Some idiot scribbles an idea on a napkin and gets a patent. He doesn't have the brain power to actually create the product, yet, he has the right to sue someone who spends the hours developing and investing in the idea. Time to put an end to the free ride of all the PATENT TROLLS!!
So if some idiot scribbles an idea on a napkin like this:
You say they shouldn't be granted a patent?
I agree. {snigger}
You know that old saying - live by the sword, die by the sword. The trouble with iFans is that they seem to think the entire patent system should operate only for the benefit of Apple and no one else.
Most definitely a troll...... I think these guys got their companies mixed-up: that drawing looks more like the original Excel than Numbers. In fact, the only similarity with any Apple product is that it looks more Mac OS 6-ish than it does Windows. Apple should sue this company for copying Apple's IP.
I don't know what is wrong with some people here. To call someone a patent troll does not mean, that the patent is illegal or unrightfully theirs. Maybe they should educate themselves first!
So if some idiot scribbles an idea on a napkin like this:
You say they shouldn't be granted a patent?
I agree. {snigger}
You know that old saying - live by the sword, die by the sword. The trouble with iFans is that they seem to think the entire patent system should operate only for the benefit of Apple and no one else.
So we should throw out the entire patent system because you don't understand how it works? That's just silly. Maybe you should start by learning how the patent system works. In particular, pay attention to the difference between utility patents and design patents.
Borland visited NeXT and was privy to early versions of Lotus Improv on NeXTStep which of course they lavishly copied and Lotus sued the crap out of them. Lotus was able to make Improv only on NeXTStep because of the NeXT Object Model that resides in OS X. Both Lotus and Borland designed their paradigms around already patented IP.
This one will be fun to watch for legacy buffs.
As with any patent suit, Apple will have the chance to try to have the patent voided due to prior art.
Thank you. You've just described the problem with the patent system. If you create a patent for the sole purpose of suing other people instead of making the product yourself, then you deserve to have your patent revoked. Period. End of discussion.
People invent technology with the purpose of benefiting from doing so. If you can't benefit from your inventions, why bother? Not everyone wants to make a product. Not everyone CAN make a product. If I invent a better process for etching silicon wafers, I would require something like $10,000,000,000 in order to get into the CPU manufacturing business (and that's probably on the low side). Do you have that kind of money lying around? If I had to make a product in order to protect my property, there would be zero incentive to invent a new process. Furthermore, some people are good inventors, but lousy businessmen. Why should they be forced to commercialize the product if someone is willing to pay them for their inventions and then do a much better job of marketing the product?
I have had many "brain flashes" of ideas. Could I build them or write them, no. Did I bring them to marketable products, no. Anyone can get a patent, but few can create a really useful or marketable product. Unless someone sets out to steal my ideas and market or use them internally without some extra reward or compensation to me, I don't think they have done wrong. Some People are always tring to make a fast buck ($) by stealing. Even many non-religious people have a degree of ethics. There are a few who want to profit from the actual work of others. This is a matter of ethics & morality. Weather it is a purse found by a empty park bench or software code does not make it right to steal. An idea on a napkin is not the same as a purse or actual code. Most of us have wallets, purses, or some tangible object such as code. To take these things via deception is wrong. To steal a napkin with an idea is wrong, but if you have a "brain flash" or want to create your own spreadsheet is not wrong. Mouse traps have improved over the years. Right now the iPad and iOS6 are hot marketable items. If Microsoft chooses to build a better mouse trap, that is not wrong. Apple is doing what they can, as is Microsoft. These are successful companies in their own right. Making the world a better place, but not at the expense of others is commendable, but not at stockholder expense. If an owner wants to spend his money to benefit others or throw it out the window, that is their business. Government has no money and should serve at the pleasure of the people, not for the pleasure of the elected. It does not take a large government to give money away and it is not theirs to give away or redistribute.
Here are a few comments on several things - patent trolls are like catfish, bottom feeding scum suckers that will eat anything they can digest. May they and their parasite attorneys get their just rewards, but not at the expense of others who have earned it.
While yes they might have a valid legal issue, that they waited 5 yrs to protect their IP, until a time when Apple has way more money than back then, still makes them trolls. And that's just with Apple. Excel would fit the vague details of this patent and was out way before Numbers. So where is their law suit
Patent laws need to have the same 'clearly you don't give a shit' type rules as trademarks. Protect from day one or give it up.
And your example is horribly not even close.
What you know is that they filed a suit right now. You don't know how long it took for them to become aware of the application or investigate it. Beyond that you may have had communication between the two companies. This did not necessarily sit in stasis. You only here about it when it progresses to the point of litigation. Trademarks are totally different. They are not something that is typically licensed out as you would with IP. You're just completely off base here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
Most definitely a troll...... I think these guys got their companies mixed-up: that drawing looks more like the original Excel than Numbers. In fact, the only similarity with any Apple product is that it looks more Mac OS 6-ish than it does Windows. Apple should sue this company for copying Apple's IP.
You misinterpreted the nature of the article. This isn't necessarily a design patent. It doesn't matter how it looks. The cited IP relates to how it works. The styling is something that's included for reference, but you're not looking at an entire claim in the form of an illustration. If you want to read the whole thing, look for the words "what is claimed is". I'm not exactly an expert on this, but some of the opinions on this thread are based on extremely levels of misinterpretation or unverified assumptions.
I'm with jragosta and wizard69 on this one. Tarring firms with the overused "patent troll" brush is silly and misleading.
"patent trolling" is nothing more or less than "intellectual property arbitrage." That is, some firms are in the business of acquiring IP assets that are undervalued and then generating revenue from them. In many cases, the original owner/creator of that patent is not in a position to make use of it and is unable or uninterested in doing the work of finding licensees for the patent. Someone else steps in and does that.
I don't have a problem with that part at all. It's no different from me selling you land I no longer have an interest in developing and you develop it. Or perhaps because I'm not a real estate developer land I inherit that I don't develop should be given to the first random squatter than comes along and build on it? Is that what people mean when they say they hate patent trolls?
The problems with the system are:
1. patents being granted for vague, obvious things that do more to hinder innovation then encourage it.
2. courts/juries that make poor decisions when faced with adjudicating IP cases (in many, most?, cases because a layman has no business trying to try such cases).
3. when intellectual property arbitrage specialists use thuggish, gotcha tactics to generate revenue from their patents. If I were to use the term patent troll at all, it would be for this subset of firms that use these tactics. For example, rather than reaching out to a company as soon as they identify a possible patent infringement and offering to license their IP, they watch and wait for years until the product becomes successful and thing spring forth asking for big bucks. THAT's what I find unfair. If you know I'm doing something wrong, and you a) don't tell me about it and b) don't do anything about it, then you are choosing to give up some of your rights to sue me later. At least that's how it should be. In the least you shouldn't be able to get compensation for that period when I was using your IP with your knowledge and your implicit consent (as evidenced by your complete inaction).
East Texas is the best place in the world for patent trolls; all you need to be successful is to promise the judge/jury money. I often wonder how much the judges and juries make from the patent troll lawsuits. Do the judges/juries get a percentage of the award or a flat fee?
Patents just cause harm to small developers, but it's totally harmless to big companies. The patents game is the game they play. So don't call it "patent troll", it's just another game in the season, and they're well fitted to play it. So, I'd say "good move" to the business who started this, and "now it's your turn" to Apple. Yes, it's a boring game, though.
However, in 1979, when VisiCalc was shown to the public for the first time, patents for software inventions were infrequently granted. Programs were thought to be mere mathematical algorithms, and mathematical algorithms, as laws of nature, were not patentable. The publishers of VisiCalc, Personal Software (their name at the time -- later renamed VisiCorp), retained a patent attorney who met with executives from Software Arts and Personal Software. The patent attorney explained to us the difficulty of obtaining a patent on software, and estimated a 10% chance of success, even using various techniques for hiding the fact that it was really software (such as proposing it as a machine). Given such advice, and the costs involved, we decided not to pursue a patent.
Will you stop with the silly patent troll nonsense?
The rightful owner of a patent has the right to enforce it whether they are using it or not.
It's like this. Let's say that you inherit a factory from your parents that was used to make widgets and includes all the equipment you need to manufacture widgets. You don't want to make widgets, so you sell the factory to a real estate investor who will then rent it to someone who wants to make widgets.
Does the fact that you don't make widgets mean that someone else can just move in and start using your factory without permission? Does the fact that the real estate investor doesn't want to make widgets mean that anyone can move in without permission and start making widgets? So why should patents be any different? There is absolutely no requirement in US patent law (or any other country that I know of) that only allows you to enforce a patent if you are using it.
You failed to state what is ridiculous. I don't see anything ridiculous about it. Apple might be infringing a patent and someone sued them to ask the court to determine infringement. Why is that ridiculous. Apple knows that when it sells products it might be infringing patents, which is why it has a team of lawyers and outside counsel to determine the best way for the company to deal with the patent and/or Apple's infringement.
What is ridiculous is for the media and ignorant techies to think that high tech companies shouldn't have to deal with potential patent infringement.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy
Some idiot scribbles an idea on a napkin and gets a patent. He doesn't have the brain power to actually create the product, yet, he has the right to sue someone who spends the hours developing and investing in the idea. Time to put an end to the free ride of all the PATENT TROLLS!!
So if some idiot scribbles an idea on a napkin like this:
You say they shouldn't be granted a patent?
I agree. {snigger}
You know that old saying - live by the sword, die by the sword. The trouble with iFans is that they seem to think the entire patent system should operate only for the benefit of Apple and no one else.
Seriously, when does Office hit the iPad? Who uses Numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
Most definitely a troll...... I think these guys got their companies mixed-up: that drawing looks more like the original Excel than Numbers. In fact, the only similarity with any Apple product is that it looks more Mac OS 6-ish than it does Windows. Apple should sue this company for copying Apple's IP.
Definitely not Mac OS 6-ish. Thats Windows 3.xx.
I don't know what is wrong with some people here. To call someone a patent troll does not mean, that the patent is illegal or unrightfully theirs. Maybe they should educate themselves first!
So we should throw out the entire patent system because you don't understand how it works? That's just silly. Maybe you should start by learning how the patent system works. In particular, pay attention to the difference between utility patents and design patents.
As with any patent suit, Apple will have the chance to try to have the patent voided due to prior art.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous viewpoint.
People invent technology with the purpose of benefiting from doing so. If you can't benefit from your inventions, why bother? Not everyone wants to make a product. Not everyone CAN make a product. If I invent a better process for etching silicon wafers, I would require something like $10,000,000,000 in order to get into the CPU manufacturing business (and that's probably on the low side). Do you have that kind of money lying around? If I had to make a product in order to protect my property, there would be zero incentive to invent a new process. Furthermore, some people are good inventors, but lousy businessmen. Why should they be forced to commercialize the product if someone is willing to pay them for their inventions and then do a much better job of marketing the product?
Here are a few comments on several things - patent trolls are like catfish, bottom feeding scum suckers that will eat anything they can digest. May they and their parasite attorneys get their just rewards, but not at the expense of others who have earned it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
While yes they might have a valid legal issue, that they waited 5 yrs to protect their IP, until a time when Apple has way more money than back then, still makes them trolls. And that's just with Apple. Excel would fit the vague details of this patent and was out way before Numbers. So where is their law suit
Patent laws need to have the same 'clearly you don't give a shit' type rules as trademarks. Protect from day one or give it up.
And your example is horribly not even close.
What you know is that they filed a suit right now. You don't know how long it took for them to become aware of the application or investigate it. Beyond that you may have had communication between the two companies. This did not necessarily sit in stasis. You only here about it when it progresses to the point of litigation. Trademarks are totally different. They are not something that is typically licensed out as you would with IP. You're just completely off base here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip
Most definitely a troll...... I think these guys got their companies mixed-up: that drawing looks more like the original Excel than Numbers. In fact, the only similarity with any Apple product is that it looks more Mac OS 6-ish than it does Windows. Apple should sue this company for copying Apple's IP.
You misinterpreted the nature of the article. This isn't necessarily a design patent. It doesn't matter how it looks. The cited IP relates to how it works. The styling is something that's included for reference, but you're not looking at an entire claim in the form of an illustration. If you want to read the whole thing, look for the words "what is claimed is". I'm not exactly an expert on this, but some of the opinions on this thread are based on extremely levels of misinterpretation or unverified assumptions.
I'm with jragosta and wizard69 on this one. Tarring firms with the overused "patent troll" brush is silly and misleading.
"patent trolling" is nothing more or less than "intellectual property arbitrage." That is, some firms are in the business of acquiring IP assets that are undervalued and then generating revenue from them. In many cases, the original owner/creator of that patent is not in a position to make use of it and is unable or uninterested in doing the work of finding licensees for the patent. Someone else steps in and does that.
I don't have a problem with that part at all. It's no different from me selling you land I no longer have an interest in developing and you develop it. Or perhaps because I'm not a real estate developer land I inherit that I don't develop should be given to the first random squatter than comes along and build on it? Is that what people mean when they say they hate patent trolls?
The problems with the system are:
1. patents being granted for vague, obvious things that do more to hinder innovation then encourage it.
2. courts/juries that make poor decisions when faced with adjudicating IP cases (in many, most?, cases because a layman has no business trying to try such cases).
3. when intellectual property arbitrage specialists use thuggish, gotcha tactics to generate revenue from their patents. If I were to use the term patent troll at all, it would be for this subset of firms that use these tactics. For example, rather than reaching out to a company as soon as they identify a possible patent infringement and offering to license their IP, they watch and wait for years until the product becomes successful and thing spring forth asking for big bucks. THAT's what I find unfair. If you know I'm doing something wrong, and you a) don't tell me about it and b) don't do anything about it, then you are choosing to give up some of your rights to sue me later. At least that's how it should be. In the least you shouldn't be able to get compensation for that period when I was using your IP with your knowledge and your implicit consent (as evidenced by your complete inaction).
OMG, seriously? Did they shoot themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
I just want to know, did Borland make that old Apple II Plus game Loadrunner?
If so could they bring it to iOS? I'd pay for it.
It was Loderunner, not loadrunner.
Awesome game, two colours black and white, and Daleks, lots of daleks.
Used to play it on my Mac Plus.
Patents just cause harm to small developers, but it's totally harmless to big companies. The patents game is the game they play. So don't call it "patent troll", it's just another game in the season, and they're well fitted to play it. So, I'd say "good move" to the business who started this, and "now it's your turn" to Apple. Yes, it's a boring game, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
It was Loderunner, not loadrunner.
Awesome game, two colours black and white, and Daleks, lots of daleks.
Used to play it on my Mac Plus.
Actually Lode Runner (2 words) by a company called Brøderbund not Borland. There was a color version and even an Xbox version.
See the true definition of a patent troll guys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Well in their case they forgot to file for a patent at all.
Not quite ...
Full story is here: http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm ... but here's a snippet:
Quote:
However, in 1979, when VisiCalc was shown to the public for the first time, patents for software inventions were infrequently granted. Programs were thought to be mere mathematical algorithms, and mathematical algorithms, as laws of nature, were not patentable. The publishers of VisiCalc, Personal Software (their name at the time -- later renamed VisiCorp), retained a patent attorney who met with executives from Software Arts and Personal Software. The patent attorney explained to us the difficulty of obtaining a patent on software, and estimated a 10% chance of success, even using various techniques for hiding the fact that it was really software (such as proposing it as a machine). Given such advice, and the costs involved, we decided not to pursue a patent.
OK. Now that you've demonstrated that you don't have any clue how the system works, you can go back to your corner.
Even if the court case drags out, they can collect damages retroactively. Dragging it out doesn't reduce Apple's potential damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Will you stop with the silly patent troll nonsense?
The rightful owner of a patent has the right to enforce it whether they are using it or not.
It's like this. Let's say that you inherit a factory from your parents that was used to make widgets and includes all the equipment you need to manufacture widgets. You don't want to make widgets, so you sell the factory to a real estate investor who will then rent it to someone who wants to make widgets.
Does the fact that you don't make widgets mean that someone else can just move in and start using your factory without permission? Does the fact that the real estate investor doesn't want to make widgets mean that anyone can move in without permission and start making widgets? So why should patents be any different? There is absolutely no requirement in US patent law (or any other country that I know of) that only allows you to enforce a patent if you are using it.
Exactly! good Analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTBuzz
This has gotten to be ridiculous.
You failed to state what is ridiculous. I don't see anything ridiculous about it. Apple might be infringing a patent and someone sued them to ask the court to determine infringement. Why is that ridiculous. Apple knows that when it sells products it might be infringing patents, which is why it has a team of lawyers and outside counsel to determine the best way for the company to deal with the patent and/or Apple's infringement.
What is ridiculous is for the media and ignorant techies to think that high tech companies shouldn't have to deal with potential patent infringement.