The Lawyer Bill for the Apple-Samsung trail just arrived.
Apple realizes it is to big. And the courts will continue keeping the amount owed to Apple small.
It would be even harder to collect from Google.
Oracle Bill is coming
to make andude really open.
Giggle's gonna want
all the friends money can buy.
This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freely spends. Five billion dollars maybe?
This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freeing spends. Five billion dollars maybe?
This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freeing spends. Five billion dollars maybe?
Apple don need no stinkin billions.
How about the HTC special
no copykat in the new chrome book fone.
The USPTO originally rejected software patents. They were forced to accept them by political pressure and lobbying from the computer industry. Don't blame a department for being ruined by the overlying political games of those in power above them.
What would be the logic for disallowing patents for software, as opposed to hardware? In what fundamental ways is the intellectual property qualitatively different?
What would be the logic for disallowing patents for software, as opposed to hardware? In what fundamental ways is the intellectual property qualitatively different?
HW patents are more tangible. SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's. Personally, I think SW patents need their own classification with it's own set of rules that falls somewhere between copyrights, since they are written, and patents, since it does have a specific function.
I find that argument to be as persuasive as saying that all hardware can be reduced to atoms and molecules.
That's perfectly fine, because at the end SW is inherently different from HW so it shouldn't be defined exactly the same way, just we don't define published works as patents. SW shares elements from both so I think its rules needs to borrow from each and to have its own category.
So you think "most Google fans" are misrepresented by this so-called "vocal minority"? Do I see "most Google fans" arguing against the "vocal minority"? Or do I see "most Google fans" clicking the "Like" button on their posts?
Most (let's call them moderate) Google fans aren't astroturfing here. They're enjoying their own communities. Google fans who are here aren't here for that reason. They're here because Apple fans are wrong on the Internet
1) Yes, very much so.
2) I have no idea what you see, but I do suspect that you're trying to apply what you see from a vocal minority to a majority.
It looks like you're still projecting your own extremist views onto others. One can be a fan of Google AND Apple at the same time. Just look at lists which show the most popular iOS apps and you'll find one developer who consistenly rates among the most popular, Google. It's very common for someone to use both and be satisfied.
HW patents are more tangible. SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's. Personally, I think SW patents need their own classification with it's own set of rules that falls somewhere between copyrights, since they are written, and patents, since it does have a specific function.
Say goodbye to all the "standards essential" mobile network patents.
All communications from a phone are just a series of 1's and 0's.
So now we've cleared that up, where are the incentives to push the boundaries?
Given that without patents anyone can take the work and use it for free.
That's perfectly fine, because at the end SW is inherently different from HW so it shouldn't be defined exactly the same way, just we don't define published works as patents. SW shares elements from both so I think its rules needs to borrow from each and to have its own category.
Below is a link to a rather lengthy article from the Oxford Press which basically supports your position. I think it should be required reading for anyone who wishes to enter the debate of software patents and whether they should be changed, abolished or left as is. The author makes some very logical arguments. Good reading.
Comments
Oracle Bill is coming
to make andude really open.
Giggle's gonna want
all the friends money can buy.
This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freely spends. Five billion dollars maybe?
This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freeing spends. Five billion dollars maybe?
10c perhaps /s
Apple don need no stinkin billions.
How about the HTC special
no copykat in the new chrome book fone.
Just like android only better.
What would be the logic for disallowing patents for software, as opposed to hardware? In what fundamental ways is the intellectual property qualitatively different?
HW patents are more tangible. SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's. Personally, I think SW patents need their own classification with it's own set of rules that falls somewhere between copyrights, since they are written, and patents, since it does have a specific function.
I find that argument to be as persuasive as saying that all hardware can be reduced to atoms and molecules.
That's perfectly fine, because at the end SW is inherently different from HW so it shouldn't be defined exactly the same way, just we don't define published works as patents. SW shares elements from both so I think its rules needs to borrow from each and to have its own category.
The first patent (the one about routing calls between mobile and voip networks) seems to concern the same functionality that the new Republic Wireless carrier claims to have implemented in-house (http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/carrier-wifi/republic-wireless-revamps-its-wifi-handoff/d/d-id/706570).
If you'll note the Apple patent, it directly sources the Nortel patents going back to 1997 and Apple also notes Sprint's patent.
I'll wager you won't ever see Sprint attempting to claim infringement, what with Apple holding the Nortel patents.
So you think "most Google fans" are misrepresented by this so-called "vocal minority"? Do I see "most Google fans" arguing against the "vocal minority"? Or do I see "most Google fans" clicking the "Like" button on their posts?
Most (let's call them moderate) Google fans aren't astroturfing here. They're enjoying their own communities. Google fans who are here aren't here for that reason. They're here because Apple fans are wrong on the Internet
1) Yes, very much so.
2) I have no idea what you see, but I do suspect that you're trying to apply what you see from a vocal minority to a majority.
3) See #3
It looks like you're still projecting your own extremist views onto others. One can be a fan of Google AND Apple at the same time. Just look at lists which show the most popular iOS apps and you'll find one developer who consistenly rates among the most popular, Google. It's very common for someone to use both and be satisfied.
HW patents are more tangible. SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's. Personally, I think SW patents need their own classification with it's own set of rules that falls somewhere between copyrights, since they are written, and patents, since it does have a specific function.
Say goodbye to all the "standards essential" mobile network patents.
All communications from a phone are just a series of 1's and 0's.
So now we've cleared that up, where are the incentives to push the boundaries?
Given that without patents anyone can take the work and use it for free.
Huh?! Can you explain how that would be the case? Rather, why would you not want any protection for innovative code?
Huh?! Can you explain how that would be the case?
What would be the point of licensing a way to send 1's and 0's over a network if they aren't patent protected?
I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you against protecting networking communications? If so, why?
I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you against protecting networking communications? If so, why?
Most of the standards essential patents are software patents.
OK. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. What does that have to do with anything I've said?
Below is a link to a rather lengthy article from the Oxford Press which basically supports your position. I think it should be required reading for anyone who wishes to enter the debate of software patents and whether they should be changed, abolished or left as is. The author makes some very logical arguments. Good reading.
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/13/1543.full
Montage of Sean Bean saying “Shut Up”.mp4
Nobody gives a shit what you think...