I don't understand why people want software copywritten instead of patented.
Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.
That's good. Nobody should ever be allowed to copy Siri's binary and make it run on a Windows phone (without Apple's consent). Nobody should be allowed to use Apple's source code without their consent either. 10 years from now, 50 years from now, ever. Same with trademark - nobody should be allowed to release a phone called the iPhone, or a piece of software called Siri, or put the Apple logo on their device, except for Apple. I'm totally happy with Apple having a monopoly on the term "iPad". I don't think that anyone would disagree here. I think that is more than enough to protect Apple's brand and products.
Patents are about limited monopolies over ideas, and in the case of software patents, over very vague and broad ideas. So someone gets a monopoly over the idea of swiping on a screen to unlock it - not a profound. What if Microsoft had patented the popup soft keyboard on a mobile device (which they had in Windows Mobile long before the iPhone), and had been granted an injunction against the iPhone and iPad - would you be championing their right to do this, and lambasting Apple for ripping off Microsoft's ideas? I bet not. Even worse, what if the company that had this patent was a non practicing entity, and all that they wanted was huge settlements for use of their "idea"? You can't abuse trademarks or copyrights like this (well you can, but to a much more limited scope).
Yes, his past scholarship and jurisprudence are stunningly impressive, and have had wide impact.
But when he starts to make silly statements like these, one has to wonder if he is approaching his sell-by date.....
That is exactly what I thought about Posner a month ago...
"I'm wondering if this judge at 73 is still learning from experience - and thus improving and more rational in his thoughts and decisions... or is he past his sell-by date and thinking more about the easy life of putting his feet up in a retirement garden... so tossing out the difficult cases on a whim!"
Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
I know for a fact that one very prominent law firm only hires IP attorneys with strong undergraduate degrees in a science or engineering.
Talk about a bunch of unqualified whiners on AppleInsider!!!
Do you really think "1-click shopping" is worthy of the same level of patent protection as a drug that takes 10 years to develop?
What about a new kind of light switch that someone develops in their garage over a single weekend. Traditionally, that, the "better mousetrap", has been exactly the sort of thing that patents are supposed to protect, particularly for the small "inventor". Under your reasoning (and apparently Posner's), the light switch deserves even less protection than software, since most software takes longer to develop than a weekend, probably including "1-click checkout" (which probably should have been invalidated due to prior art). The problem with Posner's argument, which is a pretty fundamental problem, is that, if we grant patent protection based on how long something takes to develop, we get into situations where things that previously were clearly the sort of thing that should be covered by patents suddenly aren't because, "not enough effort" went into developing them. Who exactly will decide how much effort is necessary to qualify for a patent, and who will police/verify exactly how much effort went into developing something? (And, the drug companies aren't a reliable source of self reporting, are they?) Will it be nough for someone to say, I was thinking about how to make a better light switch for years, or would it need to be documented? Would a eureka moment following vague ideas of several years duration be sufficient, or would more concrete work be necessary?
Posner's ideas on patents would create more problems than they pretend to solve, more confusion than we have now. I don't think he's really bothered to think it through, but that he did apply his bias in the Apple v. Motorola case.
apple should ask for a change of venue, or at the very least, a different judge.
Too late. They could have asked for a different judge at the beginning, but they didn't. At this point, the only way to get a different judge would be convincing an appeals court that he's incapable of setting aside his personal opinions - and that's difficult to do.
I think it's quite likely that an appeal will be granted - but it will go back to Posner for the re-hearing.
Talk about a bunch of unqualified whiners on AppleInsider!!!
Do you really think "1-click shopping" is worthy of the same level of patent protection as a drug that takes 10 years to develop?.
Well, yes. Under US law, there isn't really any distinction between 'valuable patent' and 'less valuable patent'. If you meet the requirements for getting a patent, you have the exclusive right to that invention. The field of study doesn't matter (there are some differences in the actual execution of that 'exclusive right' in some cases, but the general principle doesn't change. It's either patentable or it's not. There's no such thing as 'more patentable'.
The other difference is that it is possible, in theory, for the courts to rule that a patent is essential and force licensing. That is far more likely to happen in the pharmaceutical industry than in other industries. Posner's argument that Apple should be forced to license its computer technologies is, AFAIK, unprecedented.
Again, you're missing the point. That patent does not cover an IDEA - which is what someone was asking about earlier. A patent covers a process or a composition of matter. The particular patent you cited is a composition of matter patent. It describes a specific type of touch panel - not an idea.
That is an outrageous statement. Pharmaceutical can patent but not tech? So a small guy, who has a brilliant idea.... gets it stolen by a big firm who can get it to market first, promote the heck out of it and make billions but too bad, your not selling drugs or something this old dude want. (I'm an old dude too, but me thinks this guy has shares in viagra)
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-John Carmack
Thank you. I'm glad to see there are some here who understand the problems that proliferation in software patents have created.
What a thread! Altogether, about as logical is all the nonsense in the Monty Python intro, leading up to Judge Posner's big foot stamping everything flat with a loud raspberry.
Some of us here have the sneaking suspicion that Posner is tired of software patent cases because he doesn't appreciate the impact of software, and this might influence his opinions, which have an even chance of finding their way into his adjudication. Especially since he's known to be "outspoken." So if every judge has an opinion, this one will *really* have one. And depending on his interests, it might not be the most informed opinion.
Maybe his views are based on the possibility that he does appreciate the impact of software. Let's face it, software patent litigation is being used more and more as a means of stifling innovative efforts of others and I suspect Posner recognizes that.
So we should only patent things that can kill people? People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications. Is that not worthy of protection? All patents aren't based on 15 years of research.. Watch shark tank. There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel. Does that kill people? Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop? Was she the first one to think to patent it? Good for her. Why should it be different for software.
Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
Thank you. I'm glad to see there are some here who understand the problems that proliferation in software patents have created.
I used to agree, but, in reality, software is no different than any other kind of machine, and this problem, of someone having already patented it, exists in all fields -- it's not a problem unique to software development, and software developers don't deserve some sort of special status... unless you can present a compelling argument that creating machines in software in somehow fundamentally different than creating all other machines.
Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
Yes, but, as you well know, it doesn't keep the reverse engineers away, who are really no different than the "copyists". Your arguments today are particularly self-serving and disingenuous.
Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
And, once again, copyrights do not cover the same things as patents. See the definitions I already provided since you're apparently still confused after being told multiple times.
And, once again, copyrights do not cover the same things as patents. See the definitions I already provided since you're apparently still confused after being told multiple times.
I'm not the least bit confused about it. You just don't want to discuss the actual article premise that software should not be patentable for the most part. Cling to your "no one understands there's a difference" meme while some of us discuss the real issues of software protection.
Maybe his views are based on the possibility that he does appreciate the impact of software. Let's face it, software patent litigation is being used more and more as a means of stifling innovative efforts of others and I suspect Posner recognizes that.
Android doesn't represents the innovate efforts of others, it represents a cheap knockoff of iOS.
The judge does not have a good understanding of software engineering.
Soft Engineering is every bit as patentable as hardware.
The fact that a single person can engineer very advanced and large scale software without help from manufacturing does not make it less patentable or less important.
This judge may know law but he needs to get a clue about software engineering.
Time will tell.
Doesn't it all depend on which side of the fence you're sitting on? Patenting truly innovative and never done before approaches to solve a problem is one thing. Patenting an idea that makes sense and then using that patent to stop others from solving problems is an entirely different issue. My suspicion is Posner realizes this and we should, too.
Android doesn't represents the innovate efforts of others, it represents a cheap knockoff of iOS.
I think you're getting into why this is such a difficult subject. The patent system was created to protect inventions. Actually, it was created so that people could publicly disclose their inventions while claiming an exclusive right to it for a set period of time. It's easy to understand how something like a pneumatic tire is an invention. It's a lot harder to define what's an invention when it comes to software. Posner is hardly alone in recognizing that people are trying to claim every idea they get as some kind of "invention" that's worthy of patent protection.
If there was a clear way to sort "idea" from "invention" when it comes to information, this problem would have been solved long ago. Posner obviously sees that the co-mingling of the two concepts has gone way too far and it's only causing the legal system to get rich and, most likely, no one else.
Doesn't it all depend on which side of the fence you're sitting on? Patenting truly innovative and never done before approaches to solve a problem is one thing. Patenting an idea that makes sense and then using that patent to stop others from solving problems is an entirely different issue. My suspicion is Posner realizes this and we should, too.
Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
I'm not the least bit confused about it. You just don't want to discuss the actual article premise that software should not be patentable for the most part. Cling to your "no one understands there's a difference" meme while some of us discuss the real issues of software protection.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I don't understand why people want software copywritten instead of patented.
Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.
That's good. Nobody should ever be allowed to copy Siri's binary and make it run on a Windows phone (without Apple's consent). Nobody should be allowed to use Apple's source code without their consent either. 10 years from now, 50 years from now, ever. Same with trademark - nobody should be allowed to release a phone called the iPhone, or a piece of software called Siri, or put the Apple logo on their device, except for Apple. I'm totally happy with Apple having a monopoly on the term "iPad". I don't think that anyone would disagree here. I think that is more than enough to protect Apple's brand and products.
Patents are about limited monopolies over ideas, and in the case of software patents, over very vague and broad ideas. So someone gets a monopoly over the idea of swiping on a screen to unlock it - not a profound. What if Microsoft had patented the popup soft keyboard on a mobile device (which they had in Windows Mobile long before the iPhone), and had been granted an injunction against the iPhone and iPad - would you be championing their right to do this, and lambasting Apple for ripping off Microsoft's ideas? I bet not. Even worse, what if the company that had this patent was a non practicing entity, and all that they wanted was huge settlements for use of their "idea"? You can't abuse trademarks or copyrights like this (well you can, but to a much more limited scope).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Yes, his past scholarship and jurisprudence are stunningly impressive, and have had wide impact.
But when he starts to make silly statements like these, one has to wonder if he is approaching his sell-by date.....
That is exactly what I thought about Posner a month ago...
"I'm wondering if this judge at 73 is still learning from experience - and thus improving and more rational in his thoughts and decisions... or is he past his sell-by date and thinking more about the easy life of putting his feet up in a retirement garden... so tossing out the difficult cases on a whim!"
...in the http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150539/judge-cancels-apple-patent-infringement-trial-against-motorola#post_2123173 thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
I know for a fact that one very prominent law firm only hires IP attorneys with strong undergraduate degrees in a science or engineering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Talk about a bunch of unqualified whiners on AppleInsider!!!
Do you really think "1-click shopping" is worthy of the same level of patent protection as a drug that takes 10 years to develop?
What about a new kind of light switch that someone develops in their garage over a single weekend. Traditionally, that, the "better mousetrap", has been exactly the sort of thing that patents are supposed to protect, particularly for the small "inventor". Under your reasoning (and apparently Posner's), the light switch deserves even less protection than software, since most software takes longer to develop than a weekend, probably including "1-click checkout" (which probably should have been invalidated due to prior art). The problem with Posner's argument, which is a pretty fundamental problem, is that, if we grant patent protection based on how long something takes to develop, we get into situations where things that previously were clearly the sort of thing that should be covered by patents suddenly aren't because, "not enough effort" went into developing them. Who exactly will decide how much effort is necessary to qualify for a patent, and who will police/verify exactly how much effort went into developing something? (And, the drug companies aren't a reliable source of self reporting, are they?) Will it be nough for someone to say, I was thinking about how to make a better light switch for years, or would it need to be documented? Would a eureka moment following vague ideas of several years duration be sufficient, or would more concrete work be necessary?
Posner's ideas on patents would create more problems than they pretend to solve, more confusion than we have now. I don't think he's really bothered to think it through, but that he did apply his bias in the Apple v. Motorola case.
Too late. They could have asked for a different judge at the beginning, but they didn't. At this point, the only way to get a different judge would be convincing an appeals court that he's incapable of setting aside his personal opinions - and that's difficult to do.
I think it's quite likely that an appeal will be granted - but it will go back to Posner for the re-hearing.
Well, yes. Under US law, there isn't really any distinction between 'valuable patent' and 'less valuable patent'. If you meet the requirements for getting a patent, you have the exclusive right to that invention. The field of study doesn't matter (there are some differences in the actual execution of that 'exclusive right' in some cases, but the general principle doesn't change. It's either patentable or it's not. There's no such thing as 'more patentable'.
The other difference is that it is possible, in theory, for the courts to rule that a patent is essential and force licensing. That is far more likely to happen in the pharmaceutical industry than in other industries. Posner's argument that Apple should be forced to license its computer technologies is, AFAIK, unprecedented.
Again, you're missing the point. That patent does not cover an IDEA - which is what someone was asking about earlier. A patent covers a process or a composition of matter. The particular patent you cited is a composition of matter patent. It describes a specific type of touch panel - not an idea.
That is an outrageous statement. Pharmaceutical can patent but not tech? So a small guy, who has a brilliant idea.... gets it stolen by a big firm who can get it to market first, promote the heck out of it and make billions but too bad, your not selling drugs or something this old dude want. (I'm an old dude too, but me thinks this guy has shares in viagra)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-John Carmack
Thank you. I'm glad to see there are some here who understand the problems that proliferation in software patents have created.
What a thread! Altogether, about as logical is all the nonsense in the Monty Python intro, leading up to Judge Posner's big foot stamping everything flat with a loud raspberry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
...
Some of us here have the sneaking suspicion that Posner is tired of software patent cases because he doesn't appreciate the impact of software, and this might influence his opinions, which have an even chance of finding their way into his adjudication. Especially since he's known to be "outspoken." So if every judge has an opinion, this one will *really* have one. And depending on his interests, it might not be the most informed opinion.
Maybe his views are based on the possibility that he does appreciate the impact of software. Let's face it, software patent litigation is being used more and more as a means of stifling innovative efforts of others and I suspect Posner recognizes that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
So we should only patent things that can kill people? People spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing complex applications. Is that not worthy of protection? All patents aren't based on 15 years of research.. Watch shark tank. There is a lady getting a patent on cutting a whole in a bath towel. Does that kill people? Did it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop? Was she the first one to think to patent it? Good for her. Why should it be different for software.
Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
Thank you. I'm glad to see there are some here who understand the problems that proliferation in software patents have created.
I used to agree, but, in reality, software is no different than any other kind of machine, and this problem, of someone having already patented it, exists in all fields -- it's not a problem unique to software development, and software developers don't deserve some sort of special status... unless you can present a compelling argument that creating machines in software in somehow fundamentally different than creating all other machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
Yes, but, as you well know, it doesn't keep the reverse engineers away, who are really no different than the "copyists". Your arguments today are particularly self-serving and disingenuous.
And, once again, copyrights do not cover the same things as patents. See the definitions I already provided since you're apparently still confused after being told multiple times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, once again, copyrights do not cover the same things as patents. See the definitions I already provided since you're apparently still confused after being told multiple times.
I'm not the least bit confused about it. You just don't want to discuss the actual article premise that software should not be patentable for the most part. Cling to your "no one understands there's a difference" meme while some of us discuss the real issues of software protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
Maybe his views are based on the possibility that he does appreciate the impact of software. Let's face it, software patent litigation is being used more and more as a means of stifling innovative efforts of others and I suspect Posner recognizes that.
Android doesn't represents the innovate efforts of others, it represents a cheap knockoff of iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
The judge does not have a good understanding of software engineering.
Soft Engineering is every bit as patentable as hardware.
The fact that a single person can engineer very advanced and large scale software without help from manufacturing does not make it less patentable or less important.
This judge may know law but he needs to get a clue about software engineering.
Time will tell.
Doesn't it all depend on which side of the fence you're sitting on? Patenting truly innovative and never done before approaches to solve a problem is one thing. Patenting an idea that makes sense and then using that patent to stop others from solving problems is an entirely different issue. My suspicion is Posner realizes this and we should, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I don't understand why people want software copywritten instead of patented.
Copyrights never expire. Ever. People whine about patents and monopolies… companies would have a permanent monopoly with copyrights.
It's because you can't copyright ideas, per se. You can copyright actual code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Android doesn't represents the innovate efforts of others, it represents a cheap knockoff of iOS.
I think you're getting into why this is such a difficult subject. The patent system was created to protect inventions. Actually, it was created so that people could publicly disclose their inventions while claiming an exclusive right to it for a set period of time. It's easy to understand how something like a pneumatic tire is an invention. It's a lot harder to define what's an invention when it comes to software. Posner is hardly alone in recognizing that people are trying to claim every idea they get as some kind of "invention" that's worthy of patent protection.
If there was a clear way to sort "idea" from "invention" when it comes to information, this problem would have been solved long ago. Posner obviously sees that the co-mingling of the two concepts has gone way too far and it's only causing the legal system to get rich and, most likely, no one else.
Activist judges. Gotta love them.
Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.