You were very obviously posting about patent applications in general, which speaks directly to the post you seem to take issue with. It also disproves what you said in post 5:
Quote: "No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar."
"...but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application"
BTW, how do you infringe on someone else's application?
Oh, it's GG being deliberately, and theatrically, obtuse, again, this time apparently to be argumentative. This time, it's not even clear what his point is other than being hypocritical (see his sig).
But, let's look at the points above:
* No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.
Fair enough, I'll buy that.
* ... make sure you're not infringing on someone else's [patent] application.
Is infringing on someone else's IP the same as "doing something similar"? It could be, but since "doing something similar" is a very broad characterization, it's almost certainly not the same as "infringing on someone else's [patent] application" in all, maybe not even most, cases.
On the other hand, if someone files a fairly strong patent application, and there seems to be no prior art, and it seems unlikley they will license it to you when granted, it would probably be wise to turn your efforts in a different direction, rather than continuing full steam ahead in the same direction as your competition. Unless of course, you think you can get away with ripping off their IP and not suffer consequences.
* how do you infringe on someone else's application?
This is where GG gets obtuse even for him. Really GG? Do you really not understand how something you pulled from a different context might seem a little off when looked at literally?
What we see here is GG, even when he's just engaged in attacking another person, just can't help but try to distort reality, even if it's just a little.
Dang Tallest, wheres the full list so I can check it?
BTW reforms in software patents should be based on exact working. Just like how the mechanical stuff is analysed with working prototypes. The current concept-based patents are killing innovation by covering broad bases, when there are hundreds of ways of accomplishing the same things.
Economic reforms, well having safety nets, a true government bank (the Federal Reserve is a mess) should make things better.
BTW reforms in software patents should be based on exact working. Just like how the mechanical stuff is analysed with working prototypes.
I like the idea, but how is that handled? The working can't be outlined in a part of the patent released publicly, as anyone would just copy that wholesale. Much easier than having to reverse engineer the stolen OS piece of software.
I'm pretty sure his response applied to your entire post, despite his omission of an ellipsis. He may have even been referring to all of your posts.
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
Nope, and you know it. Claiming you're getting a raw deal when you're the one that always brings the sashimi doesn't really endear anyone to your plight.
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
I've seen many of your posts, and I've never seen any, "valid facts and figures," in any of them. Just a lot of bile.
What is interesting is the dishonesty of the writers, and this strange NY Times obsession with Apple.
The article starts with a false equivalency between the Vlingo/Nuance dispute and the Apple suits against Samsung, where apparently we are supposed to believe that goliath manufacturer Samsung is a stand-in for poor little Vlingo. The authors also seem to argue (and I have no idea if this is true) that Vlingo's inventions were independent and actually better than Nuance's innovations. But that is not descriptive of the Apple/Samsung litigation at all. It is not like Samsung independently invented a better way to work a phone. Instead Samsung clearly took Apple's ideas and shoehorned them into their skin of Android.
Apple's payment of $100 million to Creative (6 years ago) is paltry compared to the payments made to Nokia for patents related to the iPhone, but interestingly nowhere are Nokia or Apple's royalty payments mentioned in this article.
The authors write: "If Apple’s claims — which include ownership of minor elements like rounded square icons and of more fundamental smartphone technologies — prevail, it will most likely force competitors to overhaul how they design phones, industry experts say." First, why weren't these "more fundamental smartphone technologies" explained? What are they? How important are they? What were phones like before these inventions? Second, wouldn't an "overhaul" of existing phones be a good thing, forcing other companies to invent even better ways of interacting with a smartphone? Isn't that the very definition of innovation?
Apart from a direct quote from Apple's representative (which of course cannot be trusted because its Apple /s), the writers make no attempt to explain "standards-essential patents" and the abusive way Motorola, Samsung and others have tried to use them. Nor did the writers clearly distinguish these from Apple's non-standards-essential patents.
Judge Posner is mentioned several times in the article. Perhaps he should have recused himself at the Apple/Motorola trial, because he is clearly not neutral on this subject.
The most laughable quote in the whole piece is this one from someone at Google: “Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.” As if patent suits explains the success of the iPhone!
I like the idea, but how is that handled? The working can't be outlined in a part of the patent released publicly, as anyone would just copy that wholesale. Much easier than having to reverse engineer the stolen OS piece of software.
I guess using higher level architecture, system, etc diagrams. Those are pretty abstract in terms of code implementation, but outline the working very well. Plus getting a patent on such stuff will ensure that any copycats can be caught easily if they rip it off.
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
It sounds like you're getting the idea you're in the wrong place. This forum is called APPLEInsider. Not Ars or CNET. We are Apple fans here, for the most part. You're going to get blasted for bringing your pro-Fandroid, Anti-Apple blather. It's the Apple 'hood, don't you know?
Judge Posner is mentioned several times in the article. Perhaps he should have recused himself at the Apple/Motorola trial, because he is clearly not neutral on this subject.
Yep. It's clear that Posner has taken an activist approach. He doesn't like the law, so he simply ignores it. That's not the way the judicial system is supposed to work.
You can be sure that Apple will use Posner's statements in their ongoing appeal. I'll be shocked if the appeals court doesn't reverse or remand the decision.
The most laughable quote in the whole piece is this one from someone at Google: “Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.” As if patent suits explains the success of the iPhone!
What is interesting is the dishonesty of the writers, and this strange NY Times obsession with Apple.
The article starts with a false equivalency between the Vlingo/Nuance dispute and the Apple suits against Samsung, where apparently we are supposed to believe that goliath manufacturer Samsung is a stand-in for poor little Vlingo.
GG's links aren't supposed to be followed and read. You're just supposed to assume they support his points, which they never seem to. Quite strange, really.
So basically, "Innovate, don't litigate," when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I wasn't saying anything so obtuse. Just saying that if they didn't have to litigate (both defensively and offensively), all that effort and money could be used more productively (i.e. R&D). If innovative companies could focus on innovating instead of worrying about suing/being sued, isn't that a good thing? I don't have a solution... I just don't know if there is a way to truly reform patent law because there's always going to be a few bad seeds gaming the system. And that's the sad part.
Now, I did miss that the article says litigating AND purchasing. Missed the purchasing part, but still I'm sure the amount spent on litigating was a huge amount.
Comments
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Like I said, it wont be long when Apple's legal department has greater budget than their R&D department. lol
The one company that led the underground rebellion against the likes of Big Blue, is now itself the very thing that they despised.
Oh how thou times have changed.
Also, it seems like Apple's lawyers mislead the jury into believing that Samsung "copied".
http://news.yahoo.com/newly-released-documents-suggest-samsung-might-not-apple-141247119.html
Originally Posted by Galbi
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Good description of most of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You were very obviously posting about patent applications in general, which speaks directly to the post you seem to take issue with. It also disproves what you said in post 5:
Quote: "No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar."
"...but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application"
BTW, how do you infringe on someone else's application?
Oh, it's GG being deliberately, and theatrically, obtuse, again, this time apparently to be argumentative. This time, it's not even clear what his point is other than being hypocritical (see his sig).
But, let's look at the points above:
* No one ever said that competitors shouldn't ever work on something similar.
Fair enough, I'll buy that.
* ... make sure you're not infringing on someone else's [patent] application.
Is infringing on someone else's IP the same as "doing something similar"? It could be, but since "doing something similar" is a very broad characterization, it's almost certainly not the same as "infringing on someone else's [patent] application" in all, maybe not even most, cases.
On the other hand, if someone files a fairly strong patent application, and there seems to be no prior art, and it seems unlikley they will license it to you when granted, it would probably be wise to turn your efforts in a different direction, rather than continuing full steam ahead in the same direction as your competition. Unless of course, you think you can get away with ripping off their IP and not suffer consequences.
* how do you infringe on someone else's application?
This is where GG gets obtuse even for him. Really GG? Do you really not understand how something you pulled from a different context might seem a little off when looked at literally?
What we see here is GG, even when he's just engaged in attacking another person, just can't help but try to distort reality, even if it's just a little.
Dang Tallest, wheres the full list so I can check it?
BTW reforms in software patents should be based on exact working. Just like how the mechanical stuff is analysed with working prototypes. The current concept-based patents are killing innovation by covering broad bases, when there are hundreds of ways of accomplishing the same things.
Economic reforms, well having safety nets, a true government bank (the Federal Reserve is a mess) should make things better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Good description of most of your posts.
Act like a moderator please and not take sides. We need people like Jim Lehrer of PBS in this board, who dont take offense to statements.
The fact that you are not quoting my other statements leads me to believe that you are in agreement.
What benefit do you get by focusing the issue on the person making the statements? Why not focus on the ideas of my statements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Act like a moderator please and not take sides.
The fact that you are not quoting my other statements leads me to believe that you are in agreement.
I'm pretty sure his response applied to your entire post, despite his omission of an ellipsis. He may have even been referring to all of your posts.
Originally Posted by spacerays
BTW reforms in software patents should be based on exact working. Just like how the mechanical stuff is analysed with working prototypes.
I like the idea, but how is that handled? The working can't be outlined in a part of the patent released publicly, as anyone would just copy that wholesale. Much easier than having to reverse engineer the stolen OS piece of software.
Originally Posted by Galbi
…not take sides.
Nah. Also, nah for the other part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I'm pretty sure his response applied to your entire post, despite his omission of an ellipsis. He may have even been referring to all of your posts.
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
Originally Posted by Galbi
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
Nope, and you know it. Claiming you're getting a raw deal when you're the one that always brings the sashimi doesn't really endear anyone to your plight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
I've seen many of your posts, and I've never seen any, "valid facts and figures," in any of them. Just a lot of bile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
For those that haven't read the entire article, it's absolutely worth a few minutes time to do so IMO
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
What is interesting is the dishonesty of the writers, and this strange NY Times obsession with Apple.
The article starts with a false equivalency between the Vlingo/Nuance dispute and the Apple suits against Samsung, where apparently we are supposed to believe that goliath manufacturer Samsung is a stand-in for poor little Vlingo. The authors also seem to argue (and I have no idea if this is true) that Vlingo's inventions were independent and actually better than Nuance's innovations. But that is not descriptive of the Apple/Samsung litigation at all. It is not like Samsung independently invented a better way to work a phone. Instead Samsung clearly took Apple's ideas and shoehorned them into their skin of Android.
Apple's payment of $100 million to Creative (6 years ago) is paltry compared to the payments made to Nokia for patents related to the iPhone, but interestingly nowhere are Nokia or Apple's royalty payments mentioned in this article.
The authors write: "If Apple’s claims — which include ownership of minor elements like rounded square icons and of more fundamental smartphone technologies — prevail, it will most likely force competitors to overhaul how they design phones, industry experts say." First, why weren't these "more fundamental smartphone technologies" explained? What are they? How important are they? What were phones like before these inventions? Second, wouldn't an "overhaul" of existing phones be a good thing, forcing other companies to invent even better ways of interacting with a smartphone? Isn't that the very definition of innovation?
Apart from a direct quote from Apple's representative (which of course cannot be trusted because its Apple /s), the writers make no attempt to explain "standards-essential patents" and the abusive way Motorola, Samsung and others have tried to use them. Nor did the writers clearly distinguish these from Apple's non-standards-essential patents.
Judge Posner is mentioned several times in the article. Perhaps he should have recused himself at the Apple/Motorola trial, because he is clearly not neutral on this subject.
The most laughable quote in the whole piece is this one from someone at Google: “Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.” As if patent suits explains the success of the iPhone!
Another hatchet job by the Times, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I like the idea, but how is that handled? The working can't be outlined in a part of the patent released publicly, as anyone would just copy that wholesale. Much easier than having to reverse engineer the stolen OS piece of software.
I guess using higher level architecture, system, etc diagrams. Those are pretty abstract in terms of code implementation, but outline the working very well. Plus getting a patent on such stuff will ensure that any copycats can be caught easily if they rip it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Any objections or critical statements made by myself or others will be regarded as "pathetic" in the eyes of the fans. So it doesnt matter what kind of statements I make. Whats the point? Any valid facts and figures mentioned that goes against the Apple thinking will be deemed a troll worthy or an Android fanatic.
It sounds like you're getting the idea you're in the wrong place. This forum is called APPLEInsider. Not Ars or CNET. We are Apple fans here, for the most part. You're going to get blasted for bringing your pro-Fandroid, Anti-Apple blather. It's the Apple 'hood, don't you know?
Yep. It's clear that Posner has taken an activist approach. He doesn't like the law, so he simply ignores it. That's not the way the judicial system is supposed to work.
You can be sure that Apple will use Posner's statements in their ongoing appeal. I'll be shocked if the appeals court doesn't reverse or remand the decision.
That it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash
What is interesting is the dishonesty of the writers, and this strange NY Times obsession with Apple.
The article starts with a false equivalency between the Vlingo/Nuance dispute and the Apple suits against Samsung, where apparently we are supposed to believe that goliath manufacturer Samsung is a stand-in for poor little Vlingo.
GG's links aren't supposed to be followed and read. You're just supposed to assume they support his points, which they never seem to. Quite strange, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Where can I read the complete list?
I wasn't saying anything so obtuse. Just saying that if they didn't have to litigate (both defensively and offensively), all that effort and money could be used more productively (i.e. R&D). If innovative companies could focus on innovating instead of worrying about suing/being sued, isn't that a good thing? I don't have a solution... I just don't know if there is a way to truly reform patent law because there's always going to be a few bad seeds gaming the system. And that's the sad part.
Now, I did miss that the article says litigating AND purchasing. Missed the purchasing part, but still I'm sure the amount spent on litigating was a huge amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Like I said, it wont be long when Apple's legal department has greater budget than their R&D department. lol
The one company that led the underground rebellion against the likes of Big Blue, is now itself the very thing that they despised.
Oh how thou times have changed.
Also, it seems like Apple's lawyers mislead the jury into believing that Samsung "copied".
http://news.yahoo.com/newly-released-documents-suggest-samsung-might-not-apple-141247119.html
Since the SCO trials finished, Groklaw became irrelevant, yet they continue to blindly follow an agenda of discrediting Apple.
btw, how's this for a stupid European software patent:-
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Where can I read the complete list?
Feel free to offer suggestions for changes and additions.