Stepping aside from the silliness of patenting everything, patenting important or key ideas and doing nothing with them also hurts everyone. Patent trolls do this--they grab up patents and produce nothing and litigate based on them.
How does that help innovation? Do you support that?
It allows an inventor the opportunity to sell his patents and make some money off of his invention.
Patent trolls aren't just non practicing entities. In my opinion, a patent troll is someone who threatens to sue over a patent, knowing that the defendant can't afford to litigate, even if they know that the patent is invalid or inapplicable.
Why don't you try again, and this time, tell me why patenting slide to unlock digitally is different than a physical mechanism to slide to unlock a door latch.
The reason Google is helping now is they now own the Motorola IP portfolio which they can license to Samsung if they like which could in turn help them win their case.
It doesn't really help Samsung at all. You can't make legal claims based on tech that you license from an outside party as defense for you violating patents that said party doesn't control
the reason Google is standing up to back Samsung is that they likely make their money based on handsets sold and if Samsung can't sell, Google doesn't get their cut
Another industry source also reportedly indicated that Apple's newly earned injunction barring sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will cost Samsung about $80 million. (...) Apple posted the necessary $2.6 million bond.
The bond figure isn't precisely set to cover the penalized company loses if the injunction is overturned afterward? If yes, as I think it is, that industry source claim doesn't make sense. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 being some old model I doubt that they sell many in the US.
You patent complex algorithms that are business-critical. You don't (and should not be able to) patent generic, overreaching software development constructs like "use of a data structure to relay information." That's insanity. That's like patenting breathing through your mouth.
Nowhere does it say patents have to be complex. In fact, the most brilliant of all patents are the ones that are so simple people say "why didn't I think of that" when they see it.
And why is everyone quoting only the "title" of Apple's data tapping patent and forgetting about the detailed explanation of the patent istself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
FWIW, if/when Google's patent app for the notification bar is approved it probably won't matter where Apple's came from. It may still infringe ( I think most here in AI World just call it stealing. Damn where's that eye-roll smiley when you need it). But that's for some future discussion. By then there may be a cross-licensing agreement in place for all we know.
Do you think the Neonode slide-to-unlock feature qualifies as prior art and therefore invalidates Apple's slide-to-unlock patent, even though they have significant differences?
If so, then you must agree that Google's notification bar patent must also be invalidated since there is significant prior art. Having worked as a software developer since the 80's I've seen numerous "notification" systems that predate both iOS, Android and even Palm.
Apple started with the litigation. Anything against them is in retaliation for their offensive.
Yes, it's a well know fact that when you go to the trouble to create something, then some bugger rips it off and you initiate legal action against them, that you are the one to blame.
Comments
????
"Don't Be Evil. Just Help Evil."
I love the whole Notification Center claim:
Google rips off Apple's entire car design, then complains when Apple rips off the door handle they put in it.
[SIZE=59px]"Don't be evil. Alone."[/SIZE]
Oh gosh, yes. I'm totally going to abuse this.
And since emoji are vector-based and considered text…
[SIZE=200px]????[/SIZE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
????
So it's okay for Apple to do it, but not okay for the reverse?
Not that I agree with it either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
I love the whole Notification Center claim:
Google rips off Apple's entire car design, then complains when Apple rips off the door handle they put in it.
This is the definition of hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Stepping aside from the silliness of patenting everything, patenting important or key ideas and doing nothing with them also hurts everyone. Patent trolls do this--they grab up patents and produce nothing and litigate based on them.
How does that help innovation? Do you support that?
It allows an inventor the opportunity to sell his patents and make some money off of his invention.
Patent trolls aren't just non practicing entities. In my opinion, a patent troll is someone who threatens to sue over a patent, knowing that the defendant can't afford to litigate, even if they know that the patent is invalid or inapplicable.
This amounts to extortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
This is the definition of hypocrisy.
And how do you rip off 'open source' anyway?
(>_<)
Why don't you try again, and this time, tell me why patenting slide to unlock digitally is different than a physical mechanism to slide to unlock a door latch.
Gawd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
The reason Google is helping now is they now own the Motorola IP portfolio which they can license to Samsung if they like which could in turn help them win their case.
It doesn't really help Samsung at all. You can't make legal claims based on tech that you license from an outside party as defense for you violating patents that said party doesn't control
the reason Google is standing up to back Samsung is that they likely make their money based on handsets sold and if Samsung can't sell, Google doesn't get their cut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
The patent system is broken.
If every company litigated like Apple, one of two things would happen:
many of them already do. mainly against Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
many of them already do. mainly against Apple.
lol?
Apple started with the litigation. Anything against them is in retaliation for their offensive.
Uh… huh…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Uh… huh…
Hard-hitting comments straight from the Apple camp, folks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
This is the definition of hypocrisy.
A snowflake & an avalanche are not the same thing just because both of then contain snow.
I am now certain you have no clue where you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Another industry source also reportedly indicated that Apple's newly earned injunction barring sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will cost Samsung about $80 million. (...) Apple posted the necessary $2.6 million bond.
The bond figure isn't precisely set to cover the penalized company loses if the injunction is overturned afterward? If yes, as I think it is, that industry source claim doesn't make sense. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 being some old model I doubt that they sell many in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
You patent complex algorithms that are business-critical. You don't (and should not be able to) patent generic, overreaching software development constructs like "use of a data structure to relay information." That's insanity. That's like patenting breathing through your mouth.
Nowhere does it say patents have to be complex. In fact, the most brilliant of all patents are the ones that are so simple people say "why didn't I think of that" when they see it.
And why is everyone quoting only the "title" of Apple's data tapping patent and forgetting about the detailed explanation of the patent istself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
FWIW, if/when Google's patent app for the notification bar is approved it probably won't matter where Apple's came from. It may still infringe ( I think most here in AI World just call it stealing. Damn where's that eye-roll smiley when you need it). But that's for some future discussion. By then there may be a cross-licensing agreement in place for all we know.
Do you think the Neonode slide-to-unlock feature qualifies as prior art and therefore invalidates Apple's slide-to-unlock patent, even though they have significant differences?
If so, then you must agree that Google's notification bar patent must also be invalidated since there is significant prior art. Having worked as a software developer since the 80's I've seen numerous "notification" systems that predate both iOS, Android and even Palm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
lol?
Apple started with the litigation. Anything against them is in retaliation for their offensive.
Yes, it's a well know fact that when you go to the trouble to create something, then some bugger rips it off and you initiate legal action against them, that you are the one to blame.
Your leaps of logic are impressive.