Maybe Samsung is hoping that this IBMer knows about the long history of distributed databases, which is the crux of the Unified Search patent that's being asserted against them. He has probably the most technically oriented background of all the jurors, and Samsung would probably want as many jurors with software engineering experience as possible in a trial regarding software patents.
No they don't. They want simple people easily swayed. People who understand patents would get the true depth of Samsung's IP theft.
No they don't. They want simple people easily swayed. People who understand patents would get the true depth of Samsung's IP theft.
They've had a fair bit of success in Europe fighting the slide-to-unlock patent, even in Germany where they were judged by people with science and engineering backgrounds (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html). Software engineers are probably more likely to oppose software patents - not patents in general - compared to the layman since they are the ones who would have to look over their shoulder every time they sort a list in a particular way or write a user interface. Joel Spolsky (cofounder of StackOverflow) was a former Microsofter (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html), and here's what he had to say:
"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry thatmaybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.
The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast. Most issued software patents aren’t “inventions” as most people understand that word. They’re just things that any first-year student learning Java should be able to do as a homework assignment in two hours."
They've had a fair bit of success in Europe fighting the slide-to-unlock patent, even in Germany where they were judged by people with science and engineering backgrounds (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html). Software engineers are probably more likely to oppose software patents - not patents in general - compared to the layman since they are the ones who would have to look over their shoulder every time they sort a list in a particular way or write a user interface. Joel Spolsky (cofounder of StackOverflow) was a former Microsofter (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html), and here's what he had to say:
"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry thatmaybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.
The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast. Most issued software patents aren’t “inventions” as most people understand that word. They’re just things that any first-year student learning Java should be able to do as a homework assignment in two hours."
So wait a second. He's claiming patents are written to make them hard to discover by other companies, yet he successfully finds prior art on a Microsoft patent in 10 minutes? So what's he complaining about then, if he was able to find prior art on a patent so easily?
Software engineers are more likely to oppose software patents? Bull. I'm a software engineer and most of the people I work with are in favor of patents. There are a few people I know against them, but they are also open source freaks who think software should be free for all, and we should all live in lily fields with butterflies and unicorns.
The Neonode was brought up by Apple in the documents for their slide to unlock patent. You want to know why? Because the Neonode system is significantly different from Apple's. Apple knew all about the Neonode before all the internet slueths "discovered" it and thought they found the holy grail against Apple. The Neonode used a swipe along the lower edge of the phone to indicate either "Yes or No", "Accept or Cancel", "Place Call/End Call" or other similar actions. If you take this in context with how the Neonode works and how they used gestures you'd see they had a very rudimentary system. They took a few basic concepts from regular PC software (where you often have a dialog box with "OK Cancel" on it) and turn those binary decisions into a pair of gestures. Swipe right for yes, swipe left for no.
If you picked up a Neonode for the first time and tried to use it, you'd have no way of knowing you needed to swipe to unlock the phone (or for that matter, swipe to perform any actions). Only by reading the manual would you know this. In contract, as soon as you pick up an iPhone you're presented with the text of what the gesture means, and an image you can touch that moves (slides) with you. You instantly know how to unlock the phone. If you get a phone call you also know how to answer it. In other words, Apple's system is intuitive while Neonodes isn't. They both might involve a simple gesture, but that's all they have in common.
And according to the USPTO, you can patent something that improves upon an existing idea. I would think adding a moving graphical image that follows a path (with added text and highlighted graphics) to be a significant improvement over the Neonode.
So wait a second. He's claiming patents are written to make them hard to discover by other companies, yet he successfully finds prior art on a Microsoft patent in 10 minutes? So what's he complaining about then, if he was able to find prior art on a patent so easily?
[/QUOTE] There is no contradiction. He found prior art on a patent that was already in front of him. His point is that because the language of software patents tends to be obfuscated, it's hard to find the appropriate patent to challenge in the first place if you're trying to find out whether an idea that might seem basic to you is actually forbidden by some patent. Even if you manage to locate some patents that might be relevant, there's also the question of how to interpret the legalese. For example, is a tap a "zero-length swipe" that is covered under a patent for swipe gestures? Posner threw that case out, but it took Motorola months of litigation and thousands of dollars in legal fees before they could be sure that they were safe. It's clear that the interpretation of a software patent is far from clear.
This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that independent discovery is essentially unavoidable in software engineering. All programmers learn to solve problems using the same tools. In fact many programmers today probably studied algorithms using the same textbook (CLRS). Therefore it's almost inevitable that some programmers working on the same problem will independently arrive at similar solutions.
Software engineers are more likely to oppose software patents? Bull. I'm a software engineer and most of the people I work with are in favor of patents. There are a few people I know against them, but they are also open source freaks who think software should be free for all, and we should all live in lily fields with butterflies and unicorns..
It's not just a few open-source freaks who firmly believe software should not be patentable. IMHO Bill Gates had it nailed 20 years ago:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today,” Gates wrote in a 1991 internal memo. Microsoft was still relatively small, and Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” which could give the company “a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.”
I wish this trial was on TV. I'm sick of seeing murders and rapists.. This would actually get my attention.
I wished this during the first trial. I would have a blast watching this play out. Seeing how each side reacts to what is being said and the attitudes, I imagine it would be amusing to say the least.
Programmers have overwhelmingly had a historical opposition to software patents according to sources and surveys I've found. I can't find evidence showing the attitude has changed, other than you happen to know some guys who agree with you.
It's not just a few open-source freaks who firmly believe software should not be patentable. IMHO Bill Gates had it nailed 20 years ago:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today,” Gates wrote in a 1991 internal memo. Microsoft was still relatively small, and Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” which could give the company “a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.”
If you dig your hole far enough, you'll reach hell.
The payment amount is less important to Apple. Apple can achieve a big victory by demanding Samsung from removing these things.
Most of the items which are being decided upon have been removed from the design which make Apple possible stronger. at this point it is bragging rights and money.
I would imagine it's nothing new to Apple. It's not the first time their source code has been given as evidence in a trial.
no but I'm sure Google would prefer no one seeing it. Though I'm sure it will be seen with an army of Google lawyers hovering around like vultures on a corpse
Today is "Hired Gun" day in the Apple/Samsung trial. Dueling $400/hr+ "expert" guys arguing the patent value or lack of it on behalf of their clients.
EDIT: No dueling today, only Apple's hired experts testified. $350K paid to one of them so far while the other has received a paltry $200K to date. :wow:
no but I'm sure Google would prefer no one seeing it. Though I'm sure it will be seen with an army of Google lawyers hovering around like vultures on a corpse
You can go see it for yourself if you like. It's not inaccessible.
Today is "Hired Gun" day in the Apple/Samsung trial. Dueling $400/hr+ "expert" guys arguing the patent value or lack of it on behalf of their clients.
EDIT: No dueling today, only Apple's hired experts testified. $350K paid to one of them so far while the other has received a paltry $200K to date. :wow:
It's not about the cost, it's about the relative value they provide in terms of winning the trial.
It's not about the cost, it's about the relative value they provide in terms of winning the trial.
In the only trial with "expert witnesses" where I served on the jury we didn't really give much weight to the hired guns. It seems like in the last Samsung/Apple trial they didn't either.
Comments
No they don't. They want simple people easily swayed. People who understand patents would get the true depth of Samsung's IP theft.
They've had a fair bit of success in Europe fighting the slide-to-unlock patent, even in Germany where they were judged by people with science and engineering backgrounds (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html). Software engineers are probably more likely to oppose software patents - not patents in general - compared to the layman since they are the ones who would have to look over their shoulder every time they sort a list in a particular way or write a user interface. Joel Spolsky (cofounder of StackOverflow) was a former Microsofter (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html), and here's what he had to say:
"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry thatmaybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.
The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast. Most issued software patents aren’t “inventions” as most people understand that word. They’re just things that any first-year student learning Java should be able to do as a homework assignment in two hours."
(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html)
They've had a fair bit of success in Europe fighting the slide-to-unlock patent, even in Germany where they were judged by people with science and engineering backgrounds (http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/10-european-judges-found-apple-had-not.html). Software engineers are probably more likely to oppose software patents - not patents in general - compared to the layman since they are the ones who would have to look over their shoulder every time they sort a list in a particular way or write a user interface. Joel Spolsky (cofounder of StackOverflow) was a former Microsofter (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html), and here's what he had to say:
"Software developers don’t actually invent very much. The number of actually novel, non-obvious inventions in the software industry thatmaybe, in some universe, deserve a government-granted monopoly is, perhaps, two.
The other 40,000-odd software patents issued every year are mostly garbage that any working programmer could “invent” three times before breakfast. Most issued software patents aren’t “inventions” as most people understand that word. They’re just things that any first-year student learning Java should be able to do as a homework assignment in two hours."
(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html)
So wait a second. He's claiming patents are written to make them hard to discover by other companies, yet he successfully finds prior art on a Microsoft patent in 10 minutes? So what's he complaining about then, if he was able to find prior art on a patent so easily?
Software engineers are more likely to oppose software patents? Bull. I'm a software engineer and most of the people I work with are in favor of patents. There are a few people I know against them, but they are also open source freaks who think software should be free for all, and we should all live in lily fields with butterflies and unicorns.
The Neonode was brought up by Apple in the documents for their slide to unlock patent. You want to know why? Because the Neonode system is significantly different from Apple's. Apple knew all about the Neonode before all the internet slueths "discovered" it and thought they found the holy grail against Apple. The Neonode used a swipe along the lower edge of the phone to indicate either "Yes or No", "Accept or Cancel", "Place Call/End Call" or other similar actions. If you take this in context with how the Neonode works and how they used gestures you'd see they had a very rudimentary system. They took a few basic concepts from regular PC software (where you often have a dialog box with "OK Cancel" on it) and turn those binary decisions into a pair of gestures. Swipe right for yes, swipe left for no.
If you picked up a Neonode for the first time and tried to use it, you'd have no way of knowing you needed to swipe to unlock the phone (or for that matter, swipe to perform any actions). Only by reading the manual would you know this. In contract, as soon as you pick up an iPhone you're presented with the text of what the gesture means, and an image you can touch that moves (slides) with you. You instantly know how to unlock the phone. If you get a phone call you also know how to answer it. In other words, Apple's system is intuitive while Neonodes isn't. They both might involve a simple gesture, but that's all they have in common.
And according to the USPTO, you can patent something that improves upon an existing idea. I would think adding a moving graphical image that follows a path (with added text and highlighted graphics) to be a significant improvement over the Neonode.
So wait a second. He's claiming patents are written to make them hard to discover by other companies, yet he successfully finds prior art on a Microsoft patent in 10 minutes? So what's he complaining about then, if he was able to find prior art on a patent so easily?
[/QUOTE]
There is no contradiction. He found prior art on a patent that was already in front of him. His point is that because the language of software patents tends to be obfuscated, it's hard to find the appropriate patent to challenge in the first place if you're trying to find out whether an idea that might seem basic to you is actually forbidden by some patent. Even if you manage to locate some patents that might be relevant, there's also the question of how to interpret the legalese. For example, is a tap a "zero-length swipe" that is covered under a patent for swipe gestures? Posner threw that case out, but it took Motorola months of litigation and thousands of dollars in legal fees before they could be sure that they were safe. It's clear that the interpretation of a software patent is far from clear.
This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that independent discovery is essentially unavoidable in software engineering. All programmers learn to solve problems using the same tools. In fact many programmers today probably studied algorithms using the same textbook (CLRS). Therefore it's almost inevitable that some programmers working on the same problem will independently arrive at similar solutions.
Programmers have overwhelmingly had a historical opposition to software patents according to sources and surveys I've found. I can't find evidence showing the attitude has changed, other than you happen to know some guys who agree with you.
http://www.progfree.org/Whatsnew/survey.html
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/06/whats-wrong-wit.html
Legal and economic scholars believe software patents should be abolished.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=24020
Most software entrepreneurs don't see enough value in software patents to bother with them.
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/07/excellent-summary-of-berkeley-patent-survey-results.html
Even companies like Oracle who have asserted them against other techs say they oppose the patentability of software.
http://www.ibiblio.org/patents/txt/020294.txt
It's not just a few open-source freaks who firmly believe software should not be patentable. IMHO Bill Gates had it nailed 20 years ago:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today,” Gates wrote in a 1991 internal memo. Microsoft was still relatively small, and Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” which could give the company “a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.”
I wished this during the first trial. I would have a blast watching this play out. Seeing how each side reacts to what is being said and the attitudes, I imagine it would be amusing to say the least.
She's tired of the BS, and patent trolling on both sides
Trolls never tire of trolling, as you prove.
Programmers have overwhelmingly had a historical opposition to software patents according to sources and surveys I've found. I can't find evidence showing the attitude has changed, other than you happen to know some guys who agree with you.
http://www.progfree.org/Whatsnew/survey.html
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/06/whats-wrong-wit.html
Legal and economic scholars believe software patents should be abolished.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=24020
Most software entrepreneurs don't see enough value in software patents to bother with them.
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/07/excellent-summary-of-berkeley-patent-survey-results.html
Even companies like Oracle who have asserted them against other techs say they oppose the patentability of software.
http://www.ibiblio.org/patents/txt/020294.txt
It's not just a few open-source freaks who firmly believe software should not be patentable. IMHO Bill Gates had it nailed 20 years ago:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today,” Gates wrote in a 1991 internal memo. Microsoft was still relatively small, and Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” which could give the company “a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.”
If you dig your hole far enough, you'll reach hell.
That seems like a nonsensical reply having nothing to do with the post. :err:
The payment amount is less important to Apple. Apple can achieve a big victory by demanding Samsung from removing these things.
Most of the items which are being decided upon have been removed from the design which make Apple possible stronger. at this point it is bragging rights and money.
Today "Judge Koh (rejected a) request to keep Google source code secret in trial because central to Samsung (arguments)."
This is a huge blow for Google.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25496780/live-blog-day-3-testimony-apple-samsung-patent
EDIT: No dueling today, only Apple's hired experts testified. $350K paid to one of them so far while the other has received a paltry $200K to date. :wow:
You can go see it for yourself if you like. It's not inaccessible.
It's not about the cost, it's about the relative value they provide in terms of winning the trial.
Or as Big Worm said in the movie Friday "it's the principalities"
In the only trial with "expert witnesses" where I served on the jury we didn't really give much weight to the hired guns. It seems like in the last Samsung/Apple trial they didn't either.