it was precisely in *this* patent system in which the iPad and iPhone were brought to market.
But it stifles innovation??
The big industry-wide shakeup happened in the US - not once, but twice, in the past few years. The USA was the catalyst. Not too shabby for a "broken" system.
Same with Windows Phone - if you think it's innovative, some do. Also comes from a partnership that includes a US company.
Patents aren't the problem. It's "too lazy to innovate" that's the problem. It's an ATTITUDE problem. And it's industry-wide. Does anyone want to step up their game? Would make for a nice change of pace.
it was precisely in *this* patent system in which the iPad and iPhone were brought to market.
But it stifles innovation??
The big industry-wide shakeup happened in the US - not once, but twice, in the past few years. The USA was the catalyst. Not too shabby for a "broken" system.
Same with Windows Phone - if you think it's innovative, some do. Also comes from a partnership that includes a US company.
Patents aren't the problem. It's "too lazy to innovate" that's the problem. It's an ATTITUDE problem. And it's industry-wide. Does anyone want to step up their game? Would make for a nice change of pace.
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.
Source code is protected by copyright either way. Some of the software patents that come up are very broad, even prior to continuations. It's not like they describe any of the programming needed to implement such a thing. They just describe a very rough concept. With Apple they seemingly try to provide the least amount of detail that will result in a patent being granted. If it's rejected, modifications are possible. This goes against the idea that patents are supposed to be extremely specific to the point of almost dictating how the result would be achieved..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
These will probably come in handy when dealing with Google:
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.
Apple buys in on most of this stuff. If you were to ask me what I like, I like the integration. As to the hardware quality, perhaps I'm unlucky there. My idevices had short lives beyond their warranty expiration dates. It annoys me immensely. I liked my nano, as it was great for jogging. It's not so much that the larger ones are heavy. It's just the nano is much more comfortable in that kind of situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Does buyig some patents invalidate the other patents they invented?
PS: i wonder what parents Samsung has bought to make a better product?
He was insinuating a double standard. Apple is applauded for buying such patents while Google is now playing dirty. What I find annoying with Google is that they seemingly bought a tech company with no plans to really produce anything from it. In Apple's case they're too big to build such a thing from nothing. As you may have noted they do buy into quite a lot of it (ipods, itunes, many features for the iphone although I'm not sure about the original concept). There is something that a number of people miss with this article. Apple spends a lot of time applying for patents. If they're rejected they appeal with minor changes until something is approved. On the ones noted here, some of these are continuations. They're details added to existing patents. I don't think everyone understands that. It wouldn't surprise me to find that others do similar stuff. Apple is just very visible.
Congratulations to Apple, but most of these serve as perfect examples why software patents should not have been introduced....
These are not inventions, but programming solutions.
But, a programming solution is an invention. It required thought, time and energy to come up with a novel idea and implement it.
That being said the problem with software patents is that they tend to not to be too far from the obvious. Each solution usually doesn't take years of development and can be implemented very quickly. I think the root of the problem is the inflexibility of the patent system. I think it would work out better for society/humanity (remember that is the purpose of patents) if software patents were granted for a shorter amount of time, like 3 years instead of the usual 20. I think that would give enough of an incentive for innovation.
The idea of a shorter time frame for patent grants can be applied to other fields also. In general, more obvious or "easier" inventions should be granted shorter durations. Today the time is either zero (patent not granted) or the full 20 years.
A patent system will never be perfect but there's obviously room for improvement.
Comments
it was precisely in *this* patent system in which the iPad and iPhone were brought to market.
But it stifles innovation??
The big industry-wide shakeup happened in the US - not once, but twice, in the past few years. The USA was the catalyst. Not too shabby for a "broken" system.
Same with Windows Phone - if you think it's innovative, some do. Also comes from a partnership that includes a US company.
Patents aren't the problem. It's "too lazy to innovate" that's the problem. It's an ATTITUDE problem. And it's industry-wide. Does anyone want to step up their game? Would make for a nice change of pace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
it was precisely in *this* patent system in which the iPad and iPhone were brought to market.
But it stifles innovation??
The big industry-wide shakeup happened in the US - not once, but twice, in the past few years. The USA was the catalyst. Not too shabby for a "broken" system.
Same with Windows Phone - if you think it's innovative, some do. Also comes from a partnership that includes a US company.
Patents aren't the problem. It's "too lazy to innovate" that's the problem. It's an ATTITUDE problem. And it's industry-wide. Does anyone want to step up their game? Would make for a nice change of pace.
You don't think Apple would sue itself do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
Source code is protected by copyright either way. Some of the software patents that come up are very broad, even prior to continuations. It's not like they describe any of the programming needed to implement such a thing. They just describe a very rough concept. With Apple they seemingly try to provide the least amount of detail that will result in a patent being granted. If it's rejected, modifications are possible. This goes against the idea that patents are supposed to be extremely specific to the point of almost dictating how the result would be achieved..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
These will probably come in handy when dealing with Google:
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.
Apple buys in on most of this stuff. If you were to ask me what I like, I like the integration. As to the hardware quality, perhaps I'm unlucky there. My idevices had short lives beyond their warranty expiration dates. It annoys me immensely. I liked my nano, as it was great for jogging. It's not so much that the larger ones are heavy. It's just the nano is much more comfortable in that kind of situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Does buyig some patents invalidate the other patents they invented?
PS: i wonder what parents Samsung has bought to make a better product?
He was insinuating a double standard. Apple is applauded for buying such patents while Google is now playing dirty. What I find annoying with Google is that they seemingly bought a tech company with no plans to really produce anything from it. In Apple's case they're too big to build such a thing from nothing. As you may have noted they do buy into quite a lot of it (ipods, itunes, many features for the iphone although I'm not sure about the original concept). There is something that a number of people miss with this article. Apple spends a lot of time applying for patents. If they're rejected they appeal with minor changes until something is approved. On the ones noted here, some of these are continuations. They're details added to existing patents. I don't think everyone understands that. It wouldn't surprise me to find that others do similar stuff. Apple is just very visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
Congratulations to Apple, but most of these serve as perfect examples why software patents should not have been introduced....
These are not inventions, but programming solutions.
But, a programming solution is an invention. It required thought, time and energy to come up with a novel idea and implement it.
That being said the problem with software patents is that they tend to not to be too far from the obvious. Each solution usually doesn't take years of development and can be implemented very quickly. I think the root of the problem is the inflexibility of the patent system. I think it would work out better for society/humanity (remember that is the purpose of patents) if software patents were granted for a shorter amount of time, like 3 years instead of the usual 20. I think that would give enough of an incentive for innovation.
The idea of a shorter time frame for patent grants can be applied to other fields also. In general, more obvious or "easier" inventions should be granted shorter durations. Today the time is either zero (patent not granted) or the full 20 years.
A patent system will never be perfect but there's obviously room for improvement.