still waiting for Sandisk to get sued over Vorbis. Each day that passes "must" mean it is legal.