So, Google fell for the bait Steve promised when he warned Google he was going to go thermonuclear on them. Good! Jobs mentored Brin and Page and lent Schmidt credibility by gifting him a seat on Apple's board and those slimy MFs spit in Jobs' face and stole his intellectual property. Google has lost any mojo it had and is now just a copycat Microsoft wannabe.
You're projecting your own opinions here, rather than relaying factual evidence. There's no way to back up a claim that he was gifted a position. Do you feel someone else would have been a more logical choice, or are you just coasting on animosity here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Here's a hint: There are many patents that cover tires and shoes. Also, comparison of tires or shoes to Apple's products is irrelevant. Patents covering basic phones have been around for many years, but Apple's phone is a computer that has phone function and all of the patents that require the application of FRAND are licensed by Apple and every other manufacturer.
Hey for once I agree with you. Car analogies are dumb, and arguments require context. Some of the articles in the past have suggested that Apple was previously contacted on these FRAND patents and supposedly offered the same basis for licensing fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or:
3. Companies would start respecting intellectual property and not making such obvious efforts to steal others' intellectual property.
Exactly. There's no such thing as a patent troll.
I've been asking of rmonths and no one has given an explanation. Why would that be justified?
For example, let's say you own a building and don't rent it to anyone. Does that make you a real estate troll and I should be able to move into the building without permission?
Maybe you own a piece of farm land and don't farm it. Does that make you a farm troll and I should be able to plant my garden there?
Or maybe you own a second car which you don't use. By your logic, I should be able to come take the car because you're a car troll.
Patents are property. They have property rights and the owner is free to do whatever he wants with the patent. Including nothing.
People make spec purchases of homes and buildings all the time, holding them just long enough to count as capital gains rather than an income gain when they flip them whenever possible. It does have an adverse effect. It drives up real estate costs, even in the absence of good fundamentals. Look at what happened a few years ago when this was combined with loose lending policies (although lenders stopped issuing many of those types of loans long before the real problems). Anyway I'm going off topic. They're different things. In the case of patents, if something is determined necessary, it typically becomes part of a standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Google seems to be taking to patent trolling like a duck to water.
Here's some advice for both Google and Samsung to fend off Apple - STOP COPYING APPLE'S STUFF!
It's bad enough that Google's Android is/was a knockoff of iOS, but Samsung took it one step further and copied Apple's Design/hardware/packaging/etc...
Samsung has lost my business. It's bad enough that my Apple products have Samsung components in them, that's just the way the business is, but if I need to buy any end-product with a Samsung logo on it, I'll just keep right on going to someone else's.
Bunch of thieves they are... oh right, the CEO is a mobster, bribed his way out of jail, and obviously believes he is above the law.
Spot on. I feel the same way. Never ever buy another Samsung product
How many different ways can you explain "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data."? I challenge you to try. As a hint, any piece of information on any computer is part of a data structure. Literally everything in software is part of a data structure.
The title of a patent is meaningless. So is the abstract and the description. The only part of a patent that really matters is the claims. So don't complain because a patent has a generic title.
People make spec purchases of homes and buildings all the time, holding them just long enough to count as capital gains rather than an income gain when they flip them whenever possible. It does have an adverse effect. It drives up real estate costs, even in the absence of good fundamentals. Look at what happened a few years ago when this was combined with loose lending policies (although lenders stopped issuing many of those types of loans long before the real problems). Anyway I'm going off topic.
What does that have to do with the concept of a 'patent troll' or even a 'real estate troll'? In the case of spec homes, the home clearly has an owner at all times and no one has any right to use the home other than the owner. You can not say "that home is empty, so the owner is a real estate troll, so I'll move my own goods in".
The title of a patent is meaningless. So is the abstract and the description. The only part of a patent that really matters is the claims. So don't complain because a patent has a generic title.
... but feel free to complain about the generic and all-encompassing claims.
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
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.
That's silly. People sue all the time for things that have a weak basis in the law. That doesn't make them trolls.
Furthermore, you're defining patent troll entirely different than anyone else.
I think perhaps we're both taking the extreme side of patents. You're defending the perfect use case, I'm angry about the worst-case scenarios. While our current system may encourage your points, you must also concede that it allows too much negative freedom, including "patent trolling"--litigating companies with no objective to create patented material, asking for unreasonable prices, etc.
And that doesn't do a thing to address the main issue. Patents are PROPERTY. The owner can do whatever they want with it. If they want to charge too much money, then no one has to license it (other than standards essential patents, but that's different). If they don't want to license the patent at all, they're hurting themselves, but no more than a building owner who declines to rent his building. If you own a property (including intellectual property), you have the right to do whatever you want with it (within the law, of course). The fact that some whiners on an internet forum don't like it is completely irrelevant.
There's a reason people are angry about "patent trolling"--and a reason people want reform. I don't want to remove any of the reasons you cited for encouraging development or owning materials, but I do want to do away with the negatives that are also possible with our current system.
Wikipedia's entry on Patent Trolling is a good read.
There's nothing there that changes reality, either. A property owner has every right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you (or wikipedia) likes it is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's OK for a real estate owner or farmer to keep people off of their land even if they're not using it, but not for a patent owner.
Can real property be taken from an unwilling-to-sell owner, properly paid of course?
Yes. But only in specific cases:
1. Case of eminent domain. If the government can argue that it is in the public's interest to do so, the property can be sold by court order. Until the last decade or so, this was only used when the government wanted to use the land itself. Recent court decisions have allowed it to happen when it is considered to be in the public's interest for a private firm to get the land. That establishes a very dangerous precedent, IMHO, and I'm not sure that it has made it to the Supreme Court.
2. Previous agreements. If there was an agreement to sell and then a dispute arose, the court can order that the agreement is still binding and order the property sold.
3. Liens or judgments. A property can be ordered sold in the case of liens or judgments.
But none of those applies in the Kodak / Apple case.
There's nothing there that changes reality, either. A property owner has every right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you (or wikipedia) likes it is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's OK for a real estate owner or farmer to keep people off of their land even if they're not using it, but not for a patent owner.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Just because you own an acre somewhere doesn't prevent me from owning a seperate acre elsewhere.
If this were the software patent world, it would.
I'm really at a loss as to how one can argue that Google took Slide to Unlock from Apple (when there is prior art on a wealth of devices), but can then turn the other way and say that iOS had and/or invented the Notification Shade and didn't take that from Android.
To be honest, both are an evolution of software and have their roots in earlier products--and to claim ownership either way is ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that complex, business-specific algorithms should be patentable. Again, the user-music matchmaking that iTunes uses to present to you music that it believes you'll enjoy--that is enforceable. (As a plus, it's hidden away, and nobody outside of Apple's engineers should ever see that code first-hand, making a true "infringement" neigh impossible, at least in concept.) Look and feel, user interface and experience is something that we learn from and all interact with.
Where would we be without the first early monitor? The mouse? Would we even have the concept of icons representing applications that one could click on to launch software? Everything we have now is a descendant of what's come before us, and we'll only continue to grow and innovate by experimenting and creating new devices, interfaces and experiences, and taking from them the best concepts to continue improving.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Just because you own an acre somewhere doesn't prevent me from owning a seperate acre elsewhere.
If this were the software patent world, it would.
No, it doesn't. Just because I own a software patent doesn't prevent you from owning a different software patent somewhere else.
A patent grants specific ownership of a specific invention. It doesn't prevent others from creating or buying their own inventions.
Similarly, a title grants specific ownership of a piece of land. It doesn't prevent others from buying other land somewhere else.
In fact, a patent is even less restrictive because there is no obvious limit to the number of inventions that can be made so someone else still has a limitless supply of new inventions open to them. Land, OTOH, is limited (other than expensive land reclamation projects) and you can't simply go out and find new land.
Why is it acceptable to slightly modify something in Public Domain and patent it? And where is the limit? There doesn't appear to be one.
In my first post I said that something like an Apple-specific music matching algorithm for iTunes is one thing, but these sorts of patents are another altogether. These types of functions are publicly known and understood fundamentally by any modern human. Sliding to unlock is a simple UI action. There's no business-specific special logic that's critical to Apple.
The concept of "slide to unlock" used as a function to access a phone was not fundamentaly understood or used before the iPhone. It solves a specific problem related to touch devices.
Whether you think it deserving or not, it IS patented. Considering how simple it is and how many other ways the same task can be accomplished it need not be a "FRAND" patent or any kind of standard either. Samsung would have gotten away with it if their method did not resemble Apples method.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
So, Google fell for the bait Steve promised when he warned Google he was going to go thermonuclear on them. Good! Jobs mentored Brin and Page and lent Schmidt credibility by gifting him a seat on Apple's board and those slimy MFs spit in Jobs' face and stole his intellectual property. Google has lost any mojo it had and is now just a copycat Microsoft wannabe.
You're projecting your own opinions here, rather than relaying factual evidence. There's no way to back up a claim that he was gifted a position. Do you feel someone else would have been a more logical choice, or are you just coasting on animosity here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Here's a hint: There are many patents that cover tires and shoes. Also, comparison of tires or shoes to Apple's products is irrelevant. Patents covering basic phones have been around for many years, but Apple's phone is a computer that has phone function and all of the patents that require the application of FRAND are licensed by Apple and every other manufacturer.
Hey for once I agree with you. Car analogies are dumb, and arguments require context. Some of the articles in the past have suggested that Apple was previously contacted on these FRAND patents and supposedly offered the same basis for licensing fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or:
3. Companies would start respecting intellectual property and not making such obvious efforts to steal others' intellectual property.
Exactly. There's no such thing as a patent troll.
I've been asking of rmonths and no one has given an explanation. Why would that be justified?
For example, let's say you own a building and don't rent it to anyone. Does that make you a real estate troll and I should be able to move into the building without permission?
Maybe you own a piece of farm land and don't farm it. Does that make you a farm troll and I should be able to plant my garden there?
Or maybe you own a second car which you don't use. By your logic, I should be able to come take the car because you're a car troll.
Patents are property. They have property rights and the owner is free to do whatever he wants with the patent. Including nothing.
People make spec purchases of homes and buildings all the time, holding them just long enough to count as capital gains rather than an income gain when they flip them whenever possible. It does have an adverse effect. It drives up real estate costs, even in the absence of good fundamentals. Look at what happened a few years ago when this was combined with loose lending policies (although lenders stopped issuing many of those types of loans long before the real problems). Anyway I'm going off topic. They're different things. In the case of patents, if something is determined necessary, it typically becomes part of a standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Google seems to be taking to patent trolling like a duck to water.
In what way are they patent trolling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Here's some advice for both Google and Samsung to fend off Apple - STOP COPYING APPLE'S STUFF!
It's bad enough that Google's Android is/was a knockoff of iOS, but Samsung took it one step further and copied Apple's Design/hardware/packaging/etc...
Samsung has lost my business. It's bad enough that my Apple products have Samsung components in them, that's just the way the business is, but if I need to buy any end-product with a Samsung logo on it, I'll just keep right on going to someone else's.
Bunch of thieves they are... oh right, the CEO is a mobster, bribed his way out of jail, and obviously believes he is above the law.
Spot on. I feel the same way. Never ever buy another Samsung product
In before the trolls say that you had better stop buying Apple products, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
How many different ways can you explain "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data."? I challenge you to try. As a hint, any piece of information on any computer is part of a data structure. Literally everything in software is part of a data structure.
The title of a patent is meaningless. So is the abstract and the description. The only part of a patent that really matters is the claims. So don't complain because a patent has a generic title.
What does that have to do with the concept of a 'patent troll' or even a 'real estate troll'? In the case of spec homes, the home clearly has an owner at all times and no one has any right to use the home other than the owner. You can not say "that home is empty, so the owner is a real estate troll, so I'll move my own goods in".
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
The title of a patent is meaningless. So is the abstract and the description. The only part of a patent that really matters is the claims. So don't complain because a patent has a generic title.
... but feel free to complain about the generic and all-encompassing claims.
That's silly. People sue all the time for things that have a weak basis in the law. That doesn't make them trolls.
Furthermore, you're defining patent troll entirely different than anyone else.
And that doesn't do a thing to address the main issue. Patents are PROPERTY. The owner can do whatever they want with it. If they want to charge too much money, then no one has to license it (other than standards essential patents, but that's different). If they don't want to license the patent at all, they're hurting themselves, but no more than a building owner who declines to rent his building. If you own a property (including intellectual property), you have the right to do whatever you want with it (within the law, of course). The fact that some whiners on an internet forum don't like it is completely irrelevant.
There's nothing there that changes reality, either. A property owner has every right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you (or wikipedia) likes it is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's OK for a real estate owner or farmer to keep people off of their land even if they're not using it, but not for a patent owner.
Can real property be taken from an unwilling-to-sell owner, properly paid of course?
Yes. But only in specific cases:
1. Case of eminent domain. If the government can argue that it is in the public's interest to do so, the property can be sold by court order. Until the last decade or so, this was only used when the government wanted to use the land itself. Recent court decisions have allowed it to happen when it is considered to be in the public's interest for a private firm to get the land. That establishes a very dangerous precedent, IMHO, and I'm not sure that it has made it to the Supreme Court.
2. Previous agreements. If there was an agreement to sell and then a dispute arose, the court can order that the agreement is still binding and order the property sold.
3. Liens or judgments. A property can be ordered sold in the case of liens or judgments.
But none of those applies in the Kodak / Apple case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But none of those applies in the Kodak / Apple case.
Didn't say it did. Just establishing some facts for a future discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There's nothing there that changes reality, either. A property owner has every right to do whatever they want with their property. Whether you (or wikipedia) likes it is irrelevant.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's OK for a real estate owner or farmer to keep people off of their land even if they're not using it, but not for a patent owner.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Just because you own an acre somewhere doesn't prevent me from owning a seperate acre elsewhere.
If this were the software patent world, it would.
I'm really at a loss as to how one can argue that Google took Slide to Unlock from Apple (when there is prior art on a wealth of devices), but can then turn the other way and say that iOS had and/or invented the Notification Shade and didn't take that from Android.
To be honest, both are an evolution of software and have their roots in earlier products--and to claim ownership either way is ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that complex, business-specific algorithms should be patentable. Again, the user-music matchmaking that iTunes uses to present to you music that it believes you'll enjoy--that is enforceable. (As a plus, it's hidden away, and nobody outside of Apple's engineers should ever see that code first-hand, making a true "infringement" neigh impossible, at least in concept.) Look and feel, user interface and experience is something that we learn from and all interact with.
Where would we be without the first early monitor? The mouse? Would we even have the concept of icons representing applications that one could click on to launch software? Everything we have now is a descendant of what's come before us, and we'll only continue to grow and innovate by experimenting and creating new devices, interfaces and experiences, and taking from them the best concepts to continue improving.
No, it doesn't. Just because I own a software patent doesn't prevent you from owning a different software patent somewhere else.
A patent grants specific ownership of a specific invention. It doesn't prevent others from creating or buying their own inventions.
Similarly, a title grants specific ownership of a piece of land. It doesn't prevent others from buying other land somewhere else.
In fact, a patent is even less restrictive because there is no obvious limit to the number of inventions that can be made so someone else still has a limitless supply of new inventions open to them. Land, OTOH, is limited (other than expensive land reclamation projects) and you can't simply go out and find new land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Thank you, Jonorom. That's my point. Public Domain.
So can you now explain to me how Apple was able to patent this concept, which broadly defines a Hyperlink, when it existed prior in HTML?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5946647.html
Why is it acceptable to slightly modify something in Public Domain and patent it? And where is the limit? There doesn't appear to be one.
In my first post I said that something like an Apple-specific music matching algorithm for iTunes is one thing, but these sorts of patents are another altogether. These types of functions are publicly known and understood fundamentally by any modern human. Sliding to unlock is a simple UI action. There's no business-specific special logic that's critical to Apple.
The concept of "slide to unlock" used as a function to access a phone was not fundamentaly understood or used before the iPhone. It solves a specific problem related to touch devices.
Whether you think it deserving or not, it IS patented. Considering how simple it is and how many other ways the same task can be accomplished it need not be a "FRAND" patent or any kind of standard either. Samsung would have gotten away with it if their method did not resemble Apples method.