Point 46 seems key to the need for the statement.
Overly simplified by me: The more loudly Apple said Samsung copied in public the more need for the statement to clarify. Hely's statement was after Apple had lost this case.
That's fair enough but Apple hasn't in the past actively advertised to the public that Samsung is a plagiarising mofo. They sued them, which they are entitled to do. The press is doing the rest.
The court decided to get their own back on Apple by making it clear they'd lost the case and make it seem that Samsung hadn't copied the iPad - there's been no clarification required by the court to inform the public that the case does NOT mean that Samsung hasn't copied the iPad. The clarification is that Apple lost the case, which the public already believe is about the iPad when they should be aware that Samsung's product is nothing like the drawing, which is irrelevant because the public doesn't care about the drawing.
By forcing Apple to declare it on their website is tantamount to forcing them to admit their legal action is unjustified in the eyes of the public. Except, they've got a 1 billion reasons coming as to why it ain't and Apple just tried to let the public know that and I think they were right to do it.
This design patent ultimately has failed everywhere Apple have used it in court.
Perhaps Apple have been holding back the 'really damning designs' or the patents that Samsung infringes because this 2004 "rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners" is not an iPad or a Galaxy Tab.
There are some elements that differ between the Tab but that looks a hell of a lot closer than the other one.
I'm not sure if I'd like to see them pursue it though. On the one hand, I feel like they've been treated badly by the non-US courts. On the other hand, all this legal stuff is really dull and having to prepare for court appearances and things must affect senior staff. At this point in time, the Galaxy S3 is a unique enough design IMO. The Galaxy Tab is selling poorly so not a big threat. Android is a bit of a rip-off but I still like it that it's Google/Unix/Open Standards and not a worse alternative.
The public can see the copying happening and how each company feels and can make their buying decisions. I don't think it requires a strong offensive from either side any more. I'd even be inclined to suggest that Apple offers (on condition of toning down the legal action) that Samsung doesn't pay them $1b and rather gives them a reduced rate on their components ($5 per chip on 200 million iPhones) and in return, they will conitnue to use them as a supplier. Samsung make good quality components and the consumer suffers using suppliers which can't keep up demand or don't have the same quality control.
And all the companies need to stop throwing around the word 'innovation' whenever they make a public statement and start delivering on it. I'm still using a keyboard and mouse, we still don't have heteregoenous computing, we still don't have a proper fully multi-touch desktop UI, we are still paying for phones calls and using numbers to dial each other. With so much work to be done, there are better ways to spend time than with these trivial legal matters.
That's fair enough but Apple hasn't in the past actively advertised to the public that Samsung is a plagiarising mofo. They sued them, which they are entitled to do. The press is doing the rest.
Apple helped the press along by giving statements like the one mentioned in Point 11.
…he refers to a report in the Daily Mail on 10th August 2011 that Apple spokesmen had said:
?"This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas'."
There is mention of an article in the Financial Times in 2010, and another for PC World in 2011. Apple had been telling anyone who would listen in the UK/EU media, it was the reason for the case, then after loosing they continued, got slapped with the statement, they added three paragraphs to the statement & hoped that would be OK, despite being given the text in in court.
It does seem weird that this case was about infringing the registered design but Apple's FUD was explicitly about copying the iPad. It only makes sense if Apple don't have any better designs to hit Samsung with copying the iPad in court. Either Steve misjudged it when he said 'Boy have we patented it' or Apple legal have some explaining to do.
Apple could have been quiet in the press & unleashed a whirlwind of cases that makes it clear Samsung copied, but the various attempts to block Samsung sales in the EU have failed. Maybe now it will start again & Apple will demand the same statement for Samsung to display.
If anyone else made something like that image on Engadget I'd agree that they should be sued into oblivion if the design is registered.
I think your final 3 paragraphs are a marvellous idea, licence the various patents to each other & behave like adults. I have a horrible feeling Apple is going down the line of owning every part of production & will continue fighting.
If that is the case we'll see more fragmentation (like no Blu-ray because 'the licensing is a mess'). I wonder if these two giants will get into a death spiral whist MS gets its act together & steals the market from under them. I'd quite fancy a Surface if I could run Mountain Lion on it :^)
There are some elements that differ between the Tab but that looks a hell of a lot closer than the other one.
I'm not sure if I'd like to see them pursue it though.
Marvin, did you take a few minutes and actually look at the design patent claims? Remember that details outlined with dotted lines are not included in the patent. Only those things described with solid lines matter. It makes a huge difference.
ArsTechnica had an article on it just a few days ago, as did TheVerge:
Apple's FUD was explicitly about copying the iPad. Either Steve misjudged it when he said 'Boy have we patented it' or Apple legal have some explaining to do.
How would you explain the fact that Samsung lost a court case in the US? That's not FUD. Apple patented a lot of things and some of the competition has licensed it, Samsung just copied it without paying. Even Microsoft licensed it:
If that is the case we'll see more fragmentation (like no Blu-ray because 'the licensing is a mess').
Blu-Ray isn't an example of fragmentation. Even one of Sony's execs said Blu-Ray was dead in the water and Apple doesn't stop you buying a Blu-Ray drive.
Yup, Apple has finally succeeded in patenting the rounded rectangle.
Samsung is in serious trouble then. It is interesting is that this patent was filed in November 2010. The Galaxy Tab was introduced in Septmeber 2010. I wonder if it was filed as a response to it. Maybe they can't use this against Samsung given that their product came out before they filed it.
I don't see how only the unbroken lines can represent the design though - figure 4 and the front page show the outline as a broken/dotted line. There has to be something wrong with the scanning. Every line in the following drawing is broken:
I don't see how only the unbroken lines can represent the design though - figure 4 and the front page show the outline as a broken/dotted line. There has to be something wrong with the scanning. Every line in the following drawing is broken:
I think the real genius in this patent is that Apple has managed to create a closed geometric shape with two right angles and three sides. ????
That document does not compare the iPad and Tab at all, only the Tab and the community design in question.
Except when he says things like:
"Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim"
you'd have to assume he can tell from the drawing that it has a plate glass surface and not plastic, it doesn't mention what it's made of. There's always the hint he is referencing the product and not the drawing. You're right though it does say 'Apple design' throughout and that was intended to mean the design in the drawing, not the design of the product. That was misinterpreted by almost every news publication:
The headline should really be that the Galaxy Tab wasn't as cool as Apple's drawing, which makes no sense at all as it's a drawing. It's bad enough that the iPad is cooler but Apple's line art? Geez, get it together Samsung.
It also still doesn't explain why they have to advertise about the patent trial verdict when the public was never under the impression that Samsung copied the patent and not the iPad. The public was always under the impression Samsung copied the iPad. The judge said clearly he didn't think the drawing represented the iPad so they didn't in any way prove Samsing didn't copy the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid
It is also a jurisdiction that Apple basically slandered Samsung with the copying illegally accusations.
Except they didn't because they didn't contradict the verdict. Samsung has been found guilty of infringing Apple's patents. Are we forgetting the small matter of the $1b fine? This isn't going to be thrown out for juror misconduct as much as I'm certain you and others think it will be.
Facts:
- Samsung has been found guilty of infringing on some of Apple's patents and fined $1b
- Samsung has been found not guilty of infringing a design that doesn't look like the iPad
Conclusion:
- Samsung copied the iPad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid
Seems like the judge is saying both parties agreed the case wasn't about copying?
That's right but the case wasn't about the iPad either so what does that prove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
For one thing, Robin Jacob is one of the most distinguished judges in the UK and without doubt the foremost authority on IP law. He is a recognized international expert and a member of the IP Hall of Fame.
That's fine and I agree with the verdict that Samsung's tablet doesn't look like the drawing and neither does the iPad. I think the decision to force Apple to make a public statement was underhanded, unnecessary and deliberately misleading to the public who have been led to believe that Samsung hasn't copied the iPad as comments in this thread have shown. Having a good track record doesn't excuse people from being held accountable for bad decisions.
It's perfectly OK to disagree with the judges. All 5 of them. I don't agree with your innuendo which implies some kind of ulterior motives on the part of the judges, but I am perhaps a little more familiar with the EU Law on which it is based, and perhaps can appreciate the subtleties which escape some people.
What I was particularly trying to point out is that the level of invictive and abuse by some of the participants in this forum is entirely inappropriate and, to put it bluntly libellous and probably sanctionable in the UK.
I would much prefer to see a level of discussion that is distinguishable from the gutter. It doesn't enhance the credibility of AI, which I personally think is a pity.
There are other forums which stand in stark contrast to AI with respect to the level of discussion. One of the better ones is Groklaw, which is an award-winning site dedicated to the truth and accuracy in their reporting and to ethical and behavioural standards which is a refreshing contrast to AI. They even manage to accommodate divergent opinions in the discussions without continually descending to personal abuse.
It often seems to me like abusing Einstein as an idiot because you don't understand the mathematics of general relativity.
Just for fun:
One can argue that copying is in fact the foundation of human social and economic progress. Even Steve Jobs once remarked that he shamelessly steals great ideas. Basically all progress is based on copying and innovation on the copied subject matter, of stealing great ideas and developing further on the work of many brilliant people. As a scientist I could give thousands of good examples, and in general I think its actually a good thing. Limits exist with respect to patent violations, but it does well to remember that the original purpose of patents was to promote innovation by publishing inventions in return for a time-limited monopoly. Unfortunately the patent concept has been turned to its opposite and is largely being used to block and prevent innovation and competition in order to enrich a few at the cost of the greater good for society. In the US one can argue that this has been taken to an extreme and potentiated by the vagaries of the legal system to the point that it will kill innovation in the US. Software patents are an extreme example.
It's perfectly OK to disagree with the judges. All 5 of them. I don't agree with your innuendo which implies some kind of ulterior motives on the part of the judges
Assuming that you believe their intention was to clarify the case had nothing to do with the iPad and therefore nothing to do with the Galaxy Tab not infringing on the iPad, how well do you think they pulled it off?
I would much prefer to see a level of discussion that is distinguishable from the gutter. It doesn't enhance the credibility of AI, which I personally think is a pity.
There are other forums which stand in stark contrast to AI with respect to the level of discussion. One of the better ones is Groklaw, which is an award-winning site dedicated to the truth and accuracy in their reporting and to ethical and behavioural standards which is a refreshing contrast to AI.
It often seems to me like abusing Einstein as an idiot because you don't understand the mathematics of general relativity.
The law is nothing like mathematics, it's a system of rules based on human behaviour - you just have to look at the laws that were enforced a few decades ago. And Android fans sure as hell aren't the equivalent of Einstein.
Some forum members can be overly harsh on people with an opposing point of view but officially any reasonable discussion is welcome. A far worse situation would be one where only a single-minded point of view is tolerated and that is not the case here. Places like Groklaw where comments like:
"I think the reactions of the rabid Apple fans, and such retractions they might
conceivably make will be interesting. Or the lack of reaction.
But they are sounding more and more like Microsoft, spoiled brats who are
unhappy that they can't get their way."
are where you find uninformed, abusive comments. That sort of thing isn't productive. Some people find abusive comments about Apple and their fans comforting and rational and claim the suppression of that is unjust and narrow-minded. There is normally misinformation and abuse from all sides in any interesting discussion, it's just the nature of it. Placid discussions are ones nobody cares about. There's a balance and I think the members of this forum do a good job maintaining it.
One can argue that copying is in fact the foundation of human social and economic progress. Even Steve Jobs once remarked that he shamelessly steals great ideas.
I assume you'll be able to easily point out the inspiration for all of Apple's iconic products. Before you think about mentioning Xerox and Braun, you might want to consider that a lot of these things have been regurgitated and dismissed many times over the years so try to wander onto some new ground.
Basically all progress is based on copying and innovation on the copied subject matter, of stealing great ideas and developing further on the work of many brilliant people.
And what happens when you miss out the 'developing further' part? Doesn't that just drain profits from the people putting in the effort and divert it to the people who don't?
Give me a quick run-down of things Samsung, HTC, Microsoft, Google, Nokia, RIM, Sony (by all means lump them all together) have done in the last decade that has significantly changed mobile devices.
Unfortunately the patent concept has been turned to its opposite and is largely being used to block and prevent innovation and competition in order to enrich a few at the cost of the greater good for society.
For all those who are quick to dismiss Apple being the first to do anything, I would hope the same is true of their patent enforcement. This has been going on for a long time and didn't start with Apple and I agree it holds things back but until it is fixed, it's going to keep happening. Just saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to do it but then cheer when people win trivial patent lawsuits against them isn't a solution.
You can't throw out all patents because people would be reluctant to spend money on R&D they can't protect and the opposite is what we have now so it has to be somewhere in the middle. The arguments are just over where that is. I think timeframe is the most important factor. The period listed on Apple's patent is 14 years. All patents should expire 5 years from the date of issue. If you can't profit from an idea in 5 years then you shouldn't have exclusivity over it.
The complexity/specificity of patents is going to become a pain way down the line because there's going to be so much cross-referencing that it would have to be a full-time job to write an enforceable patent. This will harm startups/small businesses. They should practise transparency like Google did with their privacy policy. Put it in a small document that isn't full of obfuscated rhetoric. Just say what's new and that can be checked if it exists. Without this, we'll end up with patents covering ridiculous situations:
- our patent is for someone using a smartphone in a particular orientation in the bathroom only after they have had a curry from a local restaurant. We reference prior patents for people who have had other types of food holding the smartphone in a slightly different orientation and our situation is like totally new and we want to own it for 14 years.
We're obviously getting close to this the more minimal improvements to electronics become but drawing a line is going to be unfair to one party over another. Do you allow Samsung a patent for a basic manufacturing technique that lets them double memory capacity but deny Apple a basic design patent that improves usability tenfold? Human beings have to decide and human beings are flawed. We are all biased and have different goals.
Apple wants to protect their work from unfair competition, Samsung wants to compete with them unfairly, the lawyers agree with both of them. Conflict is everywhere and we'll always end up somewhere that doesn't please everyone.
I think you make some interesting arguments but I won't take up the matter of commenting on things I didn't actually say or that were not actually related to the point I'm trying to make.
As for patents being necessary for R&D to be attractive. I actually disagree with that most emphatically. In almost all the history of science this has not been the case at all. In the course of my career I have had the privilege of working and brainstorming with no less than 5 Nobel Prize winners in Medicine, and not one of these leading researchers was motivated by financial benefit. Quite the contrary. I remember clearly a conversation I had with Cesar Milstein, the inventor of the process to develop monoclonal antibodies (and joint winner of the Nobel for Medicine for this) and I actually asked him precisely this question ... why he didn't patent the method. His answer was that he was interested in the science, not the money, and "gentlemen don't do that". Which is actually a widely held view in a number of scientific disciplines. At least in the area of modern science, motivations other than financial benefit have largely prevailed.
I currently work in the Pharmaceutical industry (generics) and there your argument is more relevant, but it is an area where R&D efforts at the single product level are enormously expensive. (Where the "D" is actually more costly than the "R"). It costs around $1 Billion these days to actually bring a new drug to market, so patent protection is indeed quite important. Although this is ONLY true because the industry is private enterprise. One could argue that certain essential medicines should be made available at affordable prices ... which is only possible if society will bear the R&D costs. No company will do that without a financial reward ... ie Profit. This is incidentally the reason that certain medicaments are in short supply in the US (and possibly elsewhere). It is simply not profitable enough to interest the pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and distribute. This is a discussion that is interesting, but out of scope of AI.
What I am getting at is that one should not lose sight of the, in my view indisputable fact, that copying of Ideas is perfectly legitimate in the majority of situations. Patent infringement is one of the lines which defines the limits and legitimacy of "copying" in a particular legal context. In my view, Software patents are entirely inappropriate and socially disruptive.
While I understand to some extent the wish of any US company to protect their commercial interests, it seems to me that some companies (patent trolls, but also Apple) have gone overboard and are using trivial patents (e.g. the rubber-band scrolling patent) to block competition, to keep competitors out of the market and to keep small entry-level companies, which are often highly innovative, out of the market at all. This is a criticism that has been made, for example, against FRAND patents ... that they are discriminatory against not-for-profit software developers and effectively an instrument to keep them out of the market.
Like many things, this debate is not black-or-white, but I think it is silly, unrealistic, and counter-productive for society, when the idea of "Copying" is used as a kind of moral indictment without recognition of the role of "Copying" in human development as a whole.
The key issue in my view is that there are social aspects to these debates that should not be ignored.
I had with Cesar Milstein, the inventor of the process to develop monoclonal antibodies (and joint winner of the Nobel for Medicine for this) and I actually asked him precisely this question ... why he didn't patent the method. His answer was that he was interested in the science, not the money, and "gentlemen don't do that".
That point of view is always admirable but as you point out, different areas have different sources of funding and costs. I have absolutely no doubt that a lot more people in the world would feel the same if they had a sustained revenue stream separate from their work. I don't think true artists or engineers have much interest in wealth; their lives are defined by their work but they aren't given the privilege to work separate from a source of need that coerces them to work for profit and nor should they be given that privilege because we can't always rationally assess the value of someone's work outside of a free market economy.
What I am getting at is that one should not lose sight of the, in my view indisputable fact, that copying of Ideas is perfectly legitimate in the majority of situations. Patent infringement is one of the lines which defines the limits and legitimacy of "copying" in a particular legal context. In my view, Software patents are entirely inappropriate and socially disruptive.
It's easy to decide that software patents are inappropriate when you don't make money from software. When people do make most of their revenue from software like Microsoft, it makes as much sense as any other industry.
Google had exclusive rights to a patent for their search engine blocking anyone else from using it and yet now they blast onto the scene claiming to be the freedom fighters and giving away hardware like the Nexus without profit and Android as open-source simply because they've monopolised the search engine market and have the entire world economy by the balls.
One basic fact of life is that money makes the world go round. It's not pleasant but the people who control the financial systems have made it so. You can't buy a house without credit/debt, you can hardly do anything without a bank account or fixed address. When your quality of life is made so dependent on that system, nobody has a choice but to work for profit. Those nobel prize winners don't beg on the streets for food, they get paid by someone and the money comes from somewhere. If the money supply stops, they can maintain their ethics but they will have to directly exchange their work for profit to survive.
It is a sad state of affairs that we no longer live in times where in order to survive you would exchange services and goods for other services and goods and everyone had to produce instead of hoard. Now we have money to abstract the value of everything and people running businesses solely on money itself. But unfortunately because of human nature, it seems to work better than anything else we've tried.
While I understand to some extent the wish of any US company to protect their commercial interests, it seems to me that some companies (patent trolls, but also Apple) have gone overboard and are using trivial patents (e.g. the rubber-band scrolling patent) to block competition
"Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time)."
That will actually affect the $1b Samsung ruling if it goes ahead but I don't agree that patent is trivial. IMO, that was one of the most impressive things about the iPhone when I first used it. Even now, I purposely overswipe things on iOS devices and I've never seen an implementation of that on a mobile device before the iPhone. The amount of time it takes to get the right deceleration, length of bounce, behaviour in different orientations and in respect to different gestures is not trivial. The time it takes to copy it is.
Nothing is then added to it by copying it. It's copied simply to give customers the impression of being the same and everybody else saves the R&D costs. How often do tech companies wait on Apple to move and then follow on. All-in-one computers, laptop designs/ultrabooks, smartphones, tablets, App Stores, music stores, retail stores. As Tim Cook said (this is a good example of his quote-worthiness that we usually saw in Steve Jobs):
"From our point of view it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world. We can't take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. We can't have that. The worst thing in the world that can happen to you if you're an engineer that has given his life to something is for someone to rip it off and put their name to it."
If the competition isn't improving things in a like manner to Apple, they have no right to look at what Apple is doing and simply replicate it. If the competition wants to declare that Apple should continue innovating instead of fighting, they need to step up and offer something themselves instead of constantly waiting for Apple to deliver and then rip them off and worse, to have the audacity to claim that most of it was obvious and yet never bothered to do anything remotely similar for decades.
Is it ok for an artist to setup and light a scene and paint it, present it in a gallery and have someone else come along and make a similar version from that reference but make a few adjustments and sell it side-by-side with the orignal? Most people would say no and yet when it comes to Samsung doing it, they say yes - they should be able to have the same UI and the same hardware shape and the same peripherals and the same box and the same store to give the same impression and yay, they are selling more units than the original. Why give Samsung a pass when people would criticise this in other scenarios? It's because it's Apple and people want to see Apple fail because they perceive them as arrogant. Let Apple do all the hard work and let everyone rip them off, that'll show them not to charge so much money for things people want. What kind of lesson is that?
A further issue to consider is that these patent cases focus on isolated elements. Companies like Samsung are quick to emphasise the triviality of each individual enforceable patent. When Apple made the iPhone, they didn't just take a phone and put a touchscreen on it. That's what LG did. They didn't just put rubber banding in the UI, they didn't just use a proximity sensor to disable the screen when you held the phone to your ear, they didn't just use slide to unlock, they didn't just use capacitive glass displays, they didn't just include visual voicemail, they didn't just include pinch-zoom and rotation gestures, they didn't just include data detectors, they didn't just make an App Store, they didn't just start using particular shapes, it was all those things and more combined into 3 products. They have nearly 1300 mobile patents, most filed after 2007:
The ideal scenario is that Apple could just hold up the iPhone and say how many elements have been replicated in competing devices as a direct result of its introduction but they have to go through features individually. To dismiss Apple's achievements by focusing on the individual elements that make up the whole or rather portray their enforcement of basic elements as unethical is muddying the real problem, which is that Samsung has gone out of its way to replicate the entire experience of owning an iOS device by copying the ports, the cabling, the boxes, the presentation, the shape, materials and UI.
Samsung wants everyone to believe that the only inspiration they took from Apple was a rounded black rectangle and of course their fans lap it up but it's so far from the truth. If Apple has no way to defend the whole, they have no option but to use the only legal measures that are available to send a clear message that the extent to which they've copied Apple is not ok.
I had with Cesar Milstein, the inventor of the process to develop monoclonal antibodies (and joint winner of the Nobel for Medicine for this) and I actually asked him precisely this question ... why he didn't patent the method. His answer was that he was interested in the science, not the money, and "gentlemen don't do that".
That point of view is always admirable but as you point out, different areas have different sources of funding and costs. I have absolutely no doubt that a lot more people in the world would feel the same if they had a sustained revenue stream separate from their work. I don't think true artists or engineers have much interest in wealth; their lives are defined by their work but they aren't given the privilege to work separate from a source of need that coerces them to work for profit and nor should they be given that privilege because we can't always rationally assess the value of someone's work outside of a free market economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
What I am getting at is that one should not lose sight of the, in my view indisputable fact, that copying of Ideas is perfectly legitimate in the majority of situations. Patent infringement is one of the lines which defines the limits and legitimacy of "copying" in a particular legal context. In my view, Software patents are entirely inappropriate and socially disruptive.
It's easy to decide that software patents are inappropriate when you don't make money from software. When people do make most of their revenue from software like Microsoft, it makes as much sense as any other industry.
Google had exclusive rights to a patent for their search engine blocking anyone else from using it and yet now they blast onto the scene claiming to be the freedom fighters and giving away hardware like the Nexus without profit and Android as open-source simply because they've monopolised the search engine market and have the entire world economy by the balls.
One basic fact of life is that money makes the world go round. It's not pleasant but the people who control the financial systems have made it so. You can't buy a house without credit/debt, you can hardly do anything without a bank account or fixed address. When your quality of life is made so dependent on that system, nobody has a choice but to work for profit. Those nobel prize winners don't beg on the streets for food, they get paid by someone and the money comes from somewhere. If the money supply stops, they can maintain their ethics but they will have to directly exchange their work for profit to survive.
It is a sad state of affairs that we no longer live in times where in order to survive you would exchange services and goods for other services and goods and everyone had to produce instead of hoard. Now we have money to abstract the value of everything and people running businesses solely on money itself. But unfortunately because of human nature, it seems to work better than anything else we've tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
While I understand to some extent the wish of any US company to protect their commercial interests, it seems to me that some companies (patent trolls, but also Apple) have gone overboard and are using trivial patents (e.g. the rubber-band scrolling patent) to block competition
"Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time)."
That will actually affect the $1b Samsung ruling if it goes ahead but I don't agree that patent is trivial. IMO, that was one of the most impressive things about the iPhone when I first used it. Even now, I purposely overswipe things on iOS devices and I've never seen an implementation of that on a mobile device before the iPhone. The amount of time it takes to get the right deceleration, length of bounce, behaviour in different orientations and in respect to different gestures is not trivial. The time it takes to copy it is.
Nothing is then added to it by copying it. It's copied simply to give customers the impression of being the same and everybody else saves the R&D costs. How often do tech companies wait on Apple to move and then follow on. All-in-one computers, laptop designs/ultrabooks, smartphones, tablets, App Stores, music stores, retail stores. As Tim Cook said (this is a good example of his quote-worthiness that we usually saw in Steve Jobs):
"From our point of view it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world. We can't take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. We can't have that. The worst thing in the world that can happen to you if you're an engineer that has given his life to something is for someone to rip it off and put their name to it."
If the competition isn't improving things in a like manner to Apple, they have no right to look at what Apple is doing and simply replicate it. If the competition wants to declare that Apple should continue innovating instead of fighting, they need to step up and offer something themselves instead of constantly waiting for Apple to deliver and then rip them off and worse, to have the audacity to claim that most of it was obvious and yet never bothered to do anything remotely similar for decades.
Is it ok for an artist to setup and light a scene and paint it, present it in a gallery and have someone else come along and make a similar version from that reference but make a few adjustments and sell it side-by-side with the orignal? Most people would say no and yet when it comes to Samsung doing it, they say yes - they should be able to have the same UI and the same hardware shape and the same peripherals and the same box and the same store to give the same impression and yay, they are selling more units than the original. Why give Samsung a pass when people would criticise this in other scenarios? It's because it's Apple and people want to see Apple fail because they perceive them as arrogant. Let Apple do all the hard work and let everyone rip them off, that'll show them not to charge so much money for things people want. What kind of lesson is that?
Once again I am going to limit my comments somewhat. I am not actually taking any particular manufacturer's "side" in this patent war and I don't intend to get side-tracked too far with issues that were not the primary focus of my original post.
But let me suggest that your view of the motivation/means for research seems to me to represent a particularly US view of the world. When I was active in research (admittedly a few years back now. I quit active research in '86) outside of the US the overwhelmingly greater proportion of basic research was in fact publicly funded (ie state or tax funded.) I think this is also largely the case in the US even now. (which incidentally is a criticism that has been levelled at Apple ... not paying significant taxes and therefore not actually supporting the education system and basic research.).
A major reason for the need for state funding lies in the fact that basic research (theoretical research) is notoriously difficult to channelize. Most of the commercially exploitable (and I use that term intentionally) results/discoveries are actually spin-off effects and unforseen. The contrary is also largely true ... most attempts to direct basic research in a commercially relevant direction fail.
Actually, you rather spoil your overall arguments which I personally feel have some substance by saying;
"Its easy to decide that software patents are inappropriate when you don't make money from software"
That argument is patently absurd. The mere fact that money can be made from an activity is no justification. But Columbian drug cartels and the mafia will probably applaud your view. ;-). There are much more substantive arguments against software patents. Software is provably mathematics. Mathematics is abstract ideas. You shouldn't (and theoretically cannot) patent abstract ideas, although lawyers have succeeded, and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court has aided and abetted punching big holes in that restriction. Less so in the EU I might point out.
But there are other reasons as well. The overbroad patents which seem to be issued as a rule rather than an exception by the USPTO. The almost impossibility (because they are abstract) of indexing and researching software patent claims, and a number of other reasons as well. Actually Bill Gates (shit, I never thought I'd end up quoting that man :-) ) actually conceded that MS would never have gotten off the ground if software patents had existed then as they do today. Or putting it in another context. It has been estimated that some 250,000 patents apply to smartphones, and that since each patent contains an average of something like 20 claims, then the total number of restrictions in the smartphone area alone is in the millions. It is just impossible to do due diligence on such a large and obscure number of claims. There are not enough patent attorneys on the planet. This is one reason Apple argued in the VirnetX litigation that they did NOT research the claims. (Another reason was to avoid treble damages).
Since you referred also to the Reuters Analysis of the Apple patent portfolio, I feel I must also comment on that. It is an interesting reference, but hardly relevant to anything. Among the reasons I say that are (1). It does not take into account in any way the patent portfolios of other contenders in the market. (2) It does not say anything about the significance of the 1900 or so Patents at all. A high proportion of these may well be invalidated on the grounds of prior art or obviousness, .... and so on.
Now of course, the quote from Captn Cook, reads good. No doubt about it. But it fails to address the problem that Apple violates, and "steals" the IP of other companies on a large scale. (All smartphone manufacturers probably do as well. See the 250,000 patent discussion above). But in the case of the Motorola FRAND patents this is particularly relevant because Apple does not in fact dispute the fact that they are using the FRAND patents without paying, and this gets to the objectionable part of Apples "thermonuclear war" or the Patent war. Putting it bluntly, its galling arrogance and unbelievable hypocrisy. And they compound it by trying at this stage anyway to avoid any back payments at all. To many people this is morally and ethically reprehensible. One cannot claim against others for "stealing" and do the very same thing yourself. One law for all ??
What I privately hope is that in the US, Apple and Samsung and Motorola (and all the rest of the kids on the block) each win a blocking injunction against each other. Could happen. (But probably only in the US).
you might like this article on the subject of software patent insanity.
Finally, you do hit a very relevant and valid point on your comments on the "rubber-band" patent. It could be invalidated. The show's not over till the fat lady sings :-) ... also in ALL of the other litigation in the US. There is NO final judgement. A lot can happen before the end is reached. It would be prudent not to crack the Champagne too early (whichever side one may wish to support.)
Makes the Apple-HTC ceasfire seem rather sensible to me.
Second, the whole reason Apple had to post the statement on their website is because they made the following statement after Samsung were ruled to have not infringed:.
Given the firm evidence that Samsung examined the iPhone etc that was presented in the US case, the statement is correct that it is not coincidence. Several notes all but blatantly said 'do it like the iPhone'. The only catch is that a UK court can't use evidence from a non UK case and Apple either didn't try or wasn't allowed to make the same claims and submit the same materials in the UK case.
And regardless of any of this, at no one did Samsung file a libel/slander charge against Apple. if they had and won the case then this punishment would make sense.
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com.
Given the firm evidence that Samsung examined the iPhone etc that was presented in the US case, the statement is correct that it is not coincidence. Several notes all but blatantly said 'do it like the iPhone'. The only catch is that a UK court can't use evidence from a non UK case and Apple either didn't try or wasn't allowed to make the same claims and submit the same materials in the UK case.
And what has this got to do with anything? You're confusing the matter by bringing the iPhone into it, which is exactly what Apple tried to do. This case was about the Tab and an Apple community design. Its totally irrelevant to this subject (as Apple found out).
Quote:
And regardless of any of this, at no one did Samsung file a libel/slander charge against Apple. if they had and won the case then this punishment would make sense.
Again, totally irrelevant. They didn't have to file for any kind of slander, they just had to inform the court they didn't believe Apple were complying with the original order and let the court do the rest.
The mere fact that money can be made from an activity is no justification. There are much more substantive arguments against software patents. Software is provably mathematics. Mathematics is abstract ideas. You shouldn't (and theoretically cannot) patent abstract ideas
A significant amount of work has to go into making a product though. Think of the example of H.264/H.265 - arguably the best video compression/decompression software. That takes a significant effort to make. Under your idealistic system, the mathematics behind it should be free for anyone to use. That's great but where is the reward for the inventors? Google, Netflix, Hulu profit by lowering bandwidth; and Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc profit by having rich media tools for the web integrated with their software. The people making the algorithms can end up with no reward after doing lots of work. Maybe media codecs can get government funding but it's hardly comparable to the millions they make from licensing. You can't say they are unethical to work for profit.
The product has to be protected just like any form of work produced by manpower. It's not mathematics sitting at the keyboard. Just because Google makes their money from ads doesn't mean that all software should be free. Now you can say it doesn't have to be protected from other people developing the same IP but IP gets into other people's hands - Java found its way into the hands of Google. Andy Rubin used to work at Apple. Samsung builds Apple's processor designs. Just like the recipe for McDonald's secret sauce or the Coca-cola formula, if it gets out there, you need to have some protection.
There is a difficulty when it comes to algorithms being the only way to do things. Like in computer graphics, the equations that make digital content mimic real-life are based on physics. Sampling methods have been patented over the years but that's where short timeframes for coverage would come into play and there should be consideration over the level of variation possible. Other tablet manufacturers have managed to make their designs significantly different from Apple, Samsung chose not to.
Another difficulty is when it comes to the issue of ownership. If you think about land/property, someone owns it but at some point in time, nobody owned anything. A transition had to occur whereby people claimed things they had no inherent entitlement to, whether it was discovering land, a drug, an algorithm. We all meandre through life connecting things and creating unique stores of information that are based on systems that have preceeded us but we can't unfairly decide that some should be protected and others not.
Could you patent the chemical techniques/equipment that led to the discovery of Pencillin but not Penicillin itself?
I do think that Apple has been pursuing a wrong agenda as far as Android is concerned and this shows in their trial against Google:
"In this case, Apple claimed a patent on the idea of the sliding motion to unlock a device, arguing that Google's tap is a "zero-length swipe." Judge Posner ridiculed this as like "saying that a point is a zero-length line."
"He also ridiculed Google's counterclaim, writing, "'Going for broke' is the inescapable characterization" of its damage claim. Even if Apple infringed on a Google patent that involves a "standards-essential patent," there was no economic justification for a claim of about 1% of sales of Apple phones."
"In the technology industry, it's now clear the concept of 20-year exclusive use makes no sense for software or business processes."
"In bouncing this high-profile case, Judge Posner lays out a road map for Congress, patent regulators and other judges to re-establish the original purpose of intellectual property, which is to encourage both innovation and competition."
I don't think reformation will be easy and as I say, you have to assume some things can be protected and others can't. Where the line falls will unfairly favour one party over another. It will also have to be backdated because we are sitting here with a pretty big snowball and you can't suddenly say thousands of things will no longer qualify for protection and allow competition to maintain 10 year patents that give them the upper hand.
If the top IP experts around the world try to draw up a stricter set of guidelines, businesses and the lawyers who represent them will fight them every step of the way. Trying to find a balance between incentivising innovation and competition to it is going to be a very difficult task.
The overbroad patents which seem to be issued as a rule rather than an exception by the USPTO.
I agree with that but who gets to decide what is over-broad? Would you say that a patent covering Samsung for adding a bridging mechanism in a manufacturing design that say improves processor bandwidth isn't overly broad but a patent that covers Apple for data detectors is? People instinctively assign levels of importance to things based on their own bias. Samsung doesn't show much respect for design but does for manufacturing - that's why they ask 'who's the real innovator, when we make most of the iOS device parts'. Apple has more respect for design and considers Samsung to be merely a supplier that can be replaced with alternatives like TSMC or LG.
Since you referred also to the Reuters Analysis of the Apple patent portfolio, I feel I must also comment on that. It is an interesting reference, but hardly relevant to anything. Among the reasons I say that are (1). It does not take into account in any way the patent portfolios of other contenders in the market. (2) It does not say anything about the significance of the 1900 or so Patents at all. A high proportion of these may well be invalidated on the grounds of prior art or obviousness, .... and so on.
But you can also say significant portions of the patent portfolios of contenders might be invalidated if they were looked at properly and Apple's might not be. You can't just dismiss Apple all the time under the assumption they are the only ones abusing the system. Apple is sued far more than they sue.
it fails to address the problem that Apple violates, and "steals" the IP of other companies on a large scale. (All smartphone manufacturers probably do as well. See the 250,000 patent discussion above).
That's a broad assumption and it doesn't address the real issue again, which is that if you look at the impact the iOS devices have made in the mobile sector, you can see that Apple's innovation here has been significant. It has redefined this entire industry. The patents on paper shouldn't be the relevant part at all but the implementation.
Some patent portfolios are owned are by NPEs (non-pracitising entities/patent trolls) who hinder progress by waiting for companies to produce and then profiting. Apple is stupidly referred to as a patent troll on many occasions but they are delivering on their ideas and the influence is clear for anyone to see.
The mere fact that money can be made from an activity is no justification. There are much more substantive arguments against software patents. Software is provably mathematics. Mathematics is abstract ideas. You shouldn't (and theoretically cannot) patent abstract ideas
A significant amount of work has to go into making a product though. Think of the example of H.264/H.265 - arguably the best video compression/decompression software. That takes a significant effort to make. Under your idealistic system, the mathematics behind it should be free for anyone to use. That's great but where is the reward for the inventors? Google, Netflix, Hulu profit by lowering bandwidth; and Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc profit by having rich media tools for the web integrated with their software. The people making the algorithms can end up with no reward after doing lots of work. Maybe media codecs can get government funding but it's hardly comparable to the millions they make from licensing. You can't say they are unethical to work for profit.
The product has to be protected just like any form of work produced by manpower. It's not mathematics sitting at the keyboard. Just because Google makes their money from ads doesn't mean that all software should be free. Now you can say it doesn't have to be protected from other people developing the same IP but IP gets into other people's hands - Java found its way into the hands of Google. Andy Rubin used to work at Apple. Samsung builds Apple's processor designs. Just like the recipe for McDonald's secret sauce or the Coca-cola formula, if it gets out there, you need to have some protection.
There is a difficulty when it comes to algorithms being the only way to do things. Like in computer graphics, the equations that make digital content mimic real-life are based on physics. Sampling methods have been patented over the years but that's where short timeframes for coverage would come into play and there should be consideration over the level of variation possible. Other tablet manufacturers have managed to make their designs significantly different from Apple, Samsung chose not to.
Another difficulty is when it comes to the issue of ownership. If you think about land/property, someone owns it but at some point in time, nobody owned anything. A transition had to occur whereby people claimed things they had no inherent entitlement to, whether it was discovering land, a drug, an algorithm. We all meandre through life connecting things and creating unique stores of information that are based on systems that have preceeded us but we can't unfairly decide that some should be protected and others not.
Could you patent the chemical techniques/equipment that led to the discovery of Pencillin but not Penicillin itself?
I do think that Apple has been pursuing a wrong agenda as far as Android is concerned and this shows in their trial against Google:
"In this case, Apple claimed a patent on the idea of the sliding motion to unlock a device, arguing that Google's tap is a "zero-length swipe." Judge Posner ridiculed this as like "saying that a point is a zero-length line."
"He also ridiculed Google's counterclaim, writing, "'Going for broke' is the inescapable characterization" of its damage claim. Even if Apple infringed on a Google patent that involves a "standards-essential patent," there was no economic justification for a claim of about 1% of sales of Apple phones."
"In the technology industry, it's now clear the concept of 20-year exclusive use makes no sense for software or business processes."
"In bouncing this high-profile case, Judge Posner lays out a road map for Congress, patent regulators and other judges to re-establish the original purpose of intellectual property, which is to encourage both innovation and competition."
I don't think reformation will be easy and as I say, you have to assume some things can be protected and others can't. Where the line falls will unfairly favour one party over another. It will also have to be backdated because we are sitting here with a pretty big snowball and you can't suddenly say thousands of things will no longer qualify for protection and allow competition to maintain 10 year patents that give them the upper hand.
If the top IP experts around the world try to draw up a stricter set of guidelines, businesses and the lawyers who represent them will fight them every step of the way. Trying to find a balance between incentivising innovation and competition to it is going to be a very difficult task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
The overbroad patents which seem to be issued as a rule rather than an exception by the USPTO.
I agree with that but who gets to decide what is over-broad? Would you say that a patent covering Samsung for adding a bridging mechanism in a manufacturing design that say improves processor bandwidth isn't overly broad but a patent that covers Apple for data detectors is? People instinctively assign levels of importance to things based on their own bias. Samsung doesn't show much respect for design but does for manufacturing - that's why they ask 'who's the real innovator, when we make most of the iOS device parts'. Apple has more respect for design and considers Samsung to be merely a supplier that can be replaced with alternatives like TSMC or LG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Since you referred also to the Reuters Analysis of the Apple patent portfolio, I feel I must also comment on that. It is an interesting reference, but hardly relevant to anything. Among the reasons I say that are (1). It does not take into account in any way the patent portfolios of other contenders in the market. (2) It does not say anything about the significance of the 1900 or so Patents at all. A high proportion of these may well be invalidated on the grounds of prior art or obviousness, .... and so on.
But you can also say significant portions of the patent portfolios of contenders might be invalidated if they were looked at properly and Apple's might not be. You can't just dismiss Apple all the time under the assumption they are the only ones abusing the system. Apple is sued far more than they sue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
it fails to address the problem that Apple violates, and "steals" the IP of other companies on a large scale. (All smartphone manufacturers probably do as well. See the 250,000 patent discussion above).
That's a broad assumption and it doesn't address the real issue again, which is that if you look at the impact the iOS devices have made in the mobile sector, you can see that Apple's innovation here has been significant. It has redefined this entire industry. The patents on paper shouldn't be the relevant part at all but the implementation.
Some patent portfolios are owned are by NPEs (non-pracitising entities/patent trolls) who hinder progress by waiting for companies to produce and then profiting. Apple is stupidly referred to as a patent troll on many occasions but they are delivering on their ideas and the influence is clear for anyone to see.
I do agree with much you say, and as I mentioned I am not being particularly partisan when it comes to the frontline in the patent wars. What I don't like is the hypocrisy which seems to play an unfortunately large role.
Regarding: software is math. That's not really up for dispute. There is a host of other problems with the implementation of the patent system, basically because of shifty lawyers and the political agenda of judges in the 9-th Circuit court of Appeals. ... like allowing a non-patentable business process become patentable by adding the words "on a computer" and suchlike. I think a great deal of the insanity may well be a result simply of bad patents being issued in the first place. This is a big factor in the "patent troll business model", which causes a lot of companies simply to cave in to the trolls because it costs on the average of $2.5 million to contest a patent even if you do win and get it invalidated. Makes business sense (up to a point) to pay up if the trolls are asking even slightly less than $2.5 Mil for a "license". Everyone knows that's just making matters worse for society as a whole, but only a few with big pockets are willing and able to fight it out through the courts.
But I am definitely not making the argument that Apple hasn't contributed significantly not only in the Smartphone sector, but also in others. We may differ on our views regarding the extent of the contribution, but not that it is significant. I am not so sure that Apple has redefined anything. I have done 1 to 1 comparisons on a number of occasions and it has always resulted in no clear winner. The problem is that we end-customers are paying the lawyers and basically getting nothing for it. The insanity will stop sometime, hopefully before the last software developer leaves the US.
I would argue and also tend to agree with Steve Wozniak that Apple is not innovating now in the way that it did in the past and has become merely a consumer device manufacturer. It has less and less focus on creative use, openness and many other aspects that actually made it great in the first place. The iPad 4 may be a good example. Just putting in a faster processor is no big deal, and definitely not innovative in any meaningful sense. In fact I would suggest that the "innovations" since the original iPhone are largely fine tuning, but not real innovation, based also largely on the R&D of other tech companies, and often eliminating choice on the part of the customers. As long as the customers are satisfied, I don't see a problem with that. But the hype is excessive. I personally actually have to work quite hard for the dollars (actually Euros :-)) I spend on toys so I generally look fairly carefully for the "value for money" in purchasing. I think this applies to the vast majority of people. Any way you cut it, with a fixed disposable income there is a limit to how much "premium price" I am willing to pay for anything. The more I spend to purchase a toy, the less I have available for other things like paid content. (not that the latter plays a significant role for me personally.)
I could do with less aggressiveness and the negative competition tactic (badmouthing the competition, whining about "copying" etc, that seems to play a big role in the US (much less so in the EU). The real world is much less black-and-white than many partisans would like to believe regarding the patent wars. Apple is just one of a number of leading companies, and suffers the same QA problems as any other, both in HW and SW (whatever happened to "it just works" ??)
Unfortunately its not a perfect world, but I do prefer to live where I do.
But I very much appreciate your good arguments and the discussion !!
Comments
That's fair enough but Apple hasn't in the past actively advertised to the public that Samsung is a plagiarising mofo. They sued them, which they are entitled to do. The press is doing the rest.
The court decided to get their own back on Apple by making it clear they'd lost the case and make it seem that Samsung hadn't copied the iPad - there's been no clarification required by the court to inform the public that the case does NOT mean that Samsung hasn't copied the iPad. The clarification is that Apple lost the case, which the public already believe is about the iPad when they should be aware that Samsung's product is nothing like the drawing, which is irrelevant because the public doesn't care about the drawing.
By forcing Apple to declare it on their website is tantamount to forcing them to admit their legal action is unjustified in the eyes of the public. Except, they've got a 1 billion reasons coming as to why it ain't and Apple just tried to let the public know that and I think they were right to do it.
Yeah, they got one recently:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/16/apple-granted-new-patent-for-original-ipad-design/
There are some elements that differ between the Tab but that looks a hell of a lot closer than the other one.
I'm not sure if I'd like to see them pursue it though. On the one hand, I feel like they've been treated badly by the non-US courts. On the other hand, all this legal stuff is really dull and having to prepare for court appearances and things must affect senior staff. At this point in time, the Galaxy S3 is a unique enough design IMO. The Galaxy Tab is selling poorly so not a big threat. Android is a bit of a rip-off but I still like it that it's Google/Unix/Open Standards and not a worse alternative.
The public can see the copying happening and how each company feels and can make their buying decisions. I don't think it requires a strong offensive from either side any more. I'd even be inclined to suggest that Apple offers (on condition of toning down the legal action) that Samsung doesn't pay them $1b and rather gives them a reduced rate on their components ($5 per chip on 200 million iPhones) and in return, they will conitnue to use them as a supplier. Samsung make good quality components and the consumer suffers using suppliers which can't keep up demand or don't have the same quality control.
And all the companies need to stop throwing around the word 'innovation' whenever they make a public statement and start delivering on it. I'm still using a keyboard and mouse, we still don't have heteregoenous computing, we still don't have a proper fully multi-touch desktop UI, we are still paying for phones calls and using numbers to dial each other. With so much work to be done, there are better ways to spend time than with these trivial legal matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's fair enough but Apple hasn't in the past actively advertised to the public that Samsung is a plagiarising mofo. They sued them, which they are entitled to do. The press is doing the rest.
Apple helped the press along by giving statements like the one mentioned in Point 11.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1223.html
Quote: Mr. David Angus Stone (a Samsung Witness)
…he refers to a report in the Daily Mail on 10th August 2011 that Apple spokesmen had said:
?"This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas'."
There is mention of an article in the Financial Times in 2010, and another for PC World in 2011. Apple had been telling anyone who would listen in the UK/EU media, it was the reason for the case, then after loosing they continued, got slapped with the statement, they added three paragraphs to the statement & hoped that would be OK, despite being given the text in in court.
It does seem weird that this case was about infringing the registered design but Apple's FUD was explicitly about copying the iPad. It only makes sense if Apple don't have any better designs to hit Samsung with copying the iPad in court. Either Steve misjudged it when he said 'Boy have we patented it' or Apple legal have some explaining to do.
Apple could have been quiet in the press & unleashed a whirlwind of cases that makes it clear Samsung copied, but the various attempts to block Samsung sales in the EU have failed. Maybe now it will start again & Apple will demand the same statement for Samsung to display.
If anyone else made something like that image on Engadget I'd agree that they should be sued into oblivion if the design is registered.
I think your final 3 paragraphs are a marvellous idea, licence the various patents to each other & behave like adults. I have a horrible feeling Apple is going down the line of owning every part of production & will continue fighting.
If that is the case we'll see more fragmentation (like no Blu-ray because 'the licensing is a mess'). I wonder if these two giants will get into a death spiral whist MS gets its act together & steals the market from under them. I'd quite fancy a Surface if I could run Mountain Lion on it :^)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Yeah, they got one recently:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/16/apple-granted-new-patent-for-original-ipad-design/
There are some elements that differ between the Tab but that looks a hell of a lot closer than the other one.
I'm not sure if I'd like to see them pursue it though.
Marvin, did you take a few minutes and actually look at the design patent claims? Remember that details outlined with dotted lines are not included in the patent. Only those things described with solid lines matter. It makes a huge difference.
ArsTechnica had an article on it just a few days ago, as did TheVerge:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
Yup, Apple has finally succeeded in patenting the rounded rectangle.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
;-)
I don't fault Apple at all. You're absolutely correct, it's the game...
How would you explain the fact that Samsung lost a court case in the US? That's not FUD. Apple patented a lot of things and some of the competition has licensed it, Samsung just copied it without paying. Even Microsoft licensed it:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/13/microsoft-licensed-apple-ipad-iphone-design-patents/
Blu-Ray isn't an example of fragmentation. Even one of Sony's execs said Blu-Ray was dead in the water and Apple doesn't stop you buying a Blu-Ray drive.
Samsung is in serious trouble then. It is interesting is that this patent was filed in November 2010. The Galaxy Tab was introduced in Septmeber 2010. I wonder if it was filed as a response to it. Maybe they can't use this against Samsung given that their product came out before they filed it.
I don't see how only the unbroken lines can represent the design though - figure 4 and the front page show the outline as a broken/dotted line. There has to be something wrong with the scanning. Every line in the following drawing is broken:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't see how only the unbroken lines can represent the design though - figure 4 and the front page show the outline as a broken/dotted line. There has to be something wrong with the scanning. Every line in the following drawing is broken:
I think the real genius in this patent is that Apple has managed to create a closed geometric shape with two right angles and three sides. ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjl
Can they make payment in the form of iTunes gift cards.
No because the UK gov will earn nothing from it given that the itunes servers are based in the low corp tax, high VAT "haven" of ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
That document does not compare the iPad and Tab at all, only the Tab and the community design in question.
Except when he says things like:
"Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim"
you'd have to assume he can tell from the drawing that it has a plate glass surface and not plastic, it doesn't mention what it's made of. There's always the hint he is referencing the product and not the drawing. You're right though it does say 'Apple design' throughout and that was intended to mean the design in the drawing, not the design of the product. That was misinterpreted by almost every news publication:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/09/uk-judge-says-galaxy-tab-not-as-cool-as-ipad-awards-samsung-w/
The headline should really be that the Galaxy Tab wasn't as cool as Apple's drawing, which makes no sense at all as it's a drawing. It's bad enough that the iPad is cooler but Apple's line art? Geez, get it together Samsung.
It also still doesn't explain why they have to advertise about the patent trial verdict when the public was never under the impression that Samsung copied the patent and not the iPad. The public was always under the impression Samsung copied the iPad. The judge said clearly he didn't think the drawing represented the iPad so they didn't in any way prove Samsing didn't copy the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid
It is also a jurisdiction that Apple basically slandered Samsung with the copying illegally accusations.
Except they didn't because they didn't contradict the verdict. Samsung has been found guilty of infringing Apple's patents. Are we forgetting the small matter of the $1b fine? This isn't going to be thrown out for juror misconduct as much as I'm certain you and others think it will be.
Facts:
- Samsung has been found guilty of infringing on some of Apple's patents and fined $1b
- Samsung has been found not guilty of infringing a design that doesn't look like the iPad
Conclusion:
- Samsung copied the iPad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid
Seems like the judge is saying both parties agreed the case wasn't about copying?
That's right but the case wasn't about the iPad either so what does that prove?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
For one thing, Robin Jacob is one of the most distinguished judges in the UK and without doubt the foremost authority on IP law. He is a recognized international expert and a member of the IP Hall of Fame.
That's fine and I agree with the verdict that Samsung's tablet doesn't look like the drawing and neither does the iPad. I think the decision to force Apple to make a public statement was underhanded, unnecessary and deliberately misleading to the public who have been led to believe that Samsung hasn't copied the iPad as comments in this thread have shown. Having a good track record doesn't excuse people from being held accountable for bad decisions.
It's perfectly OK to disagree with the judges. All 5 of them. I don't agree with your innuendo which implies some kind of ulterior motives on the part of the judges, but I am perhaps a little more familiar with the EU Law on which it is based, and perhaps can appreciate the subtleties which escape some people.
What I was particularly trying to point out is that the level of invictive and abuse by some of the participants in this forum is entirely inappropriate and, to put it bluntly libellous and probably sanctionable in the UK.
I would much prefer to see a level of discussion that is distinguishable from the gutter. It doesn't enhance the credibility of AI, which I personally think is a pity.
There are other forums which stand in stark contrast to AI with respect to the level of discussion. One of the better ones is Groklaw, which is an award-winning site dedicated to the truth and accuracy in their reporting and to ethical and behavioural standards which is a refreshing contrast to AI. They even manage to accommodate divergent opinions in the discussions without continually descending to personal abuse.
It often seems to me like abusing Einstein as an idiot because you don't understand the mathematics of general relativity.
Just for fun:
One can argue that copying is in fact the foundation of human social and economic progress. Even Steve Jobs once remarked that he shamelessly steals great ideas. Basically all progress is based on copying and innovation on the copied subject matter, of stealing great ideas and developing further on the work of many brilliant people. As a scientist I could give thousands of good examples, and in general I think its actually a good thing. Limits exist with respect to patent violations, but it does well to remember that the original purpose of patents was to promote innovation by publishing inventions in return for a time-limited monopoly. Unfortunately the patent concept has been turned to its opposite and is largely being used to block and prevent innovation and competition in order to enrich a few at the cost of the greater good for society. In the US one can argue that this has been taken to an extreme and potentiated by the vagaries of the legal system to the point that it will kill innovation in the US. Software patents are an extreme example.
Assuming that you believe their intention was to clarify the case had nothing to do with the iPad and therefore nothing to do with the Galaxy Tab not infringing on the iPad, how well do you think they pulled it off?
The law is nothing like mathematics, it's a system of rules based on human behaviour - you just have to look at the laws that were enforced a few decades ago. And Android fans sure as hell aren't the equivalent of Einstein.
Some forum members can be overly harsh on people with an opposing point of view but officially any reasonable discussion is welcome. A far worse situation would be one where only a single-minded point of view is tolerated and that is not the case here. Places like Groklaw where comments like:
"I think the reactions of the rabid Apple fans, and such retractions they might
conceivably make will be interesting. Or the lack of reaction.
But they are sounding more and more like Microsoft, spoiled brats who are
unhappy that they can't get their way."
are where you find uninformed, abusive comments. That sort of thing isn't productive. Some people find abusive comments about Apple and their fans comforting and rational and claim the suppression of that is unjust and narrow-minded. There is normally misinformation and abuse from all sides in any interesting discussion, it's just the nature of it. Placid discussions are ones nobody cares about. There's a balance and I think the members of this forum do a good job maintaining it.
I assume you'll be able to easily point out the inspiration for all of Apple's iconic products. Before you think about mentioning Xerox and Braun, you might want to consider that a lot of these things have been regurgitated and dismissed many times over the years so try to wander onto some new ground.
And what happens when you miss out the 'developing further' part? Doesn't that just drain profits from the people putting in the effort and divert it to the people who don't?
Give me a quick run-down of things Samsung, HTC, Microsoft, Google, Nokia, RIM, Sony (by all means lump them all together) have done in the last decade that has significantly changed mobile devices.
For all those who are quick to dismiss Apple being the first to do anything, I would hope the same is true of their patent enforcement. This has been going on for a long time and didn't start with Apple and I agree it holds things back but until it is fixed, it's going to keep happening. Just saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to do it but then cheer when people win trivial patent lawsuits against them isn't a solution.
You can't throw out all patents because people would be reluctant to spend money on R&D they can't protect and the opposite is what we have now so it has to be somewhere in the middle. The arguments are just over where that is. I think timeframe is the most important factor. The period listed on Apple's patent is 14 years. All patents should expire 5 years from the date of issue. If you can't profit from an idea in 5 years then you shouldn't have exclusivity over it.
The complexity/specificity of patents is going to become a pain way down the line because there's going to be so much cross-referencing that it would have to be a full-time job to write an enforceable patent. This will harm startups/small businesses. They should practise transparency like Google did with their privacy policy. Put it in a small document that isn't full of obfuscated rhetoric. Just say what's new and that can be checked if it exists. Without this, we'll end up with patents covering ridiculous situations:
- our patent is for someone using a smartphone in a particular orientation in the bathroom only after they have had a curry from a local restaurant. We reference prior patents for people who have had other types of food holding the smartphone in a slightly different orientation and our situation is like totally new and we want to own it for 14 years.
We're obviously getting close to this the more minimal improvements to electronics become but drawing a line is going to be unfair to one party over another. Do you allow Samsung a patent for a basic manufacturing technique that lets them double memory capacity but deny Apple a basic design patent that improves usability tenfold? Human beings have to decide and human beings are flawed. We are all biased and have different goals.
Apple wants to protect their work from unfair competition, Samsung wants to compete with them unfairly, the lawyers agree with both of them. Conflict is everywhere and we'll always end up somewhere that doesn't please everyone.
@Marvin,
I think you make some interesting arguments but I won't take up the matter of commenting on things I didn't actually say or that were not actually related to the point I'm trying to make.
As for patents being necessary for R&D to be attractive. I actually disagree with that most emphatically. In almost all the history of science this has not been the case at all. In the course of my career I have had the privilege of working and brainstorming with no less than 5 Nobel Prize winners in Medicine, and not one of these leading researchers was motivated by financial benefit. Quite the contrary. I remember clearly a conversation I had with Cesar Milstein, the inventor of the process to develop monoclonal antibodies (and joint winner of the Nobel for Medicine for this) and I actually asked him precisely this question ... why he didn't patent the method. His answer was that he was interested in the science, not the money, and "gentlemen don't do that". Which is actually a widely held view in a number of scientific disciplines. At least in the area of modern science, motivations other than financial benefit have largely prevailed.
I currently work in the Pharmaceutical industry (generics) and there your argument is more relevant, but it is an area where R&D efforts at the single product level are enormously expensive. (Where the "D" is actually more costly than the "R"). It costs around $1 Billion these days to actually bring a new drug to market, so patent protection is indeed quite important. Although this is ONLY true because the industry is private enterprise. One could argue that certain essential medicines should be made available at affordable prices ... which is only possible if society will bear the R&D costs. No company will do that without a financial reward ... ie Profit. This is incidentally the reason that certain medicaments are in short supply in the US (and possibly elsewhere). It is simply not profitable enough to interest the pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and distribute. This is a discussion that is interesting, but out of scope of AI.
What I am getting at is that one should not lose sight of the, in my view indisputable fact, that copying of Ideas is perfectly legitimate in the majority of situations. Patent infringement is one of the lines which defines the limits and legitimacy of "copying" in a particular legal context. In my view, Software patents are entirely inappropriate and socially disruptive.
While I understand to some extent the wish of any US company to protect their commercial interests, it seems to me that some companies (patent trolls, but also Apple) have gone overboard and are using trivial patents (e.g. the rubber-band scrolling patent) to block competition, to keep competitors out of the market and to keep small entry-level companies, which are often highly innovative, out of the market at all. This is a criticism that has been made, for example, against FRAND patents ... that they are discriminatory against not-for-profit software developers and effectively an instrument to keep them out of the market.
Like many things, this debate is not black-or-white, but I think it is silly, unrealistic, and counter-productive for society, when the idea of "Copying" is used as a kind of moral indictment without recognition of the role of "Copying" in human development as a whole.
The key issue in my view is that there are social aspects to these debates that should not be ignored.
That point of view is always admirable but as you point out, different areas have different sources of funding and costs. I have absolutely no doubt that a lot more people in the world would feel the same if they had a sustained revenue stream separate from their work. I don't think true artists or engineers have much interest in wealth; their lives are defined by their work but they aren't given the privilege to work separate from a source of need that coerces them to work for profit and nor should they be given that privilege because we can't always rationally assess the value of someone's work outside of a free market economy.
It's easy to decide that software patents are inappropriate when you don't make money from software. When people do make most of their revenue from software like Microsoft, it makes as much sense as any other industry.
Google had exclusive rights to a patent for their search engine blocking anyone else from using it and yet now they blast onto the scene claiming to be the freedom fighters and giving away hardware like the Nexus without profit and Android as open-source simply because they've monopolised the search engine market and have the entire world economy by the balls.
One basic fact of life is that money makes the world go round. It's not pleasant but the people who control the financial systems have made it so. You can't buy a house without credit/debt, you can hardly do anything without a bank account or fixed address. When your quality of life is made so dependent on that system, nobody has a choice but to work for profit. Those nobel prize winners don't beg on the streets for food, they get paid by someone and the money comes from somewhere. If the money supply stops, they can maintain their ethics but they will have to directly exchange their work for profit to survive.
It is a sad state of affairs that we no longer live in times where in order to survive you would exchange services and goods for other services and goods and everyone had to produce instead of hoard. Now we have money to abstract the value of everything and people running businesses solely on money itself. But unfortunately because of human nature, it seems to work better than anything else we've tried.
That rubber-banding patent might be invalidated:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/foss-uspto-invalidates-apple-rubber-banding/
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html
"Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time)."
That will actually affect the $1b Samsung ruling if it goes ahead but I don't agree that patent is trivial. IMO, that was one of the most impressive things about the iPhone when I first used it. Even now, I purposely overswipe things on iOS devices and I've never seen an implementation of that on a mobile device before the iPhone. The amount of time it takes to get the right deceleration, length of bounce, behaviour in different orientations and in respect to different gestures is not trivial. The time it takes to copy it is.
Nothing is then added to it by copying it. It's copied simply to give customers the impression of being the same and everybody else saves the R&D costs. How often do tech companies wait on Apple to move and then follow on. All-in-one computers, laptop designs/ultrabooks, smartphones, tablets, App Stores, music stores, retail stores. As Tim Cook said (this is a good example of his quote-worthiness that we usually saw in Steve Jobs):
"From our point of view it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world. We can't take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. We can't have that. The worst thing in the world that can happen to you if you're an engineer that has given his life to something is for someone to rip it off and put their name to it."
If the competition isn't improving things in a like manner to Apple, they have no right to look at what Apple is doing and simply replicate it. If the competition wants to declare that Apple should continue innovating instead of fighting, they need to step up and offer something themselves instead of constantly waiting for Apple to deliver and then rip them off and worse, to have the audacity to claim that most of it was obvious and yet never bothered to do anything remotely similar for decades.
Is it ok for an artist to setup and light a scene and paint it, present it in a gallery and have someone else come along and make a similar version from that reference but make a few adjustments and sell it side-by-side with the orignal? Most people would say no and yet when it comes to Samsung doing it, they say yes - they should be able to have the same UI and the same hardware shape and the same peripherals and the same box and the same store to give the same impression and yay, they are selling more units than the original. Why give Samsung a pass when people would criticise this in other scenarios? It's because it's Apple and people want to see Apple fail because they perceive them as arrogant. Let Apple do all the hard work and let everyone rip them off, that'll show them not to charge so much money for things people want. What kind of lesson is that?
http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/iphone-report.pdf
The ideal scenario is that Apple could just hold up the iPhone and say how many elements have been replicated in competing devices as a direct result of its introduction but they have to go through features individually. To dismiss Apple's achievements by focusing on the individual elements that make up the whole or rather portray their enforcement of basic elements as unethical is muddying the real problem, which is that Samsung has gone out of its way to replicate the entire experience of owning an iOS device by copying the ports, the cabling, the boxes, the presentation, the shape, materials and UI.
Samsung wants everyone to believe that the only inspiration they took from Apple was a rounded black rectangle and of course their fans lap it up but it's so far from the truth. If Apple has no way to defend the whole, they have no option but to use the only legal measures that are available to send a clear message that the extent to which they've copied Apple is not ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
I had with Cesar Milstein, the inventor of the process to develop monoclonal antibodies (and joint winner of the Nobel for Medicine for this) and I actually asked him precisely this question ... why he didn't patent the method. His answer was that he was interested in the science, not the money, and "gentlemen don't do that".
That point of view is always admirable but as you point out, different areas have different sources of funding and costs. I have absolutely no doubt that a lot more people in the world would feel the same if they had a sustained revenue stream separate from their work. I don't think true artists or engineers have much interest in wealth; their lives are defined by their work but they aren't given the privilege to work separate from a source of need that coerces them to work for profit and nor should they be given that privilege because we can't always rationally assess the value of someone's work outside of a free market economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
What I am getting at is that one should not lose sight of the, in my view indisputable fact, that copying of Ideas is perfectly legitimate in the majority of situations. Patent infringement is one of the lines which defines the limits and legitimacy of "copying" in a particular legal context. In my view, Software patents are entirely inappropriate and socially disruptive.
It's easy to decide that software patents are inappropriate when you don't make money from software. When people do make most of their revenue from software like Microsoft, it makes as much sense as any other industry.
Google had exclusive rights to a patent for their search engine blocking anyone else from using it and yet now they blast onto the scene claiming to be the freedom fighters and giving away hardware like the Nexus without profit and Android as open-source simply because they've monopolised the search engine market and have the entire world economy by the balls.
One basic fact of life is that money makes the world go round. It's not pleasant but the people who control the financial systems have made it so. You can't buy a house without credit/debt, you can hardly do anything without a bank account or fixed address. When your quality of life is made so dependent on that system, nobody has a choice but to work for profit. Those nobel prize winners don't beg on the streets for food, they get paid by someone and the money comes from somewhere. If the money supply stops, they can maintain their ethics but they will have to directly exchange their work for profit to survive.
It is a sad state of affairs that we no longer live in times where in order to survive you would exchange services and goods for other services and goods and everyone had to produce instead of hoard. Now we have money to abstract the value of everything and people running businesses solely on money itself. But unfortunately because of human nature, it seems to work better than anything else we've tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
While I understand to some extent the wish of any US company to protect their commercial interests, it seems to me that some companies (patent trolls, but also Apple) have gone overboard and are using trivial patents (e.g. the rubber-band scrolling patent) to block competition
That rubber-banding patent might be invalidated:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/foss-uspto-invalidates-apple-rubber-banding/
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html
"Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time)."
That will actually affect the $1b Samsung ruling if it goes ahead but I don't agree that patent is trivial. IMO, that was one of the most impressive things about the iPhone when I first used it. Even now, I purposely overswipe things on iOS devices and I've never seen an implementation of that on a mobile device before the iPhone. The amount of time it takes to get the right deceleration, length of bounce, behaviour in different orientations and in respect to different gestures is not trivial. The time it takes to copy it is.
Nothing is then added to it by copying it. It's copied simply to give customers the impression of being the same and everybody else saves the R&D costs. How often do tech companies wait on Apple to move and then follow on. All-in-one computers, laptop designs/ultrabooks, smartphones, tablets, App Stores, music stores, retail stores. As Tim Cook said (this is a good example of his quote-worthiness that we usually saw in Steve Jobs):
"From our point of view it's important that Apple not be the developer for the world. We can't take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. We can't have that. The worst thing in the world that can happen to you if you're an engineer that has given his life to something is for someone to rip it off and put their name to it."
If the competition isn't improving things in a like manner to Apple, they have no right to look at what Apple is doing and simply replicate it. If the competition wants to declare that Apple should continue innovating instead of fighting, they need to step up and offer something themselves instead of constantly waiting for Apple to deliver and then rip them off and worse, to have the audacity to claim that most of it was obvious and yet never bothered to do anything remotely similar for decades.
Is it ok for an artist to setup and light a scene and paint it, present it in a gallery and have someone else come along and make a similar version from that reference but make a few adjustments and sell it side-by-side with the orignal? Most people would say no and yet when it comes to Samsung doing it, they say yes - they should be able to have the same UI and the same hardware shape and the same peripherals and the same box and the same store to give the same impression and yay, they are selling more units than the original. Why give Samsung a pass when people would criticise this in other scenarios? It's because it's Apple and people want to see Apple fail because they perceive them as arrogant. Let Apple do all the hard work and let everyone rip them off, that'll show them not to charge so much money for things people want. What kind of lesson is that?
Once again I am going to limit my comments somewhat. I am not actually taking any particular manufacturer's "side" in this patent war and I don't intend to get side-tracked too far with issues that were not the primary focus of my original post.
But let me suggest that your view of the motivation/means for research seems to me to represent a particularly US view of the world. When I was active in research (admittedly a few years back now. I quit active research in '86) outside of the US the overwhelmingly greater proportion of basic research was in fact publicly funded (ie state or tax funded.) I think this is also largely the case in the US even now. (which incidentally is a criticism that has been levelled at Apple ... not paying significant taxes and therefore not actually supporting the education system and basic research.).
A major reason for the need for state funding lies in the fact that basic research (theoretical research) is notoriously difficult to channelize. Most of the commercially exploitable (and I use that term intentionally) results/discoveries are actually spin-off effects and unforseen. The contrary is also largely true ... most attempts to direct basic research in a commercially relevant direction fail.
Actually, you rather spoil your overall arguments which I personally feel have some substance by saying;
"Its easy to decide that software patents are inappropriate when you don't make money from software"
That argument is patently absurd. The mere fact that money can be made from an activity is no justification. But Columbian drug cartels and the mafia will probably applaud your view. ;-). There are much more substantive arguments against software patents. Software is provably mathematics. Mathematics is abstract ideas. You shouldn't (and theoretically cannot) patent abstract ideas, although lawyers have succeeded, and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court has aided and abetted punching big holes in that restriction. Less so in the EU I might point out.
But there are other reasons as well. The overbroad patents which seem to be issued as a rule rather than an exception by the USPTO. The almost impossibility (because they are abstract) of indexing and researching software patent claims, and a number of other reasons as well. Actually Bill Gates (shit, I never thought I'd end up quoting that man :-) ) actually conceded that MS would never have gotten off the ground if software patents had existed then as they do today. Or putting it in another context. It has been estimated that some 250,000 patents apply to smartphones, and that since each patent contains an average of something like 20 claims, then the total number of restrictions in the smartphone area alone is in the millions. It is just impossible to do due diligence on such a large and obscure number of claims. There are not enough patent attorneys on the planet. This is one reason Apple argued in the VirnetX litigation that they did NOT research the claims. (Another reason was to avoid treble damages).
Since you referred also to the Reuters Analysis of the Apple patent portfolio, I feel I must also comment on that. It is an interesting reference, but hardly relevant to anything. Among the reasons I say that are (1). It does not take into account in any way the patent portfolios of other contenders in the market. (2) It does not say anything about the significance of the 1900 or so Patents at all. A high proportion of these may well be invalidated on the grounds of prior art or obviousness, .... and so on.
Now of course, the quote from Captn Cook, reads good. No doubt about it. But it fails to address the problem that Apple violates, and "steals" the IP of other companies on a large scale. (All smartphone manufacturers probably do as well. See the 250,000 patent discussion above). But in the case of the Motorola FRAND patents this is particularly relevant because Apple does not in fact dispute the fact that they are using the FRAND patents without paying, and this gets to the objectionable part of Apples "thermonuclear war" or the Patent war. Putting it bluntly, its galling arrogance and unbelievable hypocrisy. And they compound it by trying at this stage anyway to avoid any back payments at all. To many people this is morally and ethically reprehensible. One cannot claim against others for "stealing" and do the very same thing yourself. One law for all ??
What I privately hope is that in the US, Apple and Samsung and Motorola (and all the rest of the kids on the block) each win a blocking injunction against each other. Could happen. (But probably only in the US).
you might like this article on the subject of software patent insanity.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121116-phone-patents-an-absurd-battle/2
Finally, you do hit a very relevant and valid point on your comments on the "rubber-band" patent. It could be invalidated. The show's not over till the fat lady sings :-) ... also in ALL of the other litigation in the US. There is NO final judgement. A lot can happen before the end is reached. It would be prudent not to crack the Champagne too early (whichever side one may wish to support.)
Makes the Apple-HTC ceasfire seem rather sensible to me.
Given the firm evidence that Samsung examined the iPhone etc that was presented in the US case, the statement is correct that it is not coincidence. Several notes all but blatantly said 'do it like the iPhone'. The only catch is that a UK court can't use evidence from a non UK case and Apple either didn't try or wasn't allowed to make the same claims and submit the same materials in the UK case.
And regardless of any of this, at no one did Samsung file a libel/slander charge against Apple. if they had and won the case then this punishment would make sense.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121116-phone-patents-an-absurd-battle/2
Oh the irony…
Quote: BBC Link viewed from a UK IP address
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com.
Rule Britannia !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Given the firm evidence that Samsung examined the iPhone etc that was presented in the US case, the statement is correct that it is not coincidence. Several notes all but blatantly said 'do it like the iPhone'. The only catch is that a UK court can't use evidence from a non UK case and Apple either didn't try or wasn't allowed to make the same claims and submit the same materials in the UK case.
And what has this got to do with anything? You're confusing the matter by bringing the iPhone into it, which is exactly what Apple tried to do. This case was about the Tab and an Apple community design. Its totally irrelevant to this subject (as Apple found out).
Quote:
And regardless of any of this, at no one did Samsung file a libel/slander charge against Apple. if they had and won the case then this punishment would make sense.
Again, totally irrelevant. They didn't have to file for any kind of slander, they just had to inform the court they didn't believe Apple were complying with the original order and let the court do the rest.
Case closed.
A significant amount of work has to go into making a product though. Think of the example of H.264/H.265 - arguably the best video compression/decompression software. That takes a significant effort to make. Under your idealistic system, the mathematics behind it should be free for anyone to use. That's great but where is the reward for the inventors? Google, Netflix, Hulu profit by lowering bandwidth; and Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc profit by having rich media tools for the web integrated with their software. The people making the algorithms can end up with no reward after doing lots of work. Maybe media codecs can get government funding but it's hardly comparable to the millions they make from licensing. You can't say they are unethical to work for profit.
The product has to be protected just like any form of work produced by manpower. It's not mathematics sitting at the keyboard. Just because Google makes their money from ads doesn't mean that all software should be free. Now you can say it doesn't have to be protected from other people developing the same IP but IP gets into other people's hands - Java found its way into the hands of Google. Andy Rubin used to work at Apple. Samsung builds Apple's processor designs. Just like the recipe for McDonald's secret sauce or the Coca-cola formula, if it gets out there, you need to have some protection.
There is a difficulty when it comes to algorithms being the only way to do things. Like in computer graphics, the equations that make digital content mimic real-life are based on physics. Sampling methods have been patented over the years but that's where short timeframes for coverage would come into play and there should be consideration over the level of variation possible. Other tablet manufacturers have managed to make their designs significantly different from Apple, Samsung chose not to.
Another difficulty is when it comes to the issue of ownership. If you think about land/property, someone owns it but at some point in time, nobody owned anything. A transition had to occur whereby people claimed things they had no inherent entitlement to, whether it was discovering land, a drug, an algorithm. We all meandre through life connecting things and creating unique stores of information that are based on systems that have preceeded us but we can't unfairly decide that some should be protected and others not.
Could you patent the chemical techniques/equipment that led to the discovery of Pencillin but not Penicillin itself?
I do think that Apple has been pursuing a wrong agenda as far as Android is concerned and this shows in their trial against Google:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577496991190742010.html
"In this case, Apple claimed a patent on the idea of the sliding motion to unlock a device, arguing that Google's tap is a "zero-length swipe." Judge Posner ridiculed this as like "saying that a point is a zero-length line."
"He also ridiculed Google's counterclaim, writing, "'Going for broke' is the inescapable characterization" of its damage claim. Even if Apple infringed on a Google patent that involves a "standards-essential patent," there was no economic justification for a claim of about 1% of sales of Apple phones."
"In the technology industry, it's now clear the concept of 20-year exclusive use makes no sense for software or business processes."
"In bouncing this high-profile case, Judge Posner lays out a road map for Congress, patent regulators and other judges to re-establish the original purpose of intellectual property, which is to encourage both innovation and competition."
I don't think reformation will be easy and as I say, you have to assume some things can be protected and others can't. Where the line falls will unfairly favour one party over another. It will also have to be backdated because we are sitting here with a pretty big snowball and you can't suddenly say thousands of things will no longer qualify for protection and allow competition to maintain 10 year patents that give them the upper hand.
If the top IP experts around the world try to draw up a stricter set of guidelines, businesses and the lawyers who represent them will fight them every step of the way. Trying to find a balance between incentivising innovation and competition to it is going to be a very difficult task.
I agree with that but who gets to decide what is over-broad? Would you say that a patent covering Samsung for adding a bridging mechanism in a manufacturing design that say improves processor bandwidth isn't overly broad but a patent that covers Apple for data detectors is? People instinctively assign levels of importance to things based on their own bias. Samsung doesn't show much respect for design but does for manufacturing - that's why they ask 'who's the real innovator, when we make most of the iOS device parts'. Apple has more respect for design and considers Samsung to be merely a supplier that can be replaced with alternatives like TSMC or LG.
But you can also say significant portions of the patent portfolios of contenders might be invalidated if they were looked at properly and Apple's might not be. You can't just dismiss Apple all the time under the assumption they are the only ones abusing the system. Apple is sued far more than they sue.
That's a broad assumption and it doesn't address the real issue again, which is that if you look at the impact the iOS devices have made in the mobile sector, you can see that Apple's innovation here has been significant. It has redefined this entire industry. The patents on paper shouldn't be the relevant part at all but the implementation.
Some patent portfolios are owned are by NPEs (non-pracitising entities/patent trolls) who hinder progress by waiting for companies to produce and then profiting. Apple is stupidly referred to as a patent troll on many occasions but they are delivering on their ideas and the influence is clear for anyone to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
The mere fact that money can be made from an activity is no justification. There are much more substantive arguments against software patents. Software is provably mathematics. Mathematics is abstract ideas. You shouldn't (and theoretically cannot) patent abstract ideas
A significant amount of work has to go into making a product though. Think of the example of H.264/H.265 - arguably the best video compression/decompression software. That takes a significant effort to make. Under your idealistic system, the mathematics behind it should be free for anyone to use. That's great but where is the reward for the inventors? Google, Netflix, Hulu profit by lowering bandwidth; and Microsoft, Apple, Adobe etc profit by having rich media tools for the web integrated with their software. The people making the algorithms can end up with no reward after doing lots of work. Maybe media codecs can get government funding but it's hardly comparable to the millions they make from licensing. You can't say they are unethical to work for profit.
The product has to be protected just like any form of work produced by manpower. It's not mathematics sitting at the keyboard. Just because Google makes their money from ads doesn't mean that all software should be free. Now you can say it doesn't have to be protected from other people developing the same IP but IP gets into other people's hands - Java found its way into the hands of Google. Andy Rubin used to work at Apple. Samsung builds Apple's processor designs. Just like the recipe for McDonald's secret sauce or the Coca-cola formula, if it gets out there, you need to have some protection.
There is a difficulty when it comes to algorithms being the only way to do things. Like in computer graphics, the equations that make digital content mimic real-life are based on physics. Sampling methods have been patented over the years but that's where short timeframes for coverage would come into play and there should be consideration over the level of variation possible. Other tablet manufacturers have managed to make their designs significantly different from Apple, Samsung chose not to.
Another difficulty is when it comes to the issue of ownership. If you think about land/property, someone owns it but at some point in time, nobody owned anything. A transition had to occur whereby people claimed things they had no inherent entitlement to, whether it was discovering land, a drug, an algorithm. We all meandre through life connecting things and creating unique stores of information that are based on systems that have preceeded us but we can't unfairly decide that some should be protected and others not.
Could you patent the chemical techniques/equipment that led to the discovery of Pencillin but not Penicillin itself?
I do think that Apple has been pursuing a wrong agenda as far as Android is concerned and this shows in their trial against Google:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577496991190742010.html
"In this case, Apple claimed a patent on the idea of the sliding motion to unlock a device, arguing that Google's tap is a "zero-length swipe." Judge Posner ridiculed this as like "saying that a point is a zero-length line."
"He also ridiculed Google's counterclaim, writing, "'Going for broke' is the inescapable characterization" of its damage claim. Even if Apple infringed on a Google patent that involves a "standards-essential patent," there was no economic justification for a claim of about 1% of sales of Apple phones."
"In the technology industry, it's now clear the concept of 20-year exclusive use makes no sense for software or business processes."
"In bouncing this high-profile case, Judge Posner lays out a road map for Congress, patent regulators and other judges to re-establish the original purpose of intellectual property, which is to encourage both innovation and competition."
I don't think reformation will be easy and as I say, you have to assume some things can be protected and others can't. Where the line falls will unfairly favour one party over another. It will also have to be backdated because we are sitting here with a pretty big snowball and you can't suddenly say thousands of things will no longer qualify for protection and allow competition to maintain 10 year patents that give them the upper hand.
If the top IP experts around the world try to draw up a stricter set of guidelines, businesses and the lawyers who represent them will fight them every step of the way. Trying to find a balance between incentivising innovation and competition to it is going to be a very difficult task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
The overbroad patents which seem to be issued as a rule rather than an exception by the USPTO.
I agree with that but who gets to decide what is over-broad? Would you say that a patent covering Samsung for adding a bridging mechanism in a manufacturing design that say improves processor bandwidth isn't overly broad but a patent that covers Apple for data detectors is? People instinctively assign levels of importance to things based on their own bias. Samsung doesn't show much respect for design but does for manufacturing - that's why they ask 'who's the real innovator, when we make most of the iOS device parts'. Apple has more respect for design and considers Samsung to be merely a supplier that can be replaced with alternatives like TSMC or LG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Since you referred also to the Reuters Analysis of the Apple patent portfolio, I feel I must also comment on that. It is an interesting reference, but hardly relevant to anything. Among the reasons I say that are (1). It does not take into account in any way the patent portfolios of other contenders in the market. (2) It does not say anything about the significance of the 1900 or so Patents at all. A high proportion of these may well be invalidated on the grounds of prior art or obviousness, .... and so on.
But you can also say significant portions of the patent portfolios of contenders might be invalidated if they were looked at properly and Apple's might not be. You can't just dismiss Apple all the time under the assumption they are the only ones abusing the system. Apple is sued far more than they sue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
it fails to address the problem that Apple violates, and "steals" the IP of other companies on a large scale. (All smartphone manufacturers probably do as well. See the 250,000 patent discussion above).
That's a broad assumption and it doesn't address the real issue again, which is that if you look at the impact the iOS devices have made in the mobile sector, you can see that Apple's innovation here has been significant. It has redefined this entire industry. The patents on paper shouldn't be the relevant part at all but the implementation.
Some patent portfolios are owned are by NPEs (non-pracitising entities/patent trolls) who hinder progress by waiting for companies to produce and then profiting. Apple is stupidly referred to as a patent troll on many occasions but they are delivering on their ideas and the influence is clear for anyone to see.
I do agree with much you say, and as I mentioned I am not being particularly partisan when it comes to the frontline in the patent wars. What I don't like is the hypocrisy which seems to play an unfortunately large role.
Regarding: software is math. That's not really up for dispute. There is a host of other problems with the implementation of the patent system, basically because of shifty lawyers and the political agenda of judges in the 9-th Circuit court of Appeals. ... like allowing a non-patentable business process become patentable by adding the words "on a computer" and suchlike. I think a great deal of the insanity may well be a result simply of bad patents being issued in the first place. This is a big factor in the "patent troll business model", which causes a lot of companies simply to cave in to the trolls because it costs on the average of $2.5 million to contest a patent even if you do win and get it invalidated. Makes business sense (up to a point) to pay up if the trolls are asking even slightly less than $2.5 Mil for a "license". Everyone knows that's just making matters worse for society as a whole, but only a few with big pockets are willing and able to fight it out through the courts.
But I am definitely not making the argument that Apple hasn't contributed significantly not only in the Smartphone sector, but also in others. We may differ on our views regarding the extent of the contribution, but not that it is significant. I am not so sure that Apple has redefined anything. I have done 1 to 1 comparisons on a number of occasions and it has always resulted in no clear winner. The problem is that we end-customers are paying the lawyers and basically getting nothing for it. The insanity will stop sometime, hopefully before the last software developer leaves the US.
I would argue and also tend to agree with Steve Wozniak that Apple is not innovating now in the way that it did in the past and has become merely a consumer device manufacturer. It has less and less focus on creative use, openness and many other aspects that actually made it great in the first place. The iPad 4 may be a good example. Just putting in a faster processor is no big deal, and definitely not innovative in any meaningful sense. In fact I would suggest that the "innovations" since the original iPhone are largely fine tuning, but not real innovation, based also largely on the R&D of other tech companies, and often eliminating choice on the part of the customers. As long as the customers are satisfied, I don't see a problem with that. But the hype is excessive. I personally actually have to work quite hard for the dollars (actually Euros :-)) I spend on toys so I generally look fairly carefully for the "value for money" in purchasing. I think this applies to the vast majority of people. Any way you cut it, with a fixed disposable income there is a limit to how much "premium price" I am willing to pay for anything. The more I spend to purchase a toy, the less I have available for other things like paid content. (not that the latter plays a significant role for me personally.)
I could do with less aggressiveness and the negative competition tactic (badmouthing the competition, whining about "copying" etc, that seems to play a big role in the US (much less so in the EU). The real world is much less black-and-white than many partisans would like to believe regarding the patent wars. Apple is just one of a number of leading companies, and suffers the same QA problems as any other, both in HW and SW (whatever happened to "it just works" ??)
Unfortunately its not a perfect world, but I do prefer to live where I do.
But I very much appreciate your good arguments and the discussion !!