You, cloud gazer, may be talking about software patents,
but the Nortel patents are for technologies and techniques implemented by hardware.
They're a mixture of the two. and sadly due to the nature of the patent system the most valuable patents are those which are the most broadly written and thus are impossible to avoid infringing. Those tend disproportionately to be software patents. I think that haptic feedback patent is a great example of a patent that Apple could try to assert against android makers, and it is certainly a software patent in practice.
"A patent isn?t innovation. It?s the right to block someone else from innovating,? he said, later adding that "patents are government-granted monopolies." Though the system was originally setup to reward innovation, "that?s not happening here,? he noted.
Patent is not innovation, its not the right to block someone from innovating. Its the protection of innovation from theft. If he has ideas on how to improve the system thats awesome, getting rid of patents will not improve the system.
I'm sorry but Google would be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. They wouldn't be whining, they'd he hiring more lawyers to go after everyone - not asking for reform. . .
You're absolutely correct. Google hasn't been shy about using the 700-800 patents they already have to attack any other company or mobile player that tries to get into search and/or mobile advertising. Good thing they don't have any more patents than they do. They're dangerously aggressive in protecting their turf. Just today Mozilla announced they'll be developing their own Google Chrome challenger, and even had the audacity to say they won't just be copying Google, but actually "stealing" the Android kernel to do so. Thieves. Watch how fast Google sues them just like they've sued . . umm . . . well there's ahhh, hmmm. . .
Well that doesn't matter really. You know they've sued a lot other OS developers, on-line search providers, mobile tech companies and online advertising competitors. Right?
Well regardless of the Wright Brothers, I shouldn't have used "moron" anyway. I try not to use pejoratives like that, but I fail sometimes (not frequently but sometimes).
I would still argue that patents can only "stifle innovation" if the patent is improperly granted (overly broad etc.), which is probably what happened here.
The Wright brothers are a special case and something I know a bit about. They really didn't "invent" the airplane at all, but the political powers that be at the time had a gigantic interest in keeping up the illusion that they did. The only real innovation they made at all is that patent you reference which is probably why they held on to it for all it was worth and pushed their ownership of it as hard as they did.
The reason their airplane succeeded when all others before them failed is more down to the manufacturing design of the flyer and the aforementioned political will. It had nothing to do with this particular patent because the control system was widely copied anyway. You are 100% right that it was used as a giant cudgel to keep the competition at bay while they could monopolise the market for airplanes though.
My original intention with my remarks was only to separate copyright (wildly and widely misused and completely the opposite from it's original intention), and patents (not really that far off the original intention). I don't mean to argue that there is "nothing wrong" with patents or the patent system or that it isn't misused. Just that it's not the same thing as copyright which is orders of magnitude more f*cked up.
Hundreds of obvious and easy arguments can be made as to why copyright is a joke and that it overtly *stifles* innovation on a very large scale. It's easy to see that the current copyright system should just be scrapped completely. The argument for getting rid of patents on the other hand, actually has pros and cons in my view.
in response to "patents (sometimes) help the little guy" ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
... In fact this is simply incorrect. A 'little guy' cannot afford to bring an infringement case against Apple or the like unless the 'little guy' in question is a patent lawyer. The lack of litigation in copyright may simply be a factor of the lower chance of infringement, and not anything else. Valuable software patents are designed to be infringed.
This was mentioned by someone above also, but I left that out of my equation because it's a failing of the legal system in general not patent law.
It's always been true that the average person (at least in most modern "western" countries for the last 100 years or more), gets less justice than the rich people. There is a huge tilt in the legal system towards those with money and most people know this (as we simultaneously ignore it as a society). For instance even serious human rights issues come down to getting the money to fight the thing all the way to the supreme court. Western governments can and do pass laws all the time that violate their own constitutions, knowing that they cannot be overturned until someone has the time, the energy, and most importantly the money to fight it all the way through the legal system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
... Only if by little guy you mean patent troll. The 'little guy' in software is the indy developer getting sued by the patent troll for 'copying their IP' even though they invariably had no idea that such IP existed. ...
Here I think I agree with you but only sometimes. Your only seeing what you want to here if you think that the little guy fighting for his patent is always a "patent troll." Sometimes it's just a little guy with his patent. Although I agree that most of the time the "little guy" will lose out and a lot of time they are trolls.
I would also argue that most of the patent trolls we hear about (certainly the majority of the ones reported in this forum), actually *lose* their argument.
well i guess you just sit on your a$$ and do nothing.
lots of progress was made in the computer field before software patents. so i guess those guys (like steve jobs and bill gates) figured what the hell, lets do it for grins?
Yeah, and what happened to the MacOS? It got stolen by Bill Gates (Windows) when Steve showed it to Bill, to allow Bill to make software apps for it. Of course, Apple had to settle (compromise), with Microsoft, eventually.
You'll notice that with iOS, Apple has tried not to get burned a second time! You'll see Apple protect iOS and iOS devices alot more aggressively. They've learned the hard way.
During an interview on Monday, Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker opened up about the company's loss to Apple in the Nortel patent auction, calling for patent reform in the U.S. as he characterized patents as "government-granted monopolies" that block innovation.
NOW he wants patent reform? I bet he would singing a totally different tune if Google had won the auction. Google is behaving like a child - oh wait - it is run by kids with just one product. The rest are all experiments.
Yeah, and what happened to the MacOS? It got stolen by Bill Gates (Windows) when Steve showed it to Bill, to allow Bill to make software apps for it. Of course, Apple had to settle (compromise), with Microsoft, eventually.
You'll notice that with iOS, Apple has tried not to get burned a second time! You'll see Apple protect iOS and iOS devices alot more aggressively. They've learned the hard way.
And Google still stole a whole bunch of ideas from Apple for Android.
I don't understand why people keep saying the Patent system is broke. There would no point in inovating if you couldn't defend your technology. And shouldn't not being able to copy some ones work encourage new ideas
Out of interest why do you think that copyright wouldn't be sufficient for software? It certainly proved sufficient in the early years, it's far far cheaper to litigate a copyright case, especially in a case of blatent infringement and copyright never presents the same kind of barriers to innovation.
Because it's too easy to circumvent copyright.
Take the slide to unlock patent. Ignoring questions of novelty, it's clear what the patent does. You have an image on the screen that says 'slide to unlock' and you slide your finger across it to unlock the phone. If someone does the same thing, it's clear that they've violated the patent (again, assuming the patent is valid in the first place).
If it was copyrighted and written in Objective C, someone else could do the same thing by writing nearly the same thing in machine language - or Java - or even C++ and it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
A 'little guy' cannot afford to bring an infringement case against Apple or the like unless the 'little guy' in question is a patent lawyer.
That is patently (ahem) false.
The little guy often finds a law firm to represent him on contingency. The overwhelming majority of patent law suits involving little guys work that way.
Or, the little guy can sell his patent to a patent group who will then sue the big company. The little guy benefits from the selling price of the patent.
I don't understand why people keep saying the Patent system is broke. There would no point in inovating if you couldn't defend your technology. And shouldn't not being able to copy some ones work encourage new ideas
Because most of the people arguing for elimination of the patent system never created anything in their lives and only want to leech off of others.
in response to "patents (sometimes) help the little guy" ...
This was mentioned by someone above also, but I left that out of my equation because it's a failing of the legal system in general not patent law.
Yes but it's particularly serious in patent law compared to other areas. Consider copyright by comparison. I accuse you of copyright and submit my original work to the court for consideration. If my work is shown to be substantially copied by you (which is a fairly objective test) and if I can demonstrate my work has priority (again fairly objective) then I win. Otherwise I lose. Aside from a few bizarre cases such as the SCO case or the Apple case copyright suits tend to be relatively speedy.
Patent suits are open to far far more interpretation, so the legal fight will invariably be nasty, brutish and expensive. Similarly defending against a patent suit is far more expensive. So the 'little guy' is hosed on both sides of the patent legal fight. Can you find a case of a small developer being smushed by copyright law?
Quote:
Here I think I agree with you but only sometimes. Your only seeing what you want to here if you think that the little guy fighting for his patent is always a "patent troll." Sometimes it's just a little guy with his patent. Although I agree that most of the time the "little guy" will lose out and a lot of time they are trolls.
Can you find a counter example in the field of software patents? The closest I can think would be the Stacker case and Stac wasn't exactly a 'little guy'. At any rate is it worth the cost on the other side? The number of 'little guys' who aren't adequately protected by copyright is tiny.
Quote:
I would also argue that most of the patent trolls we hear about (certainly the majority of the ones reported in this forum), actually *lose* their argument.
In fact trolls have been empirically shown to be equally successful in their win/loss ratios and more successful in terms of damages awarded.
Take the slide to unlock patent. Ignoring questions of novelty, it's clear what the patent does. You have an image on the screen that says 'slide to unlock' and you slide your finger across it to unlock the phone. If someone does the same thing, it's clear that they've violated the patent (again, assuming the patent is valid in the first place).
If it was copyrighted and written in Objective C, someone else could do the same thing by writing nearly the same thing in machine language - or Java - or even C++ and it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation.
Ok but you're presupposing that 'slide to unlock' is something that ought to be patentable. Slide to unlock isn't a feature that took man years of development, or required millions invested. Slide to unlock didn't require expensive safety testing. Your argument that the patent is necessary to promote hugely expensive R&D innovation is hard to apply in the case of something that can be implemented on a lazy afternoon.
Another way to ask this question, why is 'slide to unlock' patentable when 'plants versus zombies' isn't.
Quote:
That is patently (ahem) false.
The little guy often finds a law firm to represent him on contingency. The overwhelming majority of patent law suits involving little guys work that way.
Or, the little guy can sell his patent to a patent group who will then sue the big company. The little guy benefits from the selling price of the patent.
The software 'little guy' won't have applied for a patent in the first place, because the cost for him to patent his idea will often be greater than the cost of implementing it.
Because most of the people arguing for elimination of the patent system never created anything in their lives and only want to leech off of others.
Now now, most of the people arguing against software patents are people who work creating software. Frequently people who made very important software in the past.
Patents are government-granted monopolies . . . for a limited time. And only kind of.
Patents don't give you the right to produce and sell your invention, they merely allow you to exclude others from producing yours.
If the US Patent system has become a hindrance to innovation, don't blame the players that play by the rules -- blame the rule-makers. In my opinion, far too many patents are issued because the inventions are obvious combinations of previous works or are trivial variations. When the system is so corrupt that lawyers are paid to get unpatentable ideas patented, it's inevitable that this situation would arise.
Congress and the courts have allowed this system to become dysfunctional.
Patents are expensive. I understand people should be paid to innovate but the government should not be in the habbit of granting patents to people who have no product on the market. Secondly, they don't even allow you to exclude others from producing your patent.
Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it. [/URL]
Exactly. And what if you don't have enough money to bring a product to market? Without patents, why would anyone in their right mind license your idea and give you money when they can just take the idea and run with it for free?
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
this type remark is so ridiculous.
well i guess you just sit on your a$$ and do nothing.
lots of progress was made in the computer field before software patents. so i guess those guys (like steve jobs and bill gates) figured what the hell, lets do it for grins?
software patents are used to keep other companies down.
the motto for apple and the others should be "there's a patent for that"
Lots of little guys can argue otherwise. Ask the author of Watson how flattered he was when Apple came out with Sherlock and it looked and acted a lot like his unpatented program.
hrmm, let me see, would they want patent reform had they won the bid?
Patent reform, even if we ever get it, won't affect already issued patents, the supreme court would almost certainly take issue with any attempt to retroactively legislate them out of existence.
Comments
You, cloud gazer, may be talking about software patents,
but the Nortel patents are for technologies and techniques implemented by hardware.
They're a mixture of the two. and sadly due to the nature of the patent system the most valuable patents are those which are the most broadly written and thus are impossible to avoid infringing. Those tend disproportionately to be software patents. I think that haptic feedback patent is a great example of a patent that Apple could try to assert against android makers, and it is certainly a software patent in practice.
I think the real question has to be, "Would we be having this conversation if Google had won the Nortel patent auction?".
My opinion... I doubt it.
Except we had exactly this conversation in the personal audio thread, and in the Kodak thread, and in the S3 thread.
"A patent isn?t innovation. It?s the right to block someone else from innovating,? he said, later adding that "patents are government-granted monopolies." Though the system was originally setup to reward innovation, "that?s not happening here,? he noted.
Patent is not innovation, its not the right to block someone from innovating. Its the protection of innovation from theft. If he has ideas on how to improve the system thats awesome, getting rid of patents will not improve the system.
I'm sorry but Google would be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. They wouldn't be whining, they'd he hiring more lawyers to go after everyone - not asking for reform. . .
You're absolutely correct. Google hasn't been shy about using the 700-800 patents they already have to attack any other company or mobile player that tries to get into search and/or mobile advertising. Good thing they don't have any more patents than they do. They're dangerously aggressive in protecting their turf. Just today Mozilla announced they'll be developing their own Google Chrome challenger, and even had the audacity to say they won't just be copying Google, but actually "stealing" the Android kernel to do so. Thieves. Watch how fast Google sues them just like they've sued . . umm . . . well there's ahhh, hmmm. . .
Well that doesn't matter really. You know they've sued a lot other OS developers, on-line search providers, mobile tech companies and online advertising competitors. Right?
maybe you should not call people 'morons'. why don't you read this to see how a patent can stifle innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wri...ers_patent_war
Well regardless of the Wright Brothers, I shouldn't have used "moron" anyway. I try not to use pejoratives like that, but I fail sometimes (not frequently but sometimes).
I would still argue that patents can only "stifle innovation" if the patent is improperly granted (overly broad etc.), which is probably what happened here.
The Wright brothers are a special case and something I know a bit about. They really didn't "invent" the airplane at all, but the political powers that be at the time had a gigantic interest in keeping up the illusion that they did. The only real innovation they made at all is that patent you reference which is probably why they held on to it for all it was worth and pushed their ownership of it as hard as they did.
The reason their airplane succeeded when all others before them failed is more down to the manufacturing design of the flyer and the aforementioned political will. It had nothing to do with this particular patent because the control system was widely copied anyway. You are 100% right that it was used as a giant cudgel to keep the competition at bay while they could monopolise the market for airplanes though.
My original intention with my remarks was only to separate copyright (wildly and widely misused and completely the opposite from it's original intention), and patents (not really that far off the original intention). I don't mean to argue that there is "nothing wrong" with patents or the patent system or that it isn't misused. Just that it's not the same thing as copyright which is orders of magnitude more f*cked up.
Hundreds of obvious and easy arguments can be made as to why copyright is a joke and that it overtly *stifles* innovation on a very large scale. It's easy to see that the current copyright system should just be scrapped completely. The argument for getting rid of patents on the other hand, actually has pros and cons in my view.
... In fact this is simply incorrect. A 'little guy' cannot afford to bring an infringement case against Apple or the like unless the 'little guy' in question is a patent lawyer. The lack of litigation in copyright may simply be a factor of the lower chance of infringement, and not anything else. Valuable software patents are designed to be infringed.
This was mentioned by someone above also, but I left that out of my equation because it's a failing of the legal system in general not patent law.
It's always been true that the average person (at least in most modern "western" countries for the last 100 years or more), gets less justice than the rich people. There is a huge tilt in the legal system towards those with money and most people know this (as we simultaneously ignore it as a society). For instance even serious human rights issues come down to getting the money to fight the thing all the way to the supreme court. Western governments can and do pass laws all the time that violate their own constitutions, knowing that they cannot be overturned until someone has the time, the energy, and most importantly the money to fight it all the way through the legal system.
... Only if by little guy you mean patent troll. The 'little guy' in software is the indy developer getting sued by the patent troll for 'copying their IP' even though they invariably had no idea that such IP existed. ...
Here I think I agree with you but only sometimes. Your only seeing what you want to here if you think that the little guy fighting for his patent is always a "patent troll." Sometimes it's just a little guy with his patent. Although I agree that most of the time the "little guy" will lose out and a lot of time they are trolls.
I would also argue that most of the patent trolls we hear about (certainly the majority of the ones reported in this forum), actually *lose* their argument.
this type remark is so ridiculous.
well i guess you just sit on your a$$ and do nothing.
lots of progress was made in the computer field before software patents. so i guess those guys (like steve jobs and bill gates) figured what the hell, lets do it for grins?
Yeah, and what happened to the MacOS? It got stolen by Bill Gates (Windows) when Steve showed it to Bill, to allow Bill to make software apps for it. Of course, Apple had to settle (compromise), with Microsoft, eventually.
You'll notice that with iOS, Apple has tried not to get burned a second time! You'll see Apple protect iOS and iOS devices alot more aggressively. They've learned the hard way.
During an interview on Monday, Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker opened up about the company's loss to Apple in the Nortel patent auction, calling for patent reform in the U.S. as he characterized patents as "government-granted monopolies" that block innovation.
url=http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/25/google_exec_talks_nortel_patent_auction_loss_calls _for_patent_reform.html][ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/url][/c]
NOW he wants patent reform? I bet he would singing a totally different tune if Google had won the auction. Google is behaving like a child - oh wait - it is run by kids with just one product. The rest are all experiments.
Yeah, and what happened to the MacOS? It got stolen by Bill Gates (Windows) when Steve showed it to Bill, to allow Bill to make software apps for it. Of course, Apple had to settle (compromise), with Microsoft, eventually.
You'll notice that with iOS, Apple has tried not to get burned a second time! You'll see Apple protect iOS and iOS devices alot more aggressively. They've learned the hard way.
And Google still stole a whole bunch of ideas from Apple for Android.
Out of interest why do you think that copyright wouldn't be sufficient for software? It certainly proved sufficient in the early years, it's far far cheaper to litigate a copyright case, especially in a case of blatent infringement and copyright never presents the same kind of barriers to innovation.
Because it's too easy to circumvent copyright.
Take the slide to unlock patent. Ignoring questions of novelty, it's clear what the patent does. You have an image on the screen that says 'slide to unlock' and you slide your finger across it to unlock the phone. If someone does the same thing, it's clear that they've violated the patent (again, assuming the patent is valid in the first place).
If it was copyrighted and written in Objective C, someone else could do the same thing by writing nearly the same thing in machine language - or Java - or even C++ and it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation.
A 'little guy' cannot afford to bring an infringement case against Apple or the like unless the 'little guy' in question is a patent lawyer.
That is patently (ahem) false.
The little guy often finds a law firm to represent him on contingency. The overwhelming majority of patent law suits involving little guys work that way.
Or, the little guy can sell his patent to a patent group who will then sue the big company. The little guy benefits from the selling price of the patent.
I don't understand why people keep saying the Patent system is broke. There would no point in inovating if you couldn't defend your technology. And shouldn't not being able to copy some ones work encourage new ideas
Because most of the people arguing for elimination of the patent system never created anything in their lives and only want to leech off of others.
in response to "patents (sometimes) help the little guy" ...
This was mentioned by someone above also, but I left that out of my equation because it's a failing of the legal system in general not patent law.
Yes but it's particularly serious in patent law compared to other areas. Consider copyright by comparison. I accuse you of copyright and submit my original work to the court for consideration. If my work is shown to be substantially copied by you (which is a fairly objective test) and if I can demonstrate my work has priority (again fairly objective) then I win. Otherwise I lose. Aside from a few bizarre cases such as the SCO case or the Apple case copyright suits tend to be relatively speedy.
Patent suits are open to far far more interpretation, so the legal fight will invariably be nasty, brutish and expensive. Similarly defending against a patent suit is far more expensive. So the 'little guy' is hosed on both sides of the patent legal fight. Can you find a case of a small developer being smushed by copyright law?
Here I think I agree with you but only sometimes. Your only seeing what you want to here if you think that the little guy fighting for his patent is always a "patent troll." Sometimes it's just a little guy with his patent. Although I agree that most of the time the "little guy" will lose out and a lot of time they are trolls.
Can you find a counter example in the field of software patents? The closest I can think would be the Stacker case and Stac wasn't exactly a 'little guy'. At any rate is it worth the cost on the other side? The number of 'little guys' who aren't adequately protected by copyright is tiny.
I would also argue that most of the patent trolls we hear about (certainly the majority of the ones reported in this forum), actually *lose* their argument.
In fact trolls have been empirically shown to be equally successful in their win/loss ratios and more successful in terms of damages awarded.
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-se...tion-study.pdf
Because it's too easy to circumvent copyright.
Take the slide to unlock patent. Ignoring questions of novelty, it's clear what the patent does. You have an image on the screen that says 'slide to unlock' and you slide your finger across it to unlock the phone. If someone does the same thing, it's clear that they've violated the patent (again, assuming the patent is valid in the first place).
If it was copyrighted and written in Objective C, someone else could do the same thing by writing nearly the same thing in machine language - or Java - or even C++ and it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation.
Ok but you're presupposing that 'slide to unlock' is something that ought to be patentable. Slide to unlock isn't a feature that took man years of development, or required millions invested. Slide to unlock didn't require expensive safety testing. Your argument that the patent is necessary to promote hugely expensive R&D innovation is hard to apply in the case of something that can be implemented on a lazy afternoon.
Another way to ask this question, why is 'slide to unlock' patentable when 'plants versus zombies' isn't.
That is patently (ahem) false.
The little guy often finds a law firm to represent him on contingency. The overwhelming majority of patent law suits involving little guys work that way.
Or, the little guy can sell his patent to a patent group who will then sue the big company. The little guy benefits from the selling price of the patent.
The software 'little guy' won't have applied for a patent in the first place, because the cost for him to patent his idea will often be greater than the cost of implementing it.
Because most of the people arguing for elimination of the patent system never created anything in their lives and only want to leech off of others.
Now now, most of the people arguing against software patents are people who work creating software. Frequently people who made very important software in the past.
Android’s Dirty Secret: Shipping Numbers Are Strong But Returns Are 30-40%
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=129123
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/26/and...rns-are-30-40/
Patents are government-granted monopolies . . . for a limited time. And only kind of.
Patents don't give you the right to produce and sell your invention, they merely allow you to exclude others from producing yours.
If the US Patent system has become a hindrance to innovation, don't blame the players that play by the rules -- blame the rule-makers. In my opinion, far too many patents are issued because the inventions are obvious combinations of previous works or are trivial variations. When the system is so corrupt that lawyers are paid to get unpatentable ideas patented, it's inevitable that this situation would arise.
Congress and the courts have allowed this system to become dysfunctional.
Patents are expensive. I understand people should be paid to innovate but the government should not be in the habbit of granting patents to people who have no product on the market. Secondly, they don't even allow you to exclude others from producing your patent.
Uhmm, "Being First to Market"?
Being first to market doesn't protect you from being ripped off:
read about the Dyson versus Hoover case, Mr. Dyson came up with and was first to market with the cyclonic vacuum cleaner only for the larger, older Hoover company to blatantly rip him off.
It was patent law that stopped Hoover from getting away with it. [/URL]
Exactly. And what if you don't have enough money to bring a product to market? Without patents, why would anyone in their right mind license your idea and give you money when they can just take the idea and run with it for free?
this type remark is so ridiculous.
well i guess you just sit on your a$$ and do nothing.
lots of progress was made in the computer field before software patents. so i guess those guys (like steve jobs and bill gates) figured what the hell, lets do it for grins?
software patents are used to keep other companies down.
the motto for apple and the others should be "there's a patent for that"
Lots of little guys can argue otherwise. Ask the author of Watson how flattered he was when Apple came out with Sherlock and it looked and acted a lot like his unpatented program.
hrmm, let me see, would they want patent reform had they won the bid?
Patent reform, even if we ever get it, won't affect already issued patents, the supreme court would almost certainly take issue with any attempt to retroactively legislate them out of existence.