Software patents in general are a terrible idea. Patenting what a computer can do, apart from the computer itself, is like patenting an automobile's ability to make a left turn. It's absurd.
Software code, of course, can and should be protected by copyright. But the functionality of software should be open to anyone to find a unique route to the same functionality, through the use of original underlying code.
Software patents in general are a terrible idea. Patenting what a computer can do, apart from the computer itself, is like patenting an automobile's ability to make a left turn. It's absurd.
Software code, of course, can and should be protected by copyright. But the functionality of software should be open to anyone to find a unique route to the same functionality, but by using original underlying code.
What does 'pinch-to-zoom' have to do with a 'software patent'?
Retroactivity is a complicated matter, because it can be successfully argued (as this extreme case show) that some things, even if legal, can not be tolerated by society.
You could do something legal and still so wrong that you should be punished for it, because you knew you were wrong when doing it, and you only were using the slowness of Law to abuse society.
Such examples could be people destroying natural habitats, pillaging natural resources, causing deaths. Maybe in 5 years, the remaining responsible persons for the Bhopal "catastrophe" (is it still an accident when you knew such a thing would end up happening?), or the invasion of Irak, will be tried for their crime, even if it was "legal" at the time. Maybe this will never happen under another interpretation of the limits of retroactivity.
Law is not an immutable thing, it depends on the morals of society, which themselves change as society evolves. Nobody can say if such evolution is good, or bad, because living in the midst of society makes you convinced that it is.
If you were born George Washington, slavery would be a natural thing to you. If you were born Saudi Arabian, male superiority over women would be perfectly normal to you. Morals are dependent on society.
Deciding on the limits of retroactivity is dependent on morals. Who can say if in a few years, infringing on the freedom to innovate by patenting obvious ideas won't be considered worse than killing millions of people (hey, it's far fetched, but not _impossible_ )? Not that I'd want to live in such a world, but just to say that retroactivity, really, is a complicated matter.
When I was a reporter we called that a "non-answer answer". People used it when a real answer would undercut their argument "
It was a solid answer IMO.
Unless there's vehement objection to a serious Obama administrations patent reformation effort by the Republicans, and with Democrats controlling both the Senate and White House and a substantial Democratic presence in the House it could pass. That there's a higher percentage of Republicans in one of the three branches doesn't automatically make passage unlikely IMO. I don't believe it's a big enough issue for the Republicans to put up too much of a fight if the Democrats make it a priority.
Unless there's vehement objection to a serious Obama administrations patent reformation effort by the Republicans, and with Democrats controlling both the Senate and White House and a substantial Democratic presence in the House it could pass. That there's a higher percentage of Republicans in one of the three branches doesn't automatically make passage unlikely IMO. I don't believe it's a big enough issue for the Republicans to put up too much of a fight if the Democrats make it a priority.
Maybe GG is actually from an alternate universe. (That would explain a lot.) One where the House Republicans don't vote in lock step with each other and exactly as the Speaker tells them to. In this world, just the fact that the White House supports a measure is enough to make House Republicans all vote against it.
Apple strategy moving forward: Just double the rate of patent filings.
Apple's been patenting whatever they possibly could since Day 1. Just keep doing that full force, appeal what you can, and move forward. Money buys opportunity: both to patent, and to challenge invalidations.
I believe Apple applied for this patent prior to the launch of the original iPhone, right? The USPTO granted the patent at that time. How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior? That's like giving you a marriage license one day, but the following week saying your marriage is no longer valid even though you have a license... oh wait.
Because this new law is about CHALLENGING patents. That means it can invalidated patents.
if Apples patents being invalidated helps Samsung with the 1.05b bill isn't that alike to getting away with attempted murder if the victim was killed in an accident the next day? The patents were valid at the time they were infringed ??
if Apples patents being invalidated helps Samsung with the 1.05b bill isn't that alike to getting away with attempted murder if the victim was killed in an accident the next day? The patents were valid at the time they were infringed ??
You're talking about things you don't understand. The invalidation isn't a finalized thing, but you can't infringe upon something that is deemed invalid. Eventually we'll see what claims hold up. Stop trying to mix criminal law analogies. They have no place here.
You're talking about things you don't understand. The invalidation isn't a finalized thing, but you can't infringe upon something that is deemed invalid. Eventually we'll see what claims hold up. Stop trying to mix criminal law analogies. They have no place here.
Do you not understand what a question mark means? You should look it up before accusing people
Do you realize that any Apple's patents has ever been invalidated by the USPTO. None of them!! We already told AppleInsider's people that you are getting it wrong in another related story but you keep spreading disinformation. Is AppleInsider also becoming a garbage collector for sensationalist Apple news?
Do you not understand what a question mark means? You should look it up before accusing people
The hyperbolic attempted murder analogy annoyed me. That is why you received such a response. It wasn't merely a jump over to criminal law. It was just a bad thing to reference with a semi trivial matter. This is just about if such gestures are patentable in this context. Much of the award Apple received wasn't on the utility patents. Even then I wouldn't expect the original amount to stand. The jury awarded more than Apple's own experts requested on some things with seemingly no basis. When you read on decisions by Koh, the decisions are accompanied by detailed explanations.
Comments
After the invalidation of rubber band and now pinch-to-zoom, it's a good thing we still have thin rounded rectangles
Software code, of course, can and should be protected by copyright. But the functionality of software should be open to anyone to find a unique route to the same functionality, through the use of original underlying code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
"Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO" post #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Yes, that's the post where you failed to ....
Huh..... anonymouse has a point: what's up with your "80%" claim?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by popnfresh
Software patents in general are a terrible idea. Patenting what a computer can do, apart from the computer itself, is like patenting an automobile's ability to make a left turn. It's absurd.
Software code, of course, can and should be protected by copyright. But the functionality of software should be open to anyone to find a unique route to the same functionality, but by using original underlying code.
What does 'pinch-to-zoom' have to do with a 'software patent'?
deleted
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
So, it's debatable, at least, whether they can, through legislation, invalidate patents already granted.
Note, the repeal of Prohibition didn't make anything that happened during Prohibition a crime retroactively.
Nuremberg Trials: http://www.globalpolitician.com/print.asp?id=620
Retroactivity is a complicated matter, because it can be successfully argued (as this extreme case show) that some things, even if legal, can not be tolerated by society.
You could do something legal and still so wrong that you should be punished for it, because you knew you were wrong when doing it, and you only were using the slowness of Law to abuse society.
Such examples could be people destroying natural habitats, pillaging natural resources, causing deaths. Maybe in 5 years, the remaining responsible persons for the Bhopal "catastrophe" (is it still an accident when you knew such a thing would end up happening?), or the invasion of Irak, will be tried for their crime, even if it was "legal" at the time. Maybe this will never happen under another interpretation of the limits of retroactivity.
Law is not an immutable thing, it depends on the morals of society, which themselves change as society evolves. Nobody can say if such evolution is good, or bad, because living in the midst of society makes you convinced that it is.
If you were born George Washington, slavery would be a natural thing to you. If you were born Saudi Arabian, male superiority over women would be perfectly normal to you. Morals are dependent on society.
Deciding on the limits of retroactivity is dependent on morals. Who can say if in a few years, infringing on the freedom to innovate by patenting obvious ideas won't be considered worse than killing millions of people (hey, it's far fetched, but not _impossible_ )? Not that I'd want to live in such a world, but just to say that retroactivity, really, is a complicated matter.
When I was a reporter we called that a "non-answer answer". People used it when a real answer would undercut their argument "
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham
When I was a reporter we called that a "non-answer answer". People used it when a real answer would undercut their argument "
It was a solid answer IMO.
Unless there's vehement objection to a serious Obama administrations patent reformation effort by the Republicans, and with Democrats controlling both the Senate and White House and a substantial Democratic presence in the House it could pass. That there's a higher percentage of Republicans in one of the three branches doesn't automatically make passage unlikely IMO. I don't believe it's a big enough issue for the Republicans to put up too much of a fight if the Democrats make it a priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It was a solid answer IMO.
Unless there's vehement objection to a serious Obama administrations patent reformation effort by the Republicans, and with Democrats controlling both the Senate and White House and a substantial Democratic presence in the House it could pass. That there's a higher percentage of Republicans in one of the three branches doesn't automatically make passage unlikely IMO. I don't believe it's a big enough issue for the Republicans to put up too much of a fight if the Democrats make it a priority.
Maybe GG is actually from an alternate universe. (That would explain a lot.) One where the House Republicans don't vote in lock step with each other and exactly as the Speaker tells them to. In this world, just the fact that the White House supports a measure is enough to make House Republicans all vote against it.
So! Apple patents!
I'm sensing a trend here…
Apple strategy moving forward: Just double the rate of patent filings.
Apple's been patenting whatever they possibly could since Day 1. Just keep doing that full force, appeal what you can, and move forward. Money buys opportunity: both to patent, and to challenge invalidations.
I believe Apple applied for this patent prior to the launch of the original iPhone, right? The USPTO granted the patent at that time. How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior? That's like giving you a marriage license one day, but the following week saying your marriage is no longer valid even though you have a license... oh wait.
Because this new law is about CHALLENGING patents. That means it can invalidated patents.Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm
if Apples patents being invalidated helps Samsung with the 1.05b bill isn't that alike to getting away with attempted murder if the victim was killed in an accident the next day? The patents were valid at the time they were infringed ??
You're talking about things you don't understand. The invalidation isn't a finalized thing, but you can't infringe upon something that is deemed invalid. Eventually we'll see what claims hold up. Stop trying to mix criminal law analogies. They have no place here.
deleted
You're talking about things you don't understand. The invalidation isn't a finalized thing, but you can't infringe upon something that is deemed invalid. Eventually we'll see what claims hold up. Stop trying to mix criminal law analogies. They have no place here.
Do you not understand what a question mark means? You should look it up before accusing peopleDo you realize that any Apple's patents has ever been invalidated by the USPTO. None of them!! We already told AppleInsider's people that you are getting it wrong in another related story but you keep spreading disinformation. Is AppleInsider also becoming a garbage collector for sensationalist Apple news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm
Do you not understand what a question mark means? You should look it up before accusing peopleThe hyperbolic attempted murder analogy annoyed me. That is why you received such a response. It wasn't merely a jump over to criminal law. It was just a bad thing to reference with a semi trivial matter. This is just about if such gestures are patentable in this context. Much of the award Apple received wasn't on the utility patents. Even then I wouldn't expect the original amount to stand. The jury awarded more than Apple's own experts requested on some things with seemingly no basis. When you read on decisions by Koh, the decisions are accompanied by detailed explanations.