here we go again.. "Various methods"? Really, another broad claim. it is like saying "all methods of doing this shit is our patent now"
I love the products, hate the patent trolling. One day we may just call Apple the lawsuit company.
I don't know how many times I've posted on the website......THE PATENT IS DEFINED BY THE CLAIMS. Apple could have published a big smiley face in the disclosure and it wouldn't matter. The patent only protects what is claimed. If you take the time to read claim 1, you will see that this patent is anything but "broad".
here we go again.. "Various methods"? Really, another broad claim. it is like saying "all methods of doing this shit is our patent now"
I love the products, hate the patent trolling. One day we may just call Apple the lawsuit company.
With regards to "patent trolling"... anyone who thinks a patent owner shouldn't enforce his or her patent can go F!*# themselves. It takes a lot of work to get a patent (like $20,000 worth of work). Why in the world would a patent owner not ask to be compensated when someone infringes a patent? Nobody is making a company go out and sell new products that infringe patents. If a company isn't willing to pay a reasonable royalty to patent holders, it should just keep selling products using old and known technology and let companies that are willing to pay the royalty sell the products with the new technology.
Owning the market doesn't confer upon someone the right to sell an invention. Patent rights are granted to the first person to apply for them at the patent office. The software industry has patents all screwed up. They think owning market share should give someone the right to sell. Why doesn't anyone apply the same standard to copyrights? The constitution says the same thing about patents as it does copyrights. Last time I checked no one was calling authors "trolls" when they ask to be compensated for making a movie out of their book.
WTF is the software community thinking calling patent owners "Trolls". A troll is someone that takes money for passage to a bridge they don't own. The obvious distinction is that a patent owner DOES OWN the bridge. Is the city of San Fransisco a troll for imposing a toll to cross the Golden Gate Bridge?
How about I rent out your house to someone else and then when you complain I'll start disparagingly calling you a "Troll".
It's all well and good that other companies are coming out with NFC solutions, but the question is... do they have a patent on these technologies? If Apple filed this patent in 2008, they they were working on this well before anyone else presumably which means once again, Google and others who didn't do this properly are going to be hurting. That's just the way the system works.
Read the patent claims. This patent isn't going to stop anyone from selling products. The claims are simply too narrow to have any effect.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbrucewayne
here we go again.. "Various methods"? Really, another broad claim. it is like saying "all methods of doing this shit is our patent now"
I love the products, hate the patent trolling. One day we may just call Apple the lawsuit company.
I don't know how many times I've posted on the website......THE PATENT IS DEFINED BY THE CLAIMS. Apple could have published a big smiley face in the disclosure and it wouldn't matter. The patent only protects what is claimed. If you take the time to read claim 1, you will see that this patent is anything but "broad".
Quote:
Originally Posted by imbrucewayne
here we go again.. "Various methods"? Really, another broad claim. it is like saying "all methods of doing this shit is our patent now"
I love the products, hate the patent trolling. One day we may just call Apple the lawsuit company.
With regards to "patent trolling"... anyone who thinks a patent owner shouldn't enforce his or her patent can go F!*# themselves. It takes a lot of work to get a patent (like $20,000 worth of work). Why in the world would a patent owner not ask to be compensated when someone infringes a patent? Nobody is making a company go out and sell new products that infringe patents. If a company isn't willing to pay a reasonable royalty to patent holders, it should just keep selling products using old and known technology and let companies that are willing to pay the royalty sell the products with the new technology.
Owning the market doesn't confer upon someone the right to sell an invention. Patent rights are granted to the first person to apply for them at the patent office. The software industry has patents all screwed up. They think owning market share should give someone the right to sell. Why doesn't anyone apply the same standard to copyrights? The constitution says the same thing about patents as it does copyrights. Last time I checked no one was calling authors "trolls" when they ask to be compensated for making a movie out of their book.
WTF is the software community thinking calling patent owners "Trolls". A troll is someone that takes money for passage to a bridge they don't own. The obvious distinction is that a patent owner DOES OWN the bridge. Is the city of San Fransisco a troll for imposing a toll to cross the Golden Gate Bridge?
How about I rent out your house to someone else and then when you complain I'll start disparagingly calling you a "Troll".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
It's all well and good that other companies are coming out with NFC solutions, but the question is... do they have a patent on these technologies? If Apple filed this patent in 2008, they they were working on this well before anyone else presumably which means once again, Google and others who didn't do this properly are going to be hurting. That's just the way the system works.
Read the patent claims. This patent isn't going to stop anyone from selling products. The claims are simply too narrow to have any effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Meanwhile Google files very similar patents as fast as it can read Apple's filings ...
Then it would normally be 18 months later at the earliest