Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin I wouldn't put it past them to get away with not paying for FRAND licensing or even attempting to pay for it. Now if Nokia tried to do to Google and Asus what they did with Apple over standard essential patents then I can see it differently but all that seems unlikely.
You obviously don't understand how patent law works. You don't get to not pay just because you don't make money. Further, Apple and Nokia never disagreed that Apple had to pay for a license. The disagreement was over price and terms.
You obviously don't understand how patent law works. You don't get to not pay just because you don't make money. Further, Apple and Nokia never disagreed that Apple had to pay for a license. The disagreement was over price and terms.
I see why people are reading my comment wrong. I did fail obscure the meaning by not adding "try to"
This is just my opinion. I think these patent lawsuits are getting way out of hand. My advice is to the US Congress to rewrite the patent laws. This is how I'd do it:
1. Make patents legal only for 5 years and can't be renewed, so after that time the patent becomes public domain.
2. Patent applications must be accompanied with a working prototype that shows the IP actually works.
3. No vague ideas can be patentable without a product that shows it working before a patent can be issued.
IMHO, patents do not truly breed competition. The way it is now the patent system only maintains the status quo. If technology innovators can't make money after 5 years of exclusivity, by competing in the market place, then these patent holders are being anti-competitive by holding back smaller or other device makers through licensing disputes and endless lawsuits.
1. Make patents legal only for 5 years and can't be renewed, so after that time the patent becomes public domain.
Then no one uses patents and instead uses copyrights, which don't become public domain for the rest of eternity (because Disney will simply extend the length of copyright). The line here is so blurred… And good luck getting anyone in Congress with a mind of their own to propose this, much less vote on it.
2. Patent applications must be accompanied with a working prototype that shows the IP actually works.
That kills off the ideas of actual small inventors, wouldn't it? Not everyone can afford to make a prototype, and just "selling the idea" to a company that can wouldn't net them anywhere near what a legitimate patent would.
If technology innovators can't make money after 5 years of exclusivity, by competing in the market place, then these patent holders are being anti-competitive by holding back smaller or other device makers through licensing disputes and endless lawsuits.
I'd think more if they can't make money after five years, the idea wasn't that good to begin with.
I'd think more if they can't make money after five years, the idea wasn't that good to begin with.
Personally I think generally restricting software protection to copyright rather than patent is a great idea. So what if you can't copy it for umpteen years. Isn't that what everyone wants, the copying to stop?It would be darn easy to recognize copyright infringement compared to patent and remove most excuses that "we didn't know".
This is just my opinion. I think these patent lawsuits are getting way out of hand. My advice is to the US Congress to rewrite the patent laws. This is how I'd do it:
1. Make patents legal only for 5 years and can't be renewed, so after that time the patent becomes public domain.
Congratulations. You just killed innovation.
In many fields, it takes the better part of 5 years to bring a new technology to market. Engineering. Prototypes. Field testing. Revisions. Certifications. Marketing. Ramp up of production. Etc. For example, in pharmaceuticals, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have a product on the market less than 7 or 8 years after filing for the patent - so your scheme would remove any chance of intellectual property protection and guarantee that companies would not receive any benefit for their R&D investment. Better to let others innovate and simply copy.
2. Patent applications must be accompanied with a working prototype that shows the IP actually works.
Really? So if I invent a technology that can improve the operation of a nuclear power plant or integrated circuit manufacture, I have to deliver a nuclear power plant or IC manufacturing facility to the USPTO? Very clever.
3. No vague ideas can be patentable without a product that shows it working before a patent can be issued.
It's already true that vague ideas can't be patented and that a patent can only be granted for a workable technology. Perhaps you should start by learning how the system works before you criticize it.
That is, of course, nonsense. Without patent protection, many people would not bother with R&D. The ability to protect your invention that encourages many people to invest in R&D.
The way it is now the patent system only maintains the status quo. If technology innovators can't make money after 5 years of exclusivity, by competing in the market place, then these patent holders are being anti-competitive by holding back smaller or other device makers through licensing disputes and endless lawsuits.
You've got it backwards. Patents protect the small guy and help to create an opportunity to change the status quo.
There are a relatively small number of auto makers. Let's say that you invent something that improves cars. Without patent protection, the big guys could simply use your invention and there's nothing you could do about it unless you have the resources to set up your own car manufacturer. With patents, you can benefit from your invention (this actually happened with the intermittent windshield wiper). Patents allow outsiders to bring new technologies into a market and obtain some rewards for their efforts. Without IP protection, the big guys would simply copy everything in sight and it would be nearly impossible to challenge them. Ever.
In many fields, it takes the better part of 5 years to bring a new technology to market. Engineering. Prototypes. Field testing. Revisions. Certifications. Marketing. Ramp up of production. Etc. For example, in pharmaceuticals, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have a product on the market less than 7 or 8 years after filing for the patent - so your scheme would remove any chance of intellectual property protection and guarantee that companies would not receive any benefit for their R&D investment. Better to let others innovate and simply copy.
Five years from product launch in the electronics industry is a lifetime. Would you buy a five year old Mac? iPhone? Let's say the law was fixed to say software or any computer code can not be copyrighted and only given as a patent, then you apply and get an interim patent from the prototype and when the product is launched you get only five years exclusivity. A marketing lifetime. Then it must be put in the public domain, no exceptions. Watch the never-ending lawsuits fade to manageable proportions.
Sure the little inventor who can"t find venture capital will have to sell his ideas until he/she earns enough or finds funding. That's life. I can't afford to prototype my ideas either. Just as Apple would need to file things with the regulators before they make certain things, manufacturers will be mandated to do a patent search for interim applications. Just like they have to do now. Stiff penalties for copy infringement can protect the victim's R&D.
Jragosta, you are always being cynical and bad-mouthing or belittling posters here, so I never expect anything different from you, but at least I made a layman's solution. Since you are obviously expert in all things technology (or think you are), how about giving us solutions instead of criticizing other when they try.
In many fields, it takes the better part of 5 years to bring a new technology to market. Engineering. Prototypes. Field testing. Revisions. Certifications. Marketing. Ramp up of production. Etc. For example, in pharmaceuticals, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have a product on the market less than 7 or 8 years after filing for the patent - so your scheme would remove any chance of intellectual property protection and guarantee that companies would not receive any benefit for their R&D investment. Better to let others innovate and simply copy.
Really? So if I invent a technology that can improve the operation of a nuclear power plant or integrated circuit manufacture, I have to deliver a nuclear power plant or IC manufacturing facility to the USPTO? Very clever.
It's already true that vague ideas can't be patented and that a patent can only be granted for a workable technology. Perhaps you should start by learning how the system works before you criticize it.
That is, of course, nonsense. Without patent protection, many people would not bother with R&D. The ability to protect your invention that encourages many people to invest in R&D.
You've got it backwards. Patents protect the small guy and help to create an opportunity to change the status quo.
There are a relatively small number of auto makers. Let's say that you invent something that improves cars. Without patent protection, the big guys could simply use your invention and there's nothing you could do about it unless you have the resources to set up your own car manufacturer. With patents, you can benefit from your invention (this actually happened with the intermittent windshield wiper). Patents allow outsiders to bring new technologies into a market and obtain some rewards for their efforts. Without IP protection, the big guys would simply copy everything in sight and it would be nearly impossible to challenge them. Ever.
As usual the rest of your tripe doesn't deserve my time to answer. Gimme a break with the nuke plant. Sheesh! Is there a single patent for a nuclear power plant or a whole facility of any kind for that matter? I could go on but I won't.
An argument in support might be that those selling higher-priced devices get more revenue per device and thus derive more value from the IP. It's only "fair" to share in their success since that IP made your product possible in the first place.
That's rather silly logic.
The technologies in question involve things like making phone calls or data transfer. Why would a phone call be more valuable or the transfer of data be more valuable because it was made from an expensive phone?
Five years from product launch in the electronics industry is a lifetime. Would you buy a five year old Mac? iPhone? Let's say the law was fixed to say software or any computer code can not be copyrighted and only given as a patent, then you apply and get an interim patent from the prototype and when the product is launched you get only five years exclusivity. A marketing lifetime. Then it must be put in the public domain, no exceptions. Watch the never-ending lawsuits fade to manageable proportions.
First, even in the electronics industry, patents are valuable for much longer than 5 years. Ask Intel how long it has been working on 22 nm process technology or 3D transistor technology.
Second, the electronics industry is not the only industry out there. In the pharmaceutical industry, you're lucky if you can even get your product on the market in 10 years. What do you suggest - that every industry should have a different patent life? So now we can add an entirely new battle to the patent regime (as everyone wants to fight over what category their patent is in)?
And then, of course, you get into the arbitrary distinction between software and hardware. Is the code Intel uses in a CPU's firmware hardware or software?
Sure the little inventor who can"t find venture capital will have to sell his ideas until he/she earns enough or finds funding. That's life. I can't afford to prototype my ideas either. Just as Apple would need to file things with the regulators before they make certain things, manufacturers will be mandated to do a patent search for interim applications. Just like they have to do now. Stiff penalties for copy infringement can protect the victim's R&D.
Think about it. If the small inventor can't get a patent, who's going to pay him for his invention? Big companies can just steal it. Or, at the very least, the big company has all the leverage, so the small guy gets screwed big time.
Jragosta, you are always being cynical and bad-mouthing or belittling posters here, so I never expect anything different from you, but at least I made a layman's solution. Since you are obviously expert in all things technology (or think you are), how about giving us solutions instead of criticizing other when they try.
I don't need to have a solution to know a terrible idea when I see one.
But since you ask, my solution would be for patent cases to be heard by a panel of paid experts in the field of technology covered by the patent. Loser pays the legal expenses for the winner. And get USPTO to hire subject matter experts.
As usual the rest of your tripe doesn't deserve my time to answer. Gimme a break with the nuke plant. Sheesh! Is there a single patent for a nuclear power plant or a whole facility of any kind for that matter? I could go on but I won't.
There are thousands (probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of patents involving a nuclear plant. If I design a new fuel configuration, for example, and if your proposal is adopted (requiring me to show a working model to the patent office), how do I prove that it works without building a nuclear plant?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As usual, GoogleGuy can't be bothered to read and respond to what I wrote so he has to resort to straw man arguments.
I never made any such claim.
Good lord, who said you did claim that? I did tell you a few things you DID claim. Could you be bothered to read and respond to those?
EDIT: 9 hours later and as I expected, you can't. Typical.
About time that Nokia started suing these Android thieves.
Absolutely. They already had to sue those Apple "thieves" over FRAND patents and it's only right they go after those Google "thieves" too.
and yes, put in perspective it sounds absolutely silly to say "thieves" doesn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Absolutely. They already had to sue those Apple "thieves" over FRAND patents and it's only right they go after those Google "thieves" too.
and yes, put in perspective it sounds absolutely silly to say "thieves" doesn't it.
Pretty sure it's only appropriate to call them thieves when they are manufactures of which I am not a fanboy¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin I wouldn't put it past them to get away with not paying for FRAND licensing or even attempting to pay for it. Now if Nokia tried to do to Google and Asus what they did with Apple over standard essential patents then I can see it differently but all that seems unlikely.
You obviously don't understand how patent law works. You don't get to not pay just because you don't make money. Further, Apple and Nokia never disagreed that Apple had to pay for a license. The disagreement was over price and terms.
I see why people are reading my comment wrong. I did fail obscure the meaning by not adding "try to"
This is just my opinion. I think these patent lawsuits are getting way out of hand. My advice is to the US Congress to rewrite the patent laws. This is how I'd do it:
1. Make patents legal only for 5 years and can't be renewed, so after that time the patent becomes public domain.
2. Patent applications must be accompanied with a working prototype that shows the IP actually works.
3. No vague ideas can be patentable without a product that shows it working before a patent can be issued.
IMHO, patents do not truly breed competition. The way it is now the patent system only maintains the status quo. If technology innovators can't make money after 5 years of exclusivity, by competing in the market place, then these patent holders are being anti-competitive by holding back smaller or other device makers through licensing disputes and endless lawsuits.
Then no one uses patents and instead uses copyrights, which don't become public domain for the rest of eternity (because Disney will simply extend the length of copyright). The line here is so blurred… And good luck getting anyone in Congress with a mind of their own to propose this, much less vote on it.
That kills off the ideas of actual small inventors, wouldn't it? Not everyone can afford to make a prototype, and just "selling the idea" to a company that can wouldn't net them anywhere near what a legitimate patent would.
I'd think more if they can't make money after five years, the idea wasn't that good to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'd think more if they can't make money after five years, the idea wasn't that good to begin with.
Personally I think generally restricting software protection to copyright rather than patent is a great idea. So what if you can't copy it for umpteen years. Isn't that what everyone wants, the copying to stop?It would be darn easy to recognize copyright infringement compared to patent and remove most excuses that "we didn't know".
Congratulations. You just killed innovation.
In many fields, it takes the better part of 5 years to bring a new technology to market. Engineering. Prototypes. Field testing. Revisions. Certifications. Marketing. Ramp up of production. Etc. For example, in pharmaceuticals, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have a product on the market less than 7 or 8 years after filing for the patent - so your scheme would remove any chance of intellectual property protection and guarantee that companies would not receive any benefit for their R&D investment. Better to let others innovate and simply copy.
Really? So if I invent a technology that can improve the operation of a nuclear power plant or integrated circuit manufacture, I have to deliver a nuclear power plant or IC manufacturing facility to the USPTO? Very clever.
It's already true that vague ideas can't be patented and that a patent can only be granted for a workable technology. Perhaps you should start by learning how the system works before you criticize it.
That is, of course, nonsense. Without patent protection, many people would not bother with R&D. The ability to protect your invention that encourages many people to invest in R&D.
You've got it backwards. Patents protect the small guy and help to create an opportunity to change the status quo.
There are a relatively small number of auto makers. Let's say that you invent something that improves cars. Without patent protection, the big guys could simply use your invention and there's nothing you could do about it unless you have the resources to set up your own car manufacturer. With patents, you can benefit from your invention (this actually happened with the intermittent windshield wiper). Patents allow outsiders to bring new technologies into a market and obtain some rewards for their efforts. Without IP protection, the big guys would simply copy everything in sight and it would be nearly impossible to challenge them. Ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'd think more if they can't make money after five years, the idea wasn't that good to begin with.
Yeah sure, but it's an honest start. At least my head is not in the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Congratulations. You just killed innovation.
In many fields, it takes the better part of 5 years to bring a new technology to market. Engineering. Prototypes. Field testing. Revisions. Certifications. Marketing. Ramp up of production. Etc. For example, in pharmaceuticals, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have a product on the market less than 7 or 8 years after filing for the patent - so your scheme would remove any chance of intellectual property protection and guarantee that companies would not receive any benefit for their R&D investment. Better to let others innovate and simply copy.
Five years from product launch in the electronics industry is a lifetime. Would you buy a five year old Mac? iPhone? Let's say the law was fixed to say software or any computer code can not be copyrighted and only given as a patent, then you apply and get an interim patent from the prototype and when the product is launched you get only five years exclusivity. A marketing lifetime. Then it must be put in the public domain, no exceptions. Watch the never-ending lawsuits fade to manageable proportions.
Sure the little inventor who can"t find venture capital will have to sell his ideas until he/she earns enough or finds funding. That's life. I can't afford to prototype my ideas either. Just as Apple would need to file things with the regulators before they make certain things, manufacturers will be mandated to do a patent search for interim applications. Just like they have to do now. Stiff penalties for copy infringement can protect the victim's R&D.
Jragosta, you are always being cynical and bad-mouthing or belittling posters here, so I never expect anything different from you, but at least I made a layman's solution. Since you are obviously expert in all things technology (or think you are), how about giving us solutions instead of criticizing other when they try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Congratulations. You just killed innovation.
In many fields, it takes the better part of 5 years to bring a new technology to market. Engineering. Prototypes. Field testing. Revisions. Certifications. Marketing. Ramp up of production. Etc. For example, in pharmaceuticals, it is very unlikely that you'd ever have a product on the market less than 7 or 8 years after filing for the patent - so your scheme would remove any chance of intellectual property protection and guarantee that companies would not receive any benefit for their R&D investment. Better to let others innovate and simply copy.
Really? So if I invent a technology that can improve the operation of a nuclear power plant or integrated circuit manufacture, I have to deliver a nuclear power plant or IC manufacturing facility to the USPTO? Very clever.
It's already true that vague ideas can't be patented and that a patent can only be granted for a workable technology. Perhaps you should start by learning how the system works before you criticize it.
That is, of course, nonsense. Without patent protection, many people would not bother with R&D. The ability to protect your invention that encourages many people to invest in R&D.
You've got it backwards. Patents protect the small guy and help to create an opportunity to change the status quo.
There are a relatively small number of auto makers. Let's say that you invent something that improves cars. Without patent protection, the big guys could simply use your invention and there's nothing you could do about it unless you have the resources to set up your own car manufacturer. With patents, you can benefit from your invention (this actually happened with the intermittent windshield wiper). Patents allow outsiders to bring new technologies into a market and obtain some rewards for their efforts. Without IP protection, the big guys would simply copy everything in sight and it would be nearly impossible to challenge them. Ever.
As usual the rest of your tripe doesn't deserve my time to answer. Gimme a break with the nuke plant. Sheesh! Is there a single patent for a nuclear power plant or a whole facility of any kind for that matter? I could go on but I won't.
That's rather silly logic.
The technologies in question involve things like making phone calls or data transfer. Why would a phone call be more valuable or the transfer of data be more valuable because it was made from an expensive phone?
First, even in the electronics industry, patents are valuable for much longer than 5 years. Ask Intel how long it has been working on 22 nm process technology or 3D transistor technology.
Second, the electronics industry is not the only industry out there. In the pharmaceutical industry, you're lucky if you can even get your product on the market in 10 years. What do you suggest - that every industry should have a different patent life? So now we can add an entirely new battle to the patent regime (as everyone wants to fight over what category their patent is in)?
And then, of course, you get into the arbitrary distinction between software and hardware. Is the code Intel uses in a CPU's firmware hardware or software?
Think about it. If the small inventor can't get a patent, who's going to pay him for his invention? Big companies can just steal it. Or, at the very least, the big company has all the leverage, so the small guy gets screwed big time.
I don't need to have a solution to know a terrible idea when I see one.
But since you ask, my solution would be for patent cases to be heard by a panel of paid experts in the field of technology covered by the patent. Loser pays the legal expenses for the winner. And get USPTO to hire subject matter experts.
There are thousands (probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of patents involving a nuclear plant. If I design a new fuel configuration, for example, and if your proposal is adopted (requiring me to show a working model to the patent office), how do I prove that it works without building a nuclear plant?