It's BS generic patients like this that kill competition and in long run increase prices. Patients have outlived their usefulness. Maybe Samsung should patient launching email by touching a button.
Exactly what kind of "patients" are you referring to? Never mind, you meant patents.
I'm curious what your point is with your post. On the eve of the iPhone release the announcer is reviewing another phone. We're not talking about before the iPhone was announced, as that was 6 months earlier. It also makes no mention of Neonode having any patents on slide to unlock, if that is your point. In fact there is nothing in the video to suggest that Neonode didn't get the idea for slide to unlock until after seeing Apple's January 2007 demo.
Did you watch the video?
The answers to your questions are there.
The Neonode pre-dates the iPhone with 2-3 years. I posted the link because I actually remember the device being talked about in the Swedish tech magasines in 2005-2006.
The Neonode did not get the idea about slide-to-unlock from Apple. Apple is the copyist here.
Please elaborate. Why would a rational person invest time and resources to invent anything if a competitor can simply copy it for free?
The issue starts to occur, though, to when or what exactly that ensues. It's okay if Apple does it. They spent R&D. But what if another company wants to play the game and that will DIRECTLY affect the iPhone? I undrstand patents....but you do understand patents right? They're not meant to be held on forever. They're supposed to be used to recoup the costs for R&D and after a number of years it's all fair game.
That's why you don't seen generic perscritptioins for certain items (like viagra) for a number of years until it's established. Then you'll start seeign them at Walgreen's.
The silly 'slide to unlock' function is one thing I would remove from my iPhone, if I could.
But I've read that there is no provision in iOS for disabling it, and can only be done after jailbreaking it.
I'd just like to turn the device on, without the unnecessary step of having to unlock it. If I felt the need to have that for security or something, I think it should be a user-enabled feature. They do without it on the iPad if you have the smart cover, with its 'wake from sleep' feature.
It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.
Yes, that part is unfair. Samsung can not legally obtain an injunction over a FRAND patent. They can, however, file a lawsuit to try to collect royalties.
Yes, that part is unfair. Samsung can not legally obtain an injunction over a FRAND patent. They can, however, file a lawsuit to try to collect royalties.
It sounded like you were arguing the opposite.
Nope, basically what you said. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Because it protects some and not others. I meant, if Samsung had a patent where Apple suddenly couldn't use their attenna design or tech...then would that be fair or unfair?
Again, I wonder if half of this stuff is because it's Apple. I'm seriously tired of these patent wars. It's good to protect your stuff, but not if everyone's gonna be like 'well, I have this!'.
If software patents shouldn't be allowed then you are saying a company could copy the exact look and feel of Mac OS X and iOS without repercussion? Really?
Because a patent is supposed to represent something physical that someone came up with on his own. It's not supposed to represent an implementation of stuff we all use on a regular basis.
Look, I love Apple. And I have no problem with them doing this, as it represents the whole picture of companies going against each other, all the time. But the idea that you can patent a "slide to unlock" implementation is ridiculous.
The issue starts to occur, though, to when or what exactly that ensues. It's okay if Apple does it. They spent R&D. But what if another company wants to play the game and that will DIRECTLY affect the iPhone? I undrstand patents....but you do understand patents right? They're not meant to be held on forever. They're supposed to be used to recoup the costs for R&D and after a number of years it's all fair game.
Yeah. 20 years. So feel free to copy Apple's patented technology after 20 years - if you think anyone will care at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's irrelevant as to what a judge thinks. They can only state their opinion. The ruling must be investigated and made by the relevant patent bodies.
Not true. A court can invalidate a patent. However, the Dutch judge did not do so. S/he merely said that there were questions as to the validity that would have to be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1
Because it protects some and not others. I meant, if Samsung had a patent where Apple suddenly couldn't use their attenna design or tech...then would that be fair or unfair? .
If it was required for interoperability and therefore fell under FRAND rules, then Samsung would be forced to license it, and it would be a non-issue.
OTOH, if it were something NOT required by FRAND, then Samsung would have every right to enforce their patent and to refuse to license it.
Comments
It's BS generic patients like this that kill competition and in long run increase prices. Patients have outlived their usefulness. Maybe Samsung should patient launching email by touching a button.
Exactly what kind of "patients" are you referring to?
I'm curious what your point is with your post. On the eve of the iPhone release the announcer is reviewing another phone. We're not talking about before the iPhone was announced, as that was 6 months earlier. It also makes no mention of Neonode having any patents on slide to unlock, if that is your point. In fact there is nothing in the video to suggest that Neonode didn't get the idea for slide to unlock until after seeing Apple's January 2007 demo.
Did you watch the video?
The answers to your questions are there.
The Neonode pre-dates the iPhone with 2-3 years. I posted the link because I actually remember the device being talked about in the Swedish tech magasines in 2005-2006.
The Neonode did not get the idea about slide-to-unlock from Apple. Apple is the copyist here.
Um, Samsung's patent in question most likely falls under FRAND whereas Apple's do not, hence the unfair part.
Why is that unfair?
Please elaborate. Why would a rational person invest time and resources to invent anything if a competitor can simply copy it for free?
Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.
Please elaborate. Why would a rational person invest time and resources to invent anything if a competitor can simply copy it for free?
The issue starts to occur, though, to when or what exactly that ensues. It's okay if Apple does it. They spent R&D. But what if another company wants to play the game and that will DIRECTLY affect the iPhone? I undrstand patents....but you do understand patents right? They're not meant to be held on forever. They're supposed to be used to recoup the costs for R&D and after a number of years it's all fair game.
That's why you don't seen generic perscritptioins for certain items (like viagra) for a number of years until it's established. Then you'll start seeign them at Walgreen's.
Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.
This.
Why is that unfair?
It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.
But I've read that there is no provision in iOS for disabling it, and can only be done after jailbreaking it.
I'd just like to turn the device on, without the unnecessary step of having to unlock it. If I felt the need to have that for security or something, I think it should be a user-enabled feature. They do without it on the iPad if you have the smart cover, with its 'wake from sleep' feature.
It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.
Yes, that part is unfair. Samsung can not legally obtain an injunction over a FRAND patent. They can, however, file a lawsuit to try to collect royalties.
It sounded like you were arguing the opposite.
Old indeed: it was dismissed in the Dutch courts months ago:
Aug 24, 2011
Dutch judge considers Apple's slide-to-unlock patent trivial and likely invalid
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...-slide-to.html
It'll be interesting to see if it survives in the States.
It's irrelevant as to what a judge thinks. They can only state their opinion. The ruling must be investigated and made by the relevant patent bodies.
Yes, that part is unfair. Samsung can not legally obtain an injunction over a FRAND patent. They can, however, file a lawsuit to try to collect royalties.
It sounded like you were arguing the opposite.
Nope, basically what you said. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Software patents are irrational. They go against the entire concept of what the patent system was developed to accomplish.
And can you give a good list of reasons why?
Fools. This device is installed wrong. The opening to remove the slider should be on the other side!
Why is that unfair?
Because it protects some and not others. I meant, if Samsung had a patent where Apple suddenly couldn't use their attenna design or tech...then would that be fair or unfair?
Again, I wonder if half of this stuff is because it's Apple. I'm seriously tired of these patent wars. It's good to protect your stuff, but not if everyone's gonna be like 'well, I have this!'.
It's unfair for Samsung to try to use a patent against Apple that they are required to license at a fair price.
Wait, I'm so confused now.
Wait, I'm so confused now.
See post #50
Fools. This device is installed wrong. The opening to remove the slider should be on the other side!
Yes! I knew there was something wrong with the picture. Now, why is the picture wrong?
This.
If software patents shouldn't be allowed then you are saying a company could copy the exact look and feel of Mac OS X and iOS without repercussion? Really?
And can you give a good list of reasons why?
Because a patent is supposed to represent something physical that someone came up with on his own. It's not supposed to represent an implementation of stuff we all use on a regular basis.
Look, I love Apple. And I have no problem with them doing this, as it represents the whole picture of companies going against each other, all the time. But the idea that you can patent a "slide to unlock" implementation is ridiculous.
Or am I completely wrong, here?
The issue starts to occur, though, to when or what exactly that ensues. It's okay if Apple does it. They spent R&D. But what if another company wants to play the game and that will DIRECTLY affect the iPhone? I undrstand patents....but you do understand patents right? They're not meant to be held on forever. They're supposed to be used to recoup the costs for R&D and after a number of years it's all fair game.
Yeah. 20 years. So feel free to copy Apple's patented technology after 20 years - if you think anyone will care at that time.
It's irrelevant as to what a judge thinks. They can only state their opinion. The ruling must be investigated and made by the relevant patent bodies.
Not true. A court can invalidate a patent. However, the Dutch judge did not do so. S/he merely said that there were questions as to the validity that would have to be addressed.
Because it protects some and not others. I meant, if Samsung had a patent where Apple suddenly couldn't use their attenna design or tech...then would that be fair or unfair? .
If it was required for interoperability and therefore fell under FRAND rules, then Samsung would be forced to license it, and it would be a non-issue.
OTOH, if it were something NOT required by FRAND, then Samsung would have every right to enforce their patent and to refuse to license it.
What part of this is too difficult for you?