That's a nice idea but it doesn't fit for all situations. e.g. All smartphones at the moment are using an ARM processor, but ARM don't actually make processors they just design the architecture and license it's use for others to build. So in an operational sense they are know different from Lodsys in that there product is a license or royalty fee for using there technology.
Except, of course, that ARM actually invests real R&D dollars into designing simulation models, and real-world FPGA-synthesizable implementations of their designs. to prove that they perform the way ARM claims they should, and are ready for prime time distribution, before they license the technology to 3rd parties for manufacture.
In addition to simply giving its licensees permission to use their IP, ARM also offers value-added expertise and assistance ensuring that the technology works, and that their licensees deliver CPUs that conform to a standard which ensures consistency for developers across all licensees' hardware.
I haven't seen any evidence from Lodsys suggesting that they can offer any such value-added proposition to their licensees.
Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.
The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.
Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.
That is completely absurd.
It is very, very common to develop a new technology and patent it after you invent something but long before it becomes commercially feasible. I worked with a technology that we patented and then spent 6 years finding a way to make it economical enough to introduce to the market. It can often take that long after getting a patent before you even have any idea if you're going to commercialize it.
Heck, look at pharmaceuticals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a product into commercial use in less than 5 years - and that's the minimum.
People who don't understand product development or patents really shouldn't be commenting.
But that's all in the past. Today, they don't manufacture any silicon which will ever reach an end customer. They have transitioned to a totally fab-less operation, and they currently depend on licensing their IP to partners -- who release ARM-derived chips under their own brand name -- in order for any of their deigns to reach the marketplace. That being said, please see my remarks above.
Except, of course, that ARM actually invests real R&D dollars into designing simulation models, and real-world FPGA-synthesizable implementations of their designs. to prove that they perform the way ARM claims they should, and are ready for prime time distribution, before they license the technology to 3rd parties for manufacture.
In addition to simply giving its licensees permission to use their IP, ARM also offers value-added expertise and assistance ensuring that the technology works, and that their licensees deliver CPUs that conform to a standard which ensures consistency for developers across all licensees' hardware.
I haven't seen any evidence from Lodsys suggesting that they can offer any such value-added proposition to their licensees.
So? Patents can't be rejected on the basis that if the company is selling licenses it must also offer value added expertise and assistance. Or the fact that a company invested a lot of money into the idea.
At the end of the day the only thing stopping companies implementing ARM's architecture is its patents, and that's why they make money. Lodsys can argue that in app purchases were there idea which they have a patent for so they can charge a license fee in the same way.
Basing patents around if a company actually sells a product would never work as not every company makes money from selling an actual physical product. The real improvement that needs to happen not allowing patents to exist on the basis that they are really specific and therefore haven't existed before. e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details), but the pinch gesture already existed 20 years before, and the pinch gesture on the Microsoft Surface is somehow also different. Yet to any normal person it's the same idea and therefore should allow multiple patents.
Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.
The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.
Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.
Sorry to double post, but another big issue with this is the definition of a product / service. In this example Lodsys would argue that the license to use the idea is a product which they are selling. But if you say that this isn't enough to justify being a product and you actually have to produce something then it's an awkward defenition of actually producing something. For instance Apple have never produced an iPhone that has been commercially availiable, Foxcon produced them and sold them to Apple who then sell them on. It's Apples deisgn and they own all the rights to the device, but aside from the OS it isn't Apple that made it. Lodsys hasn't produced an app with in app purchasing, but apps with in app purchasing exist, so therefore a product with their technology has been produced and sold.
e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details)...
Apple has a patent application for a pinch gesture. To date, none of the patents that have actually been granted to Apple actually deal specifically with pinch gestures.
Apple's answer is perfectly sufficient. Apple doesn't need to challenge the validity of the patent. Moreover, doing so arguably muddies the water. Apple's arguement is it has a license that covers the third party developers. It would be confusing for it to also argue the patent itself is not valid. Which is it you have a license, or the patent isn't valid.
Further, although Apple could both argue it has a license to the patent and the patent isn't valid, challenging the validity of patent aids Android developers. By challenging the validity of the patent, Apple would be paying to defend Android developers use of the alleged patent. Apple benefits more to have a license that protects Apple developers, but still allows Lodsys to go after Android developers. Apple has already paid for the license. It wants Android developers to have to pay for Android distribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Some industry watchers have viewed Apple?s official response as unsatisfactory. Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents expressed displeasure with Apple regarding its efforts surrounding the issue thus far.
?It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. ?Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.?
?If you read Apple's proposed answer," he continued, "it doesn't make any reference to the fact that two of the accused products in that dispute are actually Android-based. Lodsys accused not only the iOS but also the Android versions of Illusion Lab's "Labyrinth" and Rovio's "Angry Birds."?
As part of its motion, Apple asked the court to dismiss Lodsys's complaint in its entirety, based on the assertion that Apple's license extends to its developers. However, it's not possible to assume Apple's license extends to Android apps.
"Since Apple's proposed defenses and counterclaim don't make that distinction, it's quite possible that Lodsys could convince the court that Apple needs to resubmit its answer," Mueller wrote.
Lodsys is seeking to acquire from developers 0.575 percent of all U.S. revenue generated from the sale of their iOS titles through the expiration of its patent in 2023.
Not sure that is correct. How about patent number 74786780 that was granted in 2010?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
Apple has a patent application for a pinch gesture. To date, none of the patents that have actually been granted to Apple actually deal specifically with pinch gestures.
See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.
See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.
From what I've read, both Google and Apple received the patent rights from the same source and under the same terms. If Apple's patent rights extend to the developers then so will Google's, would it not?
More concerning to the developer's is who's paying their legal fees to defend an in-app purchasing method mandated by Apple. From all appearances so far they're on their own and likely to find it less expensive to simply pay than fight.
It is very, very common to develop a new technology and patent it after you invent something but long before it becomes commercially feasible. I worked with a technology that we patented and then spent 6 years finding a way to make it economical enough to introduce to the market. It can often take that long after getting a patent before you even have any idea if you're going to commercialize it.
Heck, look at pharmaceuticals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a product into commercial use in less than 5 years - and that's the minimum.
People who don't understand product development or patents really shouldn't be commenting.
It's easy to make reasonable adjustments to the timeframe required to bring something to market. All you're saying is that it may take longer with patents but that doesn't make it absurd. You can't copyright an IDEA, nor should you be able to patent one without making it commercial at some point.
Sorry to double post, but another big issue with this is the definition of a product / service. In this example Lodsys would argue that the license to use the idea is a product which they are selling. But if you say that this isn't enough to justify being a product and you actually have to produce something then it's an awkward defenition of actually producing something. For instance Apple have never produced an iPhone that has been commercially availiable, Foxcon produced them and sold them to Apple who then sell them on. It's Apples deisgn and they own all the rights to the device, but aside from the OS it isn't Apple that made it. Lodsys hasn't produced an app with in app purchasing, but apps with in app purchasing exist, so therefore a product with their technology has been produced and sold.
By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
It's easy to make reasonable adjustments to the timeframe required to bring something to market. All you're saying is that it may take longer with patents but that doesn't make it absurd. You can't copyright an IDEA, nor should you be able to patent one without making it commercial at some point.
Your idea is one of those superficially plausible but completely impractical ones that is brought up time and again by people. It is unworkable and would serve only to introduce orders of magnitude more complexity to patent litigation. Suddenly every patent lawsuit would have an enormous new section where both parties argued over exactly what constitute a 'product'.
Worse your 'solution' would kill ARM while leaving 1-click in place.
The problem is not that one can patent things without immediately commercializing them, the problem is that patents are being allowed that are bad patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartyGuy
By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
You can't propose a massive change to existing law on the basis that it works for one case. That's so silly that it should be obvious to anybody.
See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.
The main reason why Apple should do more than just hope that their license covers their developers is that their behaviour here will significantly influence perception of the App Store ecosystem as a target for Trolls.
So? Patents can't be rejected on the basis that if the company is selling licenses it must also offer value added expertise and assistance. Or the fact that a company invested a lot of money into the idea.
At the end of the day the only thing stopping companies implementing ARM's architecture is its patents, and that's why they make money. Lodsys can argue that in app purchases were there idea which they have a patent for so they can charge a license fee in the same way.
Basing patents around if a company actually sells a product would never work as not every company makes money from selling an actual physical product. The real improvement that needs to happen not allowing patents to exist on the basis that they are really specific and therefore haven't existed before. e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details), but the pinch gesture already existed 20 years before, and the pinch gesture on the Microsoft Surface is somehow also different. Yet to any normal person it's the same idea and therefore should allow multiple patents.
Are you really trying to argue that in app purchases are the same thing as CPU architecture? I think it's just a bad patent to be granting someone personally.
Your idea is one of those superficially plausible but completely impractical ones that is brought up time and again by people. It is unworkable and would serve only to introduce orders of magnitude more complexity to patent litigation. Suddenly every patent lawsuit would have an enormous new section where both parties argued over exactly what constitute a 'product'.
Worse your 'solution' would kill ARM while leaving 1-click in place.
The problem is not that one can patent things without immediately commercializing them, the problem is that patents are being allowed that are bad patents.
Yes part of it, the other problem is trolls. This is the most serious problem imo. People who never have any intention of using the patents, buy them for the sole purpose of suing people, wasting our tax dollars.
Beyond that, there needs to be more restrictions of where the patent lawsuit can even be filed. A extremely large majority of the patent trials are filed in Marshall, TX where they rule in favor of the patent holder a majority of the time.
“I've been following the developments with Lodsys, just wondering when they would contact us. And, today was the day," Anthony Campiti, president of Sunstorm Interactive, told AppleInsider. "So, add another developer to the list of companies being pursued by Lodsys. Wish Apple would step up... give us some type of update on their stance, etc.”
The latest complaint, filed July 22, sees one developer, Vietnamese company Wulven Games, dropped from the matter but five new ones added. Chief among the additions are Angry Birds developer Rovio and Electronic Arts, one of the largest game publishers in the world. This move could signal increased confidence on Lodsys’ part in suing developers with extensive resources.
“It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. “Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.”
I've a few comments on the above snippits from the origional posting.
1) It might appear Lodsys is exerting 'pressure' on individual developers in hope that s/he will sign some form of contract above and beoynd their original/ current Apple agreement. Thereby perceptually reinforcing Lodsys's position in the courts.
2) While it's easy to proclaim "Apple's not doing this, and Apple's not doing that, and Apple should be doing this ,that or the other thing", in reality Apple has filed a motion with the court and is awaiting a decision. That does not mean that they will or will not take further action, but that they have 'interceeded' (in a manner the Apple legal team has deemed appropriate) and are awaiting a legal response. It might be considered premature for Apple to file additional motions without awaiting the outcome of the initial filing.
Lastly, in regards to the patent ligigation in general, there appears to be a growing body of evidence that plaintifs tend to prevail in east texass court rulings. One wonders why this is and why companies who have minimal if any business presence there, file procedings with that particular court. Seemss from the information posied on this forum, that a degree of bias appears to exist.
I would think that the existence of 'shareware' software would invalidate their patent. Shareware software has had the option to upgrade to the full version for years.
Yes part of it, the other problem is trolls. This is the most serious problem imo. People who never have any intention of using the patents, buy them for the sole purpose of suing people, wasting our tax dollars.
The other side is that every this is how all universities commercialize their research. Sorry but no matter how convenient it would be, the problem isn't the trolls - the problem is the patents. The solution will lie in patent reform, not in trying to treat one set of patent owning entities differently from another.
By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
I disagree. They don't make the components, they don't asseble the phone, and they don't put it in any packaging. From the raw materieals coming out of the ground and turning into a product in a box ready to be sold, Apple don't touch it at all.
They did however design it and have all the rights to it. Hence no Apple product has made by Apple written on it, just "Designed by Apple in California". So if the argument is to say Patents arn't valid unless you produce something and that something can't be someone else implementing the idea into another product you have to end up with a very complicated defenition of what producing something actually means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
Are you really trying to argue that in app purchases are the same thing as CPU architecture? I think it's just a bad patent to be granting someone personally.
Aside from the fact that one is stupidly obvious, the defenition of an invention can't have anything to do with what it is, it just has to be unique and origional. So on the basis that someone has desided that in app purchases was a unique and origional idea then yes they are both the same.
Comments
That's a nice idea but it doesn't fit for all situations. e.g. All smartphones at the moment are using an ARM processor, but ARM don't actually make processors they just design the architecture and license it's use for others to build. So in an operational sense they are know different from Lodsys in that there product is a license or royalty fee for using there technology.
Except, of course, that ARM actually invests real R&D dollars into designing simulation models, and real-world FPGA-synthesizable implementations of their designs. to prove that they perform the way ARM claims they should, and are ready for prime time distribution, before they license the technology to 3rd parties for manufacture.
In addition to simply giving its licensees permission to use their IP, ARM also offers value-added expertise and assistance ensuring that the technology works, and that their licensees deliver CPUs that conform to a standard which ensures consistency for developers across all licensees' hardware.
I haven't seen any evidence from Lodsys suggesting that they can offer any such value-added proposition to their licensees.
Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.
The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.
Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.
That is completely absurd.
It is very, very common to develop a new technology and patent it after you invent something but long before it becomes commercially feasible. I worked with a technology that we patented and then spent 6 years finding a way to make it economical enough to introduce to the market. It can often take that long after getting a patent before you even have any idea if you're going to commercialize it.
Heck, look at pharmaceuticals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a product into commercial use in less than 5 years - and that's the minimum.
People who don't understand product development or patents really shouldn't be commenting.
ARM has a long history of making CPUs.
But that's all in the past. Today, they don't manufacture any silicon which will ever reach an end customer. They have transitioned to a totally fab-less operation, and they currently depend on licensing their IP to partners -- who release ARM-derived chips under their own brand name -- in order for any of their deigns to reach the marketplace. That being said, please see my remarks above.
Except, of course, that ARM actually invests real R&D dollars into designing simulation models, and real-world FPGA-synthesizable implementations of their designs. to prove that they perform the way ARM claims they should, and are ready for prime time distribution, before they license the technology to 3rd parties for manufacture.
In addition to simply giving its licensees permission to use their IP, ARM also offers value-added expertise and assistance ensuring that the technology works, and that their licensees deliver CPUs that conform to a standard which ensures consistency for developers across all licensees' hardware.
I haven't seen any evidence from Lodsys suggesting that they can offer any such value-added proposition to their licensees.
So? Patents can't be rejected on the basis that if the company is selling licenses it must also offer value added expertise and assistance. Or the fact that a company invested a lot of money into the idea.
At the end of the day the only thing stopping companies implementing ARM's architecture is its patents, and that's why they make money. Lodsys can argue that in app purchases were there idea which they have a patent for so they can charge a license fee in the same way.
Basing patents around if a company actually sells a product would never work as not every company makes money from selling an actual physical product. The real improvement that needs to happen not allowing patents to exist on the basis that they are really specific and therefore haven't existed before. e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details), but the pinch gesture already existed 20 years before, and the pinch gesture on the Microsoft Surface is somehow also different. Yet to any normal person it's the same idea and therefore should allow multiple patents.
Yes, the system is broken. And I recommend a solution.
The same body that issues patents (uspto.gov) issues trademarks. Patents should be handled the same way as trademarks. With trademarks you can file an "Intent to Use" in commerce. You have six months after your application's approved to actually apply it to a product or service. If you miss that timeframe, you can renew your intent to use for another six months -- up to 5 renewals if necessary. The end goal is to actually use your trademark in commerce; if you don't put it to use yourself, you lose it.
Patent trolls like Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin and Intellectual Ventures NEVER intend to use their patents in commerce but they should be required to. They should STFU and bring their "inventions" to market THEMSELVES or game over.
Sorry to double post, but another big issue with this is the definition of a product / service. In this example Lodsys would argue that the license to use the idea is a product which they are selling. But if you say that this isn't enough to justify being a product and you actually have to produce something then it's an awkward defenition of actually producing something. For instance Apple have never produced an iPhone that has been commercially availiable, Foxcon produced them and sold them to Apple who then sell them on. It's Apples deisgn and they own all the rights to the device, but aside from the OS it isn't Apple that made it. Lodsys hasn't produced an app with in app purchasing, but apps with in app purchasing exist, so therefore a product with their technology has been produced and sold.
e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details)...
Apple has a patent application for a pinch gesture. To date, none of the patents that have actually been granted to Apple actually deal specifically with pinch gestures.
Further, although Apple could both argue it has a license to the patent and the patent isn't valid, challenging the validity of patent aids Android developers. By challenging the validity of the patent, Apple would be paying to defend Android developers use of the alleged patent. Apple benefits more to have a license that protects Apple developers, but still allows Lodsys to go after Android developers. Apple has already paid for the license. It wants Android developers to have to pay for Android distribution.
Some industry watchers have viewed Apple?s official response as unsatisfactory. Patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents expressed displeasure with Apple regarding its efforts surrounding the issue thus far.
?It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. ?Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.?
?If you read Apple's proposed answer," he continued, "it doesn't make any reference to the fact that two of the accused products in that dispute are actually Android-based. Lodsys accused not only the iOS but also the Android versions of Illusion Lab's "Labyrinth" and Rovio's "Angry Birds."?
As part of its motion, Apple asked the court to dismiss Lodsys's complaint in its entirety, based on the assertion that Apple's license extends to its developers. However, it's not possible to assume Apple's license extends to Android apps.
"Since Apple's proposed defenses and counterclaim don't make that distinction, it's quite possible that Lodsys could convince the court that Apple needs to resubmit its answer," Mueller wrote.
Lodsys is seeking to acquire from developers 0.575 percent of all U.S. revenue generated from the sale of their iOS titles through the expiration of its patent in 2023.
Apple has a patent application for a pinch gesture. To date, none of the patents that have actually been granted to Apple actually deal specifically with pinch gestures.
- Helping to build a prior art database
- Attempting to get the patent invalidated
- Supporting Developers legal fees
There's 3 options for startersSee my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.
From what I've read, both Google and Apple received the patent rights from the same source and under the same terms. If Apple's patent rights extend to the developers then so will Google's, would it not?
More concerning to the developer's is who's paying their legal fees to defend an in-app purchasing method mandated by Apple.
That is completely absurd.
It is very, very common to develop a new technology and patent it after you invent something but long before it becomes commercially feasible. I worked with a technology that we patented and then spent 6 years finding a way to make it economical enough to introduce to the market. It can often take that long after getting a patent before you even have any idea if you're going to commercialize it.
Heck, look at pharmaceuticals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a product into commercial use in less than 5 years - and that's the minimum.
People who don't understand product development or patents really shouldn't be commenting.
It's easy to make reasonable adjustments to the timeframe required to bring something to market. All you're saying is that it may take longer with patents but that doesn't make it absurd. You can't copyright an IDEA, nor should you be able to patent one without making it commercial at some point.
Sorry to double post, but another big issue with this is the definition of a product / service. In this example Lodsys would argue that the license to use the idea is a product which they are selling. But if you say that this isn't enough to justify being a product and you actually have to produce something then it's an awkward defenition of actually producing something. For instance Apple have never produced an iPhone that has been commercially availiable, Foxcon produced them and sold them to Apple who then sell them on. It's Apples deisgn and they own all the rights to the device, but aside from the OS it isn't Apple that made it. Lodsys hasn't produced an app with in app purchasing, but apps with in app purchasing exist, so therefore a product with their technology has been produced and sold.
By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
It's easy to make reasonable adjustments to the timeframe required to bring something to market. All you're saying is that it may take longer with patents but that doesn't make it absurd. You can't copyright an IDEA, nor should you be able to patent one without making it commercial at some point.
Your idea is one of those superficially plausible but completely impractical ones that is brought up time and again by people. It is unworkable and would serve only to introduce orders of magnitude more complexity to patent litigation. Suddenly every patent lawsuit would have an enormous new section where both parties argued over exactly what constitute a 'product'.
Worse your 'solution' would kill ARM while leaving 1-click in place.
The problem is not that one can patent things without immediately commercializing them, the problem is that patents are being allowed that are bad patents.
By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
You can't propose a massive change to existing law on the basis that it works for one case. That's so silly that it should be obvious to anybody.
See my other post. Apple probably doesn't want the patent thrown out. Why would it? It has already paid for a license. It wants the license to cover third party developers on the iOS platform. It doesn't want the license to cover third party developers on the Android platform. Invalidating the patent is less beneficial to Apple then showing the license covers third party iOs developers because Apple wants Android to be perceived as less valuable to third party developers. It might not say it, but Apple is OK with Lodsys going after Android developers.
The main reason why Apple should do more than just hope that their license covers their developers is that their behaviour here will significantly influence perception of the App Store ecosystem as a target for Trolls.
So? Patents can't be rejected on the basis that if the company is selling licenses it must also offer value added expertise and assistance. Or the fact that a company invested a lot of money into the idea.
At the end of the day the only thing stopping companies implementing ARM's architecture is its patents, and that's why they make money. Lodsys can argue that in app purchases were there idea which they have a patent for so they can charge a license fee in the same way.
Basing patents around if a company actually sells a product would never work as not every company makes money from selling an actual physical product. The real improvement that needs to happen not allowing patents to exist on the basis that they are really specific and therefore haven't existed before. e.g. Apple has a patent for the pinch gesture on a mobile device or on a capacitive screen (can't remember the exact details), but the pinch gesture already existed 20 years before, and the pinch gesture on the Microsoft Surface is somehow also different. Yet to any normal person it's the same idea and therefore should allow multiple patents.
Are you really trying to argue that in app purchases are the same thing as CPU architecture? I think it's just a bad patent to be granting someone personally.
Your idea is one of those superficially plausible but completely impractical ones that is brought up time and again by people. It is unworkable and would serve only to introduce orders of magnitude more complexity to patent litigation. Suddenly every patent lawsuit would have an enormous new section where both parties argued over exactly what constitute a 'product'.
Worse your 'solution' would kill ARM while leaving 1-click in place.
The problem is not that one can patent things without immediately commercializing them, the problem is that patents are being allowed that are bad patents.
Yes part of it, the other problem is trolls. This is the most serious problem imo. People who never have any intention of using the patents, buy them for the sole purpose of suing people, wasting our tax dollars.
Beyond that, there needs to be more restrictions of where the patent lawsuit can even be filed. A extremely large majority of the patent trials are filed in Marshall, TX where they rule in favor of the patent holder a majority of the time.
“I've been following the developments with Lodsys, just wondering when they would contact us. And, today was the day," Anthony Campiti, president of Sunstorm Interactive, told AppleInsider. "So, add another developer to the list of companies being pursued by Lodsys. Wish Apple would step up... give us some type of update on their stance, etc.”
The latest complaint, filed July 22, sees one developer, Vietnamese company Wulven Games, dropped from the matter but five new ones added. Chief among the additions are Angry Birds developer Rovio and Electronic Arts, one of the largest game publishers in the world. This move could signal increased confidence on Lodsys’ part in suing developers with extensive resources.
“It's disappointing that Apple still doesn't challenge the validity of Lodsys's patents nor the assertion that there is an infringement," he wrote. “Apple's proposed answer appears to have a flaw that suggests to me that Apple's legal department didn't put nearly as much thought into that one as it does in its major disputes with the likes of Samsung.”
I've a few comments on the above snippits from the origional posting.
1) It might appear Lodsys is exerting 'pressure' on individual developers in hope that s/he will sign some form of contract above and beoynd their original/ current Apple agreement. Thereby perceptually reinforcing Lodsys's position in the courts.
2) While it's easy to proclaim "Apple's not doing this, and Apple's not doing that, and Apple should be doing this ,that or the other thing", in reality Apple has filed a motion with the court and is awaiting a decision. That does not mean that they will or will not take further action, but that they have 'interceeded' (in a manner the Apple legal team has deemed appropriate) and are awaiting a legal response. It might be considered premature for Apple to file additional motions without awaiting the outcome of the initial filing.
Lastly, in regards to the patent ligigation in general, there appears to be a growing body of evidence that plaintifs tend to prevail in east texass court rulings. One wonders why this is and why companies who have minimal if any business presence there, file procedings with that particular court. Seemss from the information posied on this forum, that a degree of bias appears to exist.
Yes part of it, the other problem is trolls. This is the most serious problem imo. People who never have any intention of using the patents, buy them for the sole purpose of suing people, wasting our tax dollars.
The other side is that every this is how all universities commercialize their research. Sorry but no matter how convenient it would be, the problem isn't the trolls - the problem is the patents. The solution will lie in patent reform, not in trying to treat one set of patent owning entities differently from another.
By every possible definition Apple produces the iPhone.
I disagree. They don't make the components, they don't asseble the phone, and they don't put it in any packaging. From the raw materieals coming out of the ground and turning into a product in a box ready to be sold, Apple don't touch it at all.
They did however design it and have all the rights to it. Hence no Apple product has made by Apple written on it, just "Designed by Apple in California". So if the argument is to say Patents arn't valid unless you produce something and that something can't be someone else implementing the idea into another product you have to end up with a very complicated defenition of what producing something actually means.
Are you really trying to argue that in app purchases are the same thing as CPU architecture? I think it's just a bad patent to be granting someone personally.
Aside from the fact that one is stupidly obvious, the defenition of an invention can't have anything to do with what it is, it just has to be unique and origional. So on the basis that someone has desided that in app purchases was a unique and origional idea then yes they are both the same.