That is an excellent analogy. Samsung would argue while selling an identical copy of "I want to hold your hand" 'What ... the Beatles invented notes and words?"
If he stated that there needs to be patent reform, I'd agree with that. If he stated that software needs to be protected in a different way with a different time frame and regulations from standard patents, then I'd agree.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. Is a software patent a method or process? Sure, but I think it crosses over into copyright territory a bit and clearly isn' t a physical device. For these reasons I'd made software it's own category. Not even a sub-category of patents but it's own distinct category the way copyrights and trademarks are used to protect IP but are not patens.
I am starting to believe that there is something seriously wrong with the patent system. Patenting things like human gestures seems a bit too new world order to me.
Funny, I know the old Windows Phone already have these functionalities since about two years ago . It was windows mobile 6.x skin created by a group of programmers. And, I don't think the poor hobbyist-tinkerer programmers ever had a thought of patenting their idea. Great job Apple...., another people's idea got patented and later to be monetized.
Please educate yourself on how the patent system works. Apple hasn't patented an idea, nor could they do so. Furthermore, the fact that Windows Phone already did something 2 years ago is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Apple has patented a very specific implementation of an idea. The idea is not patented, but the implementation is. So if Windows did it in the same way before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent can be challenged and invalidated. If Windows did the same thing, but used a different method, then Apple's patent would still be valid.
That is an excellent analogy. Samsung would argue while selling an identical copy of "I want to hold your hand" 'What ... the Beatles invented notes and words?"
There is no appreciable difference between inventing and programming solutions. Apple created a GUI that solved certain problems. The bounce back and tap to zoom were creative solutions and not obvious at the time of creation. There are other ways perhaps more cumbersome ways to achieve the same results. Apple spend hundred of hours coming up with these solutions, and deserves to be protected. Certain other features like pinch to zoom might be considered obvious, and protection might be questionable. There are alternate ways to address that as well. However, patent law allows such patents to be challenged.
I have more of an issue with copyright protection for software programming.
Patents were to protect the inventor from making all the costs to invent, and have others steal the invention and profit from the invention, while the inventor did not profit. That's kind of hard to keep up when the "inventor" is the company with the largest market cap ever (note, not if corrected for inflation). Of course the patent law should be the same for every company, and Apple has full rights to claim patents and fight for them when they are awarded. It just makes the whole concept and the reasoning for patents a little bit awkard. Apple does not need to be protected from the copy-cats (only from KIRF, but I would say the customer needs protection from KIRF).
For some decades the whole software industry with all UI advances (and there have been a lot) advanced as a whole. Everyone was using the same and new UI concepts inspired and copied from others. As I've stated before, Apple contributed to this, and has used it extensively. They entered a market where all players had invested for years in GSM, Edge, ARM, batteries, screens, touchscreen etc. They took all the right components, added a lot to it, and took off.
B.T.W. I'm a software developer myself and looking at the above patent I could have filed for 20+ myself when I tried to implement a Pocket PC 2003 application on a 240x320 screen and had to come up with ways of allowing everything to fit and interact with it. So I'll get the reaction : If you're so good, then patent it, but alas (or should I say fortunately) software patents for these micro-inventions only exists in the US.
[...] The bounce back and tap to zoom were creative solutions and not obvious at the time of creation. There are other ways perhaps more cumbersome ways to achieve the same results. Apple spend hundred of hours coming up with these solutions, and deserves to be protected. [...]
The same can be said for platform-based videogames. However, the guy who did the first platform game didn't patent the "platform game interaction" (which by the way was a creative solution, not obvious at the time of creation).
Thanks to the first platform game not being patented, the platform game concept evolved, introducing more and more innovations. If it had been patented, that wouldn't be possible, and we wouldn't know the games we know today.
If he stated that there needs to be patent reform, I'd agree with that. If he stated that software needs to be protected in a different way with a different time frame and regulations from standard patents, then I'd agree.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. Is a software patent a method or process? Sure, but I think it crosses over into copyright territory a bit and clearly isn' t a physical device. For these reasons I'd made software it's own category. Not even a sub-category of patents but it's own distinct category the way copyrights and trademarks are used to protect IP but are not patens.
The same can be said for platform-based videogames. However, the guy who did the first platform game didn't patent the "platform game interaction" (which by the way was a creative solution, not obvious at the time of creation).
Thanks to the first platform game not being patented, the platform game concept evolved, introducing more and more innovations. If it had been patented, that wouldn't be possible, and we wouldn't know the games we know today.
Great example, I've programmed games in the distant past (6502 era) and everyone was using the same tricks they saw in other games. Like parallax scrolling, double buffering etc. Glad they were never patented
Please educate yourself on how the patent system works. Apple hasn't patented an idea, nor could they do so. Furthermore, the fact that Windows Phone already did something 2 years ago is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Apple has patented a very specific implementation of an idea. The idea is not patented, but the implementation is. So if Windows did it in the same way before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent can be challenged and invalidated. If Windows did the same thing, but used a different method, then Apple's patent would still be valid.
Great analogy.
you missed the best part...Windows Phone had this feature two years ago (2010) a full three years after Apple filed for the patent (2007--and it's a continuation of an earlier patent of theirs)!
you missed the best part...Windows Phone had this feature two years ago (2010) a full three years after Apple filed for the patent (2007--and it's a continuation of an earlier patent of theirs)!
Windows Mobile 6.x was mentioned, and the skin and other concepts were available for Pocket PC 2003 way before 2007
The same can be said for platform-based videogames. However, the guy who did the first platform game didn't patent the "platform game interaction" (which by the way was a creative solution, not obvious at the time of creation).
Thanks to the first platform game not being patented, the platform game concept evolved, introducing more and more innovations. If it had been patented, that wouldn't be possible, and we wouldn't know the games we know today.
I don't know if everything else you wrote here is true or not, but I need to clarify something for you and others reading this:
When something is patented it doesn't mean that others can't use it, it just means they have to pay for the rights to do so.
If this supposed game developer had patented anything that does not mean no one else could build upon it. In fact, it's the opposite. The patent would have exposed the method and everyone else would be able to examine it and use that baseline as the basis for their research.
It's a lot easier to build a better mousetrap if you've got one to work from than if you have nothing beyond a vague idea of what you think a mousetrap should be.
Yes, he made an oft repeated, canned statement that isn't feasible without offering any indication of how or why reform is needed. His statement read as if nothing in the SW should have any protections. Of like to think that he didn't mean there should be no protections but I don't think that can be discerned from his comment.
I don't know if everything else you wrote here is true or not, but I need to clarify something for you and others reading this:
When something is patented it doesn't mean that others can't use it, it just means they have to pay for the rights to do so.
If this supposed game developer had patented anything that does not mean no one else could build upon it. In fact, it's the opposite. The patent would have exposed the method and everyone else would be able to examine it and use that baseline as the basis for their research.
It's a lot easier to build a better mousetrap if you've got one to work from than if you have nothing beyond a vague idea of what you think a mousetrap should be.
And as each competitor has patents, why not cross-license everything with everyone. So everyone can use apple patents, and apple does not need to pay for frand or other patents. Everything levels out and no-one has to pay anything....
Hopefully the worst case will be a stalemate between the two but Google is playing dirty by buying their patents for $12.5b from someone else. Apple earned theirs.
No, you are adding what you want to his comments but that's not what he said.
He stated clearly that a windows mobile 6 skin was developed two years ago and since that time it has had that functionality.
True, that's what he said, but I'm pretty sure no one was building skins, or anything for that matter, for Windows Mobile 6 in 2010 anymore... Even Microsoft had abandoned the platform by 2010.
And as each competitor has patents, why not cross-license everything with everyone. So everyone can use apple patents, and apple does not need to pay for frand or other patents. Everything levels out and no-one has to pay anything....
Public domain, sounds great
If you go look at the patents and read through them you'll find that's exactly what happens. Apple cross licenses with Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, and I don't who else the list is extensive those are just the ones off the top of my head...oh yeah Samsung, too. The list is too long for me to remember, go read the patents.
True, that's what he said, but I'm pretty sure no one was building skins, or anything for that matter, for Windows Mobile 6 in 2010 anymore... Even Microsoft had abandoned the platform by 2010.
Well, since you apparently aren't aware of the project and he may or may not be clear on the timeline I suggest you either go do some more research or drop the attempt to use it as evidence of whatever point you're trying to make.
Regardless, you can't simply edit his comment to match your beliefs.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Wassat then? Do you sell/rent Apple costumes?
Well, it was a typo, but not far from reality, because I kind of sell/rent Apple costumes.
If he stated that there needs to be patent reform, I'd agree with that. If he stated that software needs to be protected in a different way with a different time frame and regulations from standard patents, then I'd agree.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. Is a software patent a method or process? Sure, but I think it crosses over into copyright territory a bit and clearly isn' t a physical device. For these reasons I'd made software it's own category. Not even a sub-category of patents but it's own distinct category the way copyrights and trademarks are used to protect IP but are not patens.
Please educate yourself on how the patent system works. Apple hasn't patented an idea, nor could they do so. Furthermore, the fact that Windows Phone already did something 2 years ago is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Apple has patented a very specific implementation of an idea. The idea is not patented, but the implementation is. So if Windows did it in the same way before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent can be challenged and invalidated. If Windows did the same thing, but used a different method, then Apple's patent would still be valid.
Great analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
There is no appreciable difference between inventing and programming solutions. Apple created a GUI that solved certain problems. The bounce back and tap to zoom were creative solutions and not obvious at the time of creation. There are other ways perhaps more cumbersome ways to achieve the same results. Apple spend hundred of hours coming up with these solutions, and deserves to be protected. Certain other features like pinch to zoom might be considered obvious, and protection might be questionable. There are alternate ways to address that as well. However, patent law allows such patents to be challenged.
I have more of an issue with copyright protection for software programming.
Patents were to protect the inventor from making all the costs to invent, and have others steal the invention and profit from the invention, while the inventor did not profit. That's kind of hard to keep up when the "inventor" is the company with the largest market cap ever (note, not if corrected for inflation). Of course the patent law should be the same for every company, and Apple has full rights to claim patents and fight for them when they are awarded. It just makes the whole concept and the reasoning for patents a little bit awkard. Apple does not need to be protected from the copy-cats (only from KIRF, but I would say the customer needs protection from KIRF).
For some decades the whole software industry with all UI advances (and there have been a lot) advanced as a whole. Everyone was using the same and new UI concepts inspired and copied from others. As I've stated before, Apple contributed to this, and has used it extensively. They entered a market where all players had invested for years in GSM, Edge, ARM, batteries, screens, touchscreen etc. They took all the right components, added a lot to it, and took off.
B.T.W. I'm a software developer myself and looking at the above patent I could have filed for 20+ myself when I tried to implement a Pocket PC 2003 application on a 240x320 screen and had to come up with ways of allowing everything to fit and interact with it. So I'll get the reaction : If you're so good, then patent it, but alas (or should I say fortunately) software patents for these micro-inventions only exists in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
[...] The bounce back and tap to zoom were creative solutions and not obvious at the time of creation. There are other ways perhaps more cumbersome ways to achieve the same results. Apple spend hundred of hours coming up with these solutions, and deserves to be protected. [...]
The same can be said for platform-based videogames. However, the guy who did the first platform game didn't patent the "platform game interaction" (which by the way was a creative solution, not obvious at the time of creation).
Thanks to the first platform game not being patented, the platform game concept evolved, introducing more and more innovations. If it had been patented, that wouldn't be possible, and we wouldn't know the games we know today.
Are you referring to mausz?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
The same can be said for platform-based videogames. However, the guy who did the first platform game didn't patent the "platform game interaction" (which by the way was a creative solution, not obvious at the time of creation).
Thanks to the first platform game not being patented, the platform game concept evolved, introducing more and more innovations. If it had been patented, that wouldn't be possible, and we wouldn't know the games we know today.
Great example, I've programmed games in the distant past (6502 era) and everyone was using the same tricks they saw in other games. Like parallax scrolling, double buffering etc. Glad they were never patented
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Are you referring to mausz?
I'm not sure myself
In his(her?) post SolipsismX makes a lot of excellent points, and it's quite hard to come up with a better alternative for the current system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please educate yourself on how the patent system works. Apple hasn't patented an idea, nor could they do so. Furthermore, the fact that Windows Phone already did something 2 years ago is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Apple has patented a very specific implementation of an idea. The idea is not patented, but the implementation is. So if Windows did it in the same way before Apple applied for the patent, then the patent can be challenged and invalidated. If Windows did the same thing, but used a different method, then Apple's patent would still be valid.
Great analogy.
you missed the best part...Windows Phone had this feature two years ago (2010) a full three years after Apple filed for the patent (2007--and it's a continuation of an earlier patent of theirs)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
you missed the best part...Windows Phone had this feature two years ago (2010) a full three years after Apple filed for the patent (2007--and it's a continuation of an earlier patent of theirs)!
Windows Mobile 6.x was mentioned, and the skin and other concepts were available for Pocket PC 2003 way before 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
The same can be said for platform-based videogames. However, the guy who did the first platform game didn't patent the "platform game interaction" (which by the way was a creative solution, not obvious at the time of creation).
Thanks to the first platform game not being patented, the platform game concept evolved, introducing more and more innovations. If it had been patented, that wouldn't be possible, and we wouldn't know the games we know today.
I don't know if everything else you wrote here is true or not, but I need to clarify something for you and others reading this:
When something is patented it doesn't mean that others can't use it, it just means they have to pay for the rights to do so.
If this supposed game developer had patented anything that does not mean no one else could build upon it. In fact, it's the opposite. The patent would have exposed the method and everyone else would be able to examine it and use that baseline as the basis for their research.
It's a lot easier to build a better mousetrap if you've got one to work from than if you have nothing beyond a vague idea of what you think a mousetrap should be.
Yes, he made an oft repeated, canned statement that isn't feasible without offering any indication of how or why reform is needed. His statement read as if nothing in the SW should have any protections. Of like to think that he didn't mean there should be no protections but I don't think that can be discerned from his comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
Windows Mobile 6.x was mentioned, and the skin and other concepts were available for Pocket PC 2003 way before 2007
No, you are adding what you want to his comments but that's not what he said.
He stated clearly that a windows mobile 6 skin was developed two years ago and since that time it has had that functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
I don't know if everything else you wrote here is true or not, but I need to clarify something for you and others reading this:
When something is patented it doesn't mean that others can't use it, it just means they have to pay for the rights to do so.
If this supposed game developer had patented anything that does not mean no one else could build upon it. In fact, it's the opposite. The patent would have exposed the method and everyone else would be able to examine it and use that baseline as the basis for their research.
It's a lot easier to build a better mousetrap if you've got one to work from than if you have nothing beyond a vague idea of what you think a mousetrap should be.
And as each competitor has patents, why not cross-license everything with everyone. So everyone can use apple patents, and apple does not need to pay for frand or other patents. Everything levels out and no-one has to pay anything....
Public domain, sounds great
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/21/and-now-google-sues-apple/
Hopefully the worst case will be a stalemate between the two but Google is playing dirty by buying their patents for $12.5b from someone else. Apple earned theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle
No, you are adding what you want to his comments but that's not what he said.
He stated clearly that a windows mobile 6 skin was developed two years ago and since that time it has had that functionality.
True, that's what he said, but I'm pretty sure no one was building skins, or anything for that matter, for Windows Mobile 6 in 2010 anymore... Even Microsoft had abandoned the platform by 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
And as each competitor has patents, why not cross-license everything with everyone. So everyone can use apple patents, and apple does not need to pay for frand or other patents. Everything levels out and no-one has to pay anything....
Public domain, sounds great
If you go look at the patents and read through them you'll find that's exactly what happens. Apple cross licenses with Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, and I don't who else the list is extensive those are just the ones off the top of my head...oh yeah Samsung, too. The list is too long for me to remember, go read the patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
True, that's what he said, but I'm pretty sure no one was building skins, or anything for that matter, for Windows Mobile 6 in 2010 anymore... Even Microsoft had abandoned the platform by 2010.
Well, since you apparently aren't aware of the project and he may or may not be clear on the timeline I suggest you either go do some more research or drop the attempt to use it as evidence of whatever point you're trying to make.
Regardless, you can't simply edit his comment to match your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Apple earned theirs.
You mean the fingerworks patents which form the basis of most of their touch patents ?
Google buys patents, Microsoft buys patents, Apple buys patents
Google earned patents with their own work, so has Microsoft and so has Apple