Really? I guess it depends on what is meant by "download". I took it as meaning over the internet, like over iTunes store, I haven't seen why it should be otherwise here. To me, copying a file from a computer to a peripheral device doesn't seem like a download any more than controlling a computer with a mouse is an upload. Especially when the patent mentions subscriber several times, usage and billing, which suggests some kind of internet music service to me, and iTunes doesn't operate like that, at least yet. I get the impression from the patent that the playlist is to be provided by a remote service.
I guess it's easy to be confused when you don't understand terminology:
For those really interested in the patent and whether Apple truly violated it, parsing the meaning of the words in this post is silly. Go read the patent in its entirety first. Otherwise, you have no right contradicting each other.
Download definition: "Computer Science To transfer (data or programs) from a server or host computer to one's own computer or device."
Transferring a playlist from your computer ("host computer") to your iPod ("device") perfectly fits that definition.
The term used for iPod connection has always been sync or synchronize, never heard it referred to as downloading in that context.
OK, I didn't know the definition of a word as precisely as you did. Please at least read the abstract of the first patent linked in the article. In the context of the patent itself, it reads like an internet music service. There is no subscription, billing, fees within the context of the iTunes program connecting to an iPod, but those words are in the patent filing.
A federal jury has decided against Apple in a patent infringement suit ...
Not claiming to be an expert, and there is probably a good explanation but ...
... why in hell would a "jury" be involved in a patent case?
Shouldn't patent lawsuits be decided on the facts? A jury can decide almost anything whereas a patent is either good or not depending on the exact facts of the matter. There isn't (or shouldn't be) any room for interpretation or opinion as there is in jury cases.
That's a horrible analogy Jeff. Copying files from a computer to a connected device is a lot like downloading; whilst controlling a computer with a mouse is not even remotely like uploading?
(The key would be the copying of files...)
Why don't people on the Internet simply acknowledge when other folks make a good/valid point, and instead come up with silly justifications to defend their (often somewhat silly) positions?
No response necessary...
What a ridiculous statement. Is building something a lot like buying something? Since we're utterly ignoring true meaning in English, why not?
Syncing with iTunes is nothing even remotely close to downloading, you know it, I
Know it, and the judge who ruled on this failed. His was the incorrect decision in this case, by a long long way.
What I don't understand is why there are other (all) smartphones with pinch to zoom gestures? Apple invented this and patented it...yet it's been stolen and is in use by thieves.
This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.
Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.
The point is, it wasn't anything original, it wasn't even his idea. He just got there first and got the patent and froze out all the other inventors for years and years.
He didn't really "deserve" to have exclusive rights on the lightbulb idea, but he ended up with them anyway. He didn't actually think of the idea, yet he is "the inventor of the lightbulb." And whose to say that one of the other ideas might not have been better?
He probably didn't stifle much invention with the lightbulb patent, but he did with many of his other ideas. Patents can work to suppress ideas as much as they do to protect them. Especially since all copyright and patent law is basically skewed towards the needs and interests of business and not the actual inventors and creators.
What I don't understand is why there are other (all) smartphones with pinch to zoom gestures? Apple invented this and patented it...yet it's been stolen and is in use by thieves.
Actually I think there was prior art on pinch to zoom. It was done back in 2006 at least
What a ridiculous statement. Is building something a lot like buying something? Since we're utterly ignoring true meaning in English, why not?
Syncing with iTunes is nothing even remotely close to downloading, you know it, I
Know it, and the judge who ruled on this failed. His was the incorrect decision in this case, by a long long way.
In his defense, my mouse analogy was faulty. Syncing or synchronization might be considered a more informal term, I don't know for sure.
Maybe it's more like a printer, if I print a file using the postscript format, it is sending a file to a printer, though it often is not saved to non volatile storage as a .ps or .eps, but the data is the same. Is it technically downloading? I suppose it is if you use the dictionary definition. How many people think of it that way? I just see it as a peripheral device.
But again, I maintain there's a context within the patent filing that makes it questionable that the iPod docking scenario fits. Maybe it's that somewhat tenuous link that brought the damages down to $8M.
Where is the infringement? Where is the product that Apple stole this idea from?
The requirement for a product before infringement is probably unreasonable it would have made life very difficult to patent something entirely justified like RSA while it still wouldn't stop egregious patents like 1-click. What we need is a tightening up of the concept of 'obvious', but we're unlikely to get one any time soon.
I love how they say "inventions". These aren't inventions, they're ideas. I've got a million of em, just like everyone else.
Getting a paper that says, basically, "FIRST!!!", shouldn't give you the right to sue someone who get's the same idea and actually makes it a reality.
Where is the infringement? Where is the product that Apple stole this idea from?
It doesn't exist, and neither should the legs that people like Personal Audio and Lodsys stand on.
The biggest criminal here? Our legal system. One fail after another. What a joke.
Would people PLEASE learn something about the patent system before attacking it?
You can not patent an idea. You can patent only the implementation of an idea. A patent must be reduced to practice before a patent can be granted. There are exceptions, and 'reduced to practice' is not always easy to define, but the law is clear.
And throwing out the entire concept of patents just because you don't like them is absurd. Innovation would be greatly crippled if companies were not able to obtain patents. Why should I spend money on R&D if I can simply copy what someone else did?
And throwing out the entire concept of patents just because you don't like them is absurd. Innovation would be greatly crippled if companies were not able to obtain patents. Why should I spend money on R&D if I can simply copy what someone else did?
That's a real stretch where software patents are concerned, the fact is that copyright provided enough protection for software for decades - the extension of the use of patents to software and business practices hasn't empowered innovation, quite the opposite.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a professional programmer who thinks that software patents drive innovation in the software industry, except possibly in a very few areas like cryptography.
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se--selling them to holding companies who have no creative or productive interest in them. A patent could be sold to someone who is employing it for its intended use, but not to package it as a Wall Street investment "instrument." A "use it or lose it" law would be a good adjunct to this: even someone who does buy it for its intended purpose would have to employ it within a stipulated time. If not, the patent becomes null and void.
Editorial: Deregulation in favor of "self-policing" has allowed Wall Street, once a respected and conservative custodian of a nation's wealth, to become a playground for con men and schemers.
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se
No, that would be a terrible idea not to mention impossible. Patents that belonged to people would be worthless, patents that belonged to corporations would be placed into shell corporations that could be sold. If you prevented the sale of corporations that held patents then you would effectively end the possibility for technology firms to merge ever.
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se--selling them to holding companies who have no creative or productive interest in them. A patent could be sold to someone who is employing it for its intended use, but not to package it as a Wall Street investment "instrument." A "use it or lose it" law would be a good adjunct to this: even someone who does buy it for its intended purpose would have to employ it within a stipulated time. If not, the patent becomes null and void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
No, that would be a terrible idea not to mention impossible. Patents that belonged to people would be worthless, patents that belonged to corporations would be placed into shell corporations that could be sold. If you prevented the sale of corporations that held patents then you would effectively end the possibility for technology firms to merge ever.
Not easy, but not impossible either. I didn't say it would be simple. There will always be those who will attempt to sidestep or evade laws and regulations, but that is not sufficient reason to cease to regulate. Smart patent attorneys working on the people's behalf can craft language that addresses your concerns.
Patents belonging to people would only be worthless if they didn't actually use them. That's the whole point of my proposition.
Comments
Really? I guess it depends on what is meant by "download". I took it as meaning over the internet, like over iTunes store, I haven't seen why it should be otherwise here. To me, copying a file from a computer to a peripheral device doesn't seem like a download any more than controlling a computer with a mouse is an upload. Especially when the patent mentions subscriber several times, usage and billing, which suggests some kind of internet music service to me, and iTunes doesn't operate like that, at least yet. I get the impression from the patent that the playlist is to be provided by a remote service.
I guess it's easy to be confused when you don't understand terminology:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...entry/download
Download definition: "Computer Science To transfer (data or programs) from a server or host computer to one's own computer or device."
Transferring a playlist from your computer ("host computer") to your iPod ("device") perfectly fits that definition.
I guess it's easy to be confused when you don't understand terminology:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...entry/download
Download definition: "Computer Science To transfer (data or programs) from a server or host computer to one's own computer or device."
Transferring a playlist from your computer ("host computer") to your iPod ("device") perfectly fits that definition.
The term used for iPod connection has always been sync or synchronize, never heard it referred to as downloading in that context.
OK, I didn't know the definition of a word as precisely as you did. Please at least read the abstract of the first patent linked in the article. In the context of the patent itself, it reads like an internet music service. There is no subscription, billing, fees within the context of the iTunes program connecting to an iPod, but those words are in the patent filing.
Some things should not be patents. Imagine only one company had the right to produce lamps, doors, tyres or shoe laces.
What about how most zippers are YKK?
It's time to nuke east Texas. The average IQ of the US will increase substantially.
Oh, yeah. That statement makes you a MUCH better person than the patent trolls who take advantage of these courts.
I refuse to even put an emoticon on that sentence.
A federal jury has decided against Apple in a patent infringement suit ...
Not claiming to be an expert, and there is probably a good explanation but ...
... why in hell would a "jury" be involved in a patent case?
Shouldn't patent lawsuits be decided on the facts? A jury can decide almost anything whereas a patent is either good or not depending on the exact facts of the matter. There isn't (or shouldn't be) any room for interpretation or opinion as there is in jury cases.
That's a horrible analogy Jeff. Copying files from a computer to a connected device is a lot like downloading; whilst controlling a computer with a mouse is not even remotely like uploading?
(The key would be the copying of files...)
Why don't people on the Internet simply acknowledge when other folks make a good/valid point, and instead come up with silly justifications to defend their (often somewhat silly) positions?
No response necessary...
What a ridiculous statement. Is building something a lot like buying something? Since we're utterly ignoring true meaning in English, why not?
Syncing with iTunes is nothing even remotely close to downloading, you know it, I
Know it, and the judge who ruled on this failed. His was the incorrect decision in this case, by a long long way.
Edison patented the light bulb, ...
This is actually a good example of the reverse of your argument.
Edison didn't really so much "invent" the lightbulb as simply beat others to it. Everyone knew at the time that 'electrically lighted bulbs' were going to work. The basic idea and how it would work were already done. The only thing missing was what material could be used for the filament and lots of inventors were trying to figure that out. Edison just tried over and over and over again until he hit on the right material.
The point is, it wasn't anything original, it wasn't even his idea. He just got there first and got the patent and froze out all the other inventors for years and years.
He didn't really "deserve" to have exclusive rights on the lightbulb idea, but he ended up with them anyway. He didn't actually think of the idea, yet he is "the inventor of the lightbulb." And whose to say that one of the other ideas might not have been better?
He probably didn't stifle much invention with the lightbulb patent, but he did with many of his other ideas. Patents can work to suppress ideas as much as they do to protect them. Especially since all copyright and patent law is basically skewed towards the needs and interests of business and not the actual inventors and creators.
What I don't understand is why there are other (all) smartphones with pinch to zoom gestures? Apple invented this and patented it...yet it's been stolen and is in use by thieves.
Actually I think there was prior art on pinch to zoom. It was done back in 2006 at least
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.html
What a ridiculous statement. Is building something a lot like buying something? Since we're utterly ignoring true meaning in English, why not?
Syncing with iTunes is nothing even remotely close to downloading, you know it, I
Know it, and the judge who ruled on this failed. His was the incorrect decision in this case, by a long long way.
In his defense, my mouse analogy was faulty. Syncing or synchronization might be considered a more informal term, I don't know for sure.
Maybe it's more like a printer, if I print a file using the postscript format, it is sending a file to a printer, though it often is not saved to non volatile storage as a .ps or .eps, but the data is the same. Is it technically downloading? I suppose it is if you use the dictionary definition. How many people think of it that way? I just see it as a peripheral device.
But again, I maintain there's a context within the patent filing that makes it questionable that the iPod docking scenario fits. Maybe it's that somewhat tenuous link that brought the damages down to $8M.
Getting a paper that says, basically, "FIRST!!!", shouldn't give you the right to sue someone who get's the same idea and actually makes it a reality.
Where is the infringement? Where is the product that Apple stole this idea from?
It doesn't exist, and neither should the legs that people like Personal Audio and Lodsys stand on.
The biggest criminal here? Our legal system. One fail after another. What a joke.
Where is the infringement? Where is the product that Apple stole this idea from?
The requirement for a product before infringement is probably unreasonable it would have made life very difficult to patent something entirely justified like RSA while it still wouldn't stop egregious patents like 1-click. What we need is a tightening up of the concept of 'obvious', but we're unlikely to get one any time soon.
I love how they say "inventions". These aren't inventions, they're ideas. I've got a million of em, just like everyone else.
Getting a paper that says, basically, "FIRST!!!", shouldn't give you the right to sue someone who get's the same idea and actually makes it a reality.
Where is the infringement? Where is the product that Apple stole this idea from?
It doesn't exist, and neither should the legs that people like Personal Audio and Lodsys stand on.
The biggest criminal here? Our legal system. One fail after another. What a joke.
Would people PLEASE learn something about the patent system before attacking it?
You can not patent an idea. You can patent only the implementation of an idea. A patent must be reduced to practice before a patent can be granted. There are exceptions, and 'reduced to practice' is not always easy to define, but the law is clear.
And throwing out the entire concept of patents just because you don't like them is absurd. Innovation would be greatly crippled if companies were not able to obtain patents. Why should I spend money on R&D if I can simply copy what someone else did?
And throwing out the entire concept of patents just because you don't like them is absurd. Innovation would be greatly crippled if companies were not able to obtain patents. Why should I spend money on R&D if I can simply copy what someone else did?
That's a real stretch where software patents are concerned, the fact is that copyright provided enough protection for software for decades - the extension of the use of patents to software and business practices hasn't empowered innovation, quite the opposite.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a professional programmer who thinks that software patents drive innovation in the software industry, except possibly in a very few areas like cryptography.
Editorial: Deregulation in favor of "self-policing" has allowed Wall Street, once a respected and conservative custodian of a nation's wealth, to become a playground for con men and schemers.
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se
No, that would be a terrible idea not to mention impossible. Patents that belonged to people would be worthless, patents that belonged to corporations would be placed into shell corporations that could be sold. If you prevented the sale of corporations that held patents then you would effectively end the possibility for technology firms to merge ever.
$80k is enough to sustain your happiness forever? You're indeed a simple man. Good for you.
You reckon 1/10th of $8,000,000 is "$80k" do you?
As for your username...
It seems to me one sensible patent reform would be to outlaw the monetization of patents per se--selling them to holding companies who have no creative or productive interest in them. A patent could be sold to someone who is employing it for its intended use, but not to package it as a Wall Street investment "instrument." A "use it or lose it" law would be a good adjunct to this: even someone who does buy it for its intended purpose would have to employ it within a stipulated time. If not, the patent becomes null and void.
No, that would be a terrible idea not to mention impossible. Patents that belonged to people would be worthless, patents that belonged to corporations would be placed into shell corporations that could be sold. If you prevented the sale of corporations that held patents then you would effectively end the possibility for technology firms to merge ever.
Not easy, but not impossible either. I didn't say it would be simple. There will always be those who will attempt to sidestep or evade laws and regulations, but that is not sufficient reason to cease to regulate. Smart patent attorneys working on the people's behalf can craft language that addresses your concerns.
Patents belonging to people would only be worthless if they didn't actually use them. That's the whole point of my proposition.