I’m a software dev but i’m still not a big fan of software patents even being a thing. Code is written speech and is already protected by copyright – so if someone still your code it’s protected. Non-code ideas but expressed through software are too abstract to patent in my opinion, since patents aren’t for abstract ideas but rather detailed implementations. And unless you lift somebody else’s code, your implementation is going to be different than mine. Thus software patents don’t protect implementations (since copyright does) and end up just being weapons. Lame.
The silver lining is at least Apple will have their day in court to argue. In Europe if the EC felt the Watch was an excellent enough product it should be given out for free as a public service and fine Apple for being a monopoly if they didn't bend to the EC's will (like Google search)
Oh please...the EU is many things, good and bad, but it's not wilfully authoritarian.
Not authoritarian. That idiot Trump is an authoritarian freak. The EC is kinda fascist when it comes to their new approach toward corporations, especially U.S. corporations.
The silver lining is at least Apple will have their day in court to argue. In Europe if the EC felt the Watch was an excellent enough product it should be given out for free as a public service and fine Apple for being a monopoly if they didn't bend to the EC's will (like Google search)
Oh please...the EU is many things, good and bad, but it's not wilfully authoritarian.
Not authoritarian. That idiot Trump is an authoritarian freak. The EC is kinda fascist when it comes to their new approach toward corporations, especially U.S. corporations.
Is China any better than the EU? And if not, why is Apple doing a robust business there while Google has no presence? Perhaps Apple's business model and approach is sufficiently different than Google that Apple is allowed to do business in China where Google is not. And perhaps sufficiently different enough to avoid running afoul of the European regulators where Google's model does.
The EU tax issue with Apple did not go Apple's way. Apple may be forced to pay out billions. Google actually has the same tax problem and that issue hasn't even been addressed yet.
Apple could easily strike a deal with Great Britain, who is no longer a part of the EU, for a similar tax deal to the Irish, or at least friendlier terms than the EU and move their operations out of Ireland. The Irish in all likelihood are quite worried about the possibility and mounting a vigorous defense of Apple.
I don't see the EU as being fascist or authoritarian. Opportunistic, yes as certain of their member countries are in total economic disarray. However, I do see Google's model as very problematic. A problematic model coupled with an opportunistic EU leadership spells real trouble. Apple's model isn't nearly as odious as Google's and should not lead to the same legal issues with the Europeans.
If one looks at the reality of the European situation, it is quite doubtful that the EU will even hold together. How many economies can Germany and to a lesser extent, France, continue to bail out? One of them is bound to grow weary and pull out of the EU just as the Brits have done and the whole thing falls apart. And even if it does fall apart, Google will still have serious difficulties going forward with the various member nations anyhow. Apple's tax issue, however, will disappear.
Blaming the EU for Google's problems is a bit of a stretch.
I am not going to claim I understand the current patent system. However, when I read something like "the '902 patent contains contingencies for putting a device to sleep during periods in which no motion signals are detected.", it makes me feel the whole system is so broken with patents that really should not be allowed to be a patent. Also, is it normal for a patent to take 4 years to be granted?
There's nothing wrong with the current system. It's working as it should. It's just as likely Apple would be the patent holder for this as any other company, so a lawsuit filed by Apple could be in the offing against some other party in the future.
And, yes, it often takes a long time for patents to be reviewed, rejected, updated, re-reviewed and issued.
The silver lining is at least Apple will have their day in court to argue. In Europe if the EC felt the Watch was an excellent enough product it should be given out for free as a public service and fine Apple for being a monopoly if they didn't bend to the EC's will (like Google search)
Oh please...the EU is many things, good and bad, but it's not wilfully authoritarian.
Not authoritarian. That idiot Trump is an authoritarian freak. The EC is kinda fascist when it comes to their new approach toward corporations, especially U.S. corporations.
Is China any better than the EU? And if not, why is Apple doing a robust business there while Google has no presence? Perhaps Apple's business model and approach is sufficiently different than Google that Apple is allowed to do business in China where Google is not. And perhaps sufficiently different enough to avoid running afoul of the European regulators where Google's model does.
The EU tax issue with Apple did not go Apple's way. Apple may be forced to pay out billions. Google actually has the same tax problem and that issue hasn't even been addressed yet.
Apple could easily strike a deal with Great Britain, who is no longer a part of the EU, for a similar tax deal to the Irish, or at least friendlier terms than the EU and move their operations out of Ireland. The Irish in all likelihood are quite worried about the possibility and mounting a vigorous defense of Apple.
I don't see the EU as being fascist or authoritarian. Opportunistic, yes as certain of their member countries are in total economic disarray. However, I do see Google's model as very problematic. A problematic model coupled with an opportunistic EU leadership spells real trouble. Apple's model isn't nearly as odious as Google's and should not lead to the same legal issues with the Europeans.
If one looks at the reality of the European situation, it is quite doubtful that the EU will even hold together. How many economies can Germany and to a lesser extent, France, continue to bail out? One of them is bound to grow weary and pull out of the EU just as the Brits have done and the whole thing falls apart. And even if it does fall apart, Google will still have serious difficulties going forward with the various member nations anyhow. Apple's tax issue, however, will disappear.
Blaming the EU for Google's problems is a bit of a stretch.
Please, lets not waylay yet another Apple thread into a discussion about Google. There's already plenty of Google-specific threads here to post your thoughts in. "But... But... GOOGLE!" doesn't need to be a part of so many unrelated threads, plus it becomes an irritant to certain forum members who prefer to read Apple talk in Apple threads.
I am not going to claim I understand the current patent system. However, when I read something like "the '902 patent contains contingencies for putting a device to sleep during periods in which no motion signals are detected.", it makes me feel the whole system is so broken with patents that really should not be allowed to be a patent. Also, is it normal for a patent to take 4 years to be granted?
The solution is simple. Give Texas back to its rightful owner - Mexico! Problem solved.
The silver lining is at least Apple will have their day in court to argue. In Europe if the EC felt the Watch was an excellent enough product it should be given out for free as a public service and fine Apple for being a monopoly if they didn't bend to the EC's will (like Google search)
Oh please...the EU is many things, good and bad, but it's not wilfully authoritarian.
All states are willfully authoritarian to some degree. It is in the very nature of statehood. States assert authority over their geographic regions and the people residing within those regions, which, in turn, is used to justify the imposition of legislation, including the criminalization of nonviolent behavior. This isn’t taking the EU to task; but rather pointing out that authoritarian has a meaning which all states willfully engage in the behavior therof, to some degree or other.
I thought the SC ruled against this kind of venue targeting like ED of Texas.
They did, but someone who has a presence in (at least keeps an office) in that district is able to file there.
So professional patent trolls keep (at least) an office there.
I am not going to claim I understand the current patent system. However, when I read something like "the '902 patent contains contingencies for putting a device to sleep during periods in which no motion signals are detected.", it makes me feel the whole system is so broken with patents that really should not be allowed to be a patent. Also, is it normal for a patent to take 4 years to be granted?
The solution is simple. Give Texas back to its rightful owner - Mexico! Problem solved.
I thought the SC ruled against this kind of venue targeting like ED of Texas.
They did, but someone who has a presence in (at least keeps an office) in that district is able to file there.
So professional patent trolls keep (at least) an office there.
You got that backwards. Apple operates in Texas therefore they can be hauled into the Federal courthouse in Texas.
Patent law reform is so overdue. The secondary market for patents should be shut down. If you buy one, use it or lose it.
Respectfully, I think you'd change your position if you thought it through, If I invent something and earn a patent on that invention, of course you should be able to sell the rights to that invention to someone else to use and protect. If that's taken away the value of patents drops significantly.
Let's walk through two examples. In one case, I have a "perfect" patent (anyone look at it agrees that it's new and innovative and non-obvious, etc.) and Apple (unknowingly, perhaps) violates that patent. In the other case, I have a questionable patent and it's arguable whether Apple is violating that patent. I think we agree that it's the Courts job to adjudicate both these cases. If I'm some small-time tinkerer with one of these patents, it would be very difficult and expensive for me to a) know if I'm in the first case or the second and b) get justice from the court system. These "patent trolls" are--in a sense--doing a service to the economy by paying off the inventor and taking on the responsibility for enforcing these patent rights. The "problem" with the system is not whether the guy bringing the case is the original inventor, or a "real company" or a non-practicing entity. The problem is that it's complex and expensive to distinguish between the two types of cases (completely valid ones and questionable or bogus ones).
So, yes, let's have some reforms to improve the system, but taking away the right to sell patents won't help any. It will just keep cases--both valid and invalid--out of the Courts and hurt the little guy.
Patent law reform is so overdue. The secondary market for patents should be shut down. If you buy one, use it or lose it.
Respectfully, I think you'd change your position if you thought it through, If I invent something and earn a patent on that invention, of course you should be able to sell the rights to that invention to someone else to use and protect. If that's taken away the value of patents drops significantly.
Let's walk through two examples. In one case, I have a "perfect" patent (anyone look at it agrees that it's new and innovative and non-obvious, etc.) and Apple (unknowingly, perhaps) violates that patent. In the other case, I have a questionable patent and it's arguable whether Apple is violating that patent. I think we agree that it's the Courts job to adjudicate both these cases. If I'm some small-time tinkerer with one of these patents, it would be very difficult and expensive for me to a) know if I'm in the first case or the second and b) get justice from the court system. These "patent trolls" are--in a sense--doing a service to the economy by paying off the inventor and taking on the responsibility for enforcing these patent rights. The "problem" with the system is not whether the guy bringing the case is the original inventor, or a "real company" or a non-practicing entity. The problem is that it's complex and expensive to distinguish between the two types of cases (completely valid ones and questionable or bogus ones).
So, yes, let's have some reforms to improve the system, but taking away the right to sell patents won't help any. It will just keep cases--both valid and invalid--out of the Courts and hurt the little guy.
Great points -- but no relation to the post you're responding to.
Comments
The EU tax issue with Apple did not go Apple's way. Apple may be forced to pay out billions. Google actually has the same tax problem and that issue hasn't even been addressed yet.
Apple could easily strike a deal with Great Britain, who is no longer a part of the EU, for a similar tax deal to the Irish, or at least friendlier terms than the EU and move their operations out of Ireland. The Irish in all likelihood are quite worried about the possibility and mounting a vigorous defense of Apple.
I don't see the EU as being fascist or authoritarian. Opportunistic, yes as certain of their member countries are in total economic disarray. However, I do see Google's model as very problematic. A problematic model coupled with an opportunistic EU leadership spells real trouble. Apple's model isn't nearly as odious as Google's and should not lead to the same legal issues with the Europeans.
If one looks at the reality of the European situation, it is quite doubtful that the EU will even hold together. How many economies can Germany and to a lesser extent, France, continue to bail out? One of them is bound to grow weary and pull out of the EU just as the Brits have done and the whole thing falls apart. And even if it does fall apart, Google will still have serious difficulties going forward with the various member nations anyhow. Apple's tax issue, however, will disappear.
Blaming the EU for Google's problems is a bit of a stretch.
And, yes, it often takes a long time for patents to be reviewed, rejected, updated, re-reviewed and issued.
You got that backwards. Apple operates in Texas therefore they can be hauled into the Federal courthouse in Texas.
Respectfully, I think you'd change your position if you thought it through, If I invent something and earn a patent on that invention, of course you should be able to sell the rights to that invention to someone else to use and protect. If that's taken away the value of patents drops significantly.
Let's walk through two examples. In one case, I have a "perfect" patent (anyone look at it agrees that it's new and innovative and non-obvious, etc.) and Apple (unknowingly, perhaps) violates that patent. In the other case, I have a questionable patent and it's arguable whether Apple is violating that patent. I think we agree that it's the Courts job to adjudicate both these cases. If I'm some small-time tinkerer with one of these patents, it would be very difficult and expensive for me to a) know if I'm in the first case or the second and b) get justice from the court system. These "patent trolls" are--in a sense--doing a service to the economy by paying off the inventor and taking on the responsibility for enforcing these patent rights. The "problem" with the system is not whether the guy bringing the case is the original inventor, or a "real company" or a non-practicing entity. The problem is that it's complex and expensive to distinguish between the two types of cases (completely valid ones and questionable or bogus ones).
So, yes, let's have some reforms to improve the system, but taking away the right to sell patents won't help any. It will just keep cases--both valid and invalid--out of the Courts and hurt the little guy.