It’s again why software shouldn’t be patentable and should instead rely on copyright protection to prevent code theft. Ideas are separate from implementation. Parenting “a flying car” (idea) isn’t legit, but patenting exactly how *your* car flies (specifics of the anti-grav motor design) is. Should be the same with software...the idea is easy and vague, but the coded implementation is the hard part, and, as written speech, is already protected by copyright.
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
It’s again why software shouldn’t be patentable and should instead rely on copyright protection to prevent code theft. Ideas are separate from implementation. Parenting “a flying car” (idea) isn’t legit, but patenting exactly how *your* car flies (specifics of the anti-grav motor design) is. Should be the same with software...the idea is easy and vague, but the coded implementation is the hard part, and, as written speech, is already protected by copyright.
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
It’s again why software shouldn’t be patentable and should instead rely on copyright protection to prevent code theft. Ideas are separate from implementation. Parenting “a flying car” (idea) isn’t legit, but patenting exactly how *your* car flies (specifics of the anti-grav motor design) is. Should be the same with software...the idea is easy and vague, but the coded implementation is the hard part, and, as written speech, is already protected by copyright.
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
FWIW, “anti-gravity” and perpetual motion devices are not patentable.
It’s again why software shouldn’t be patentable and should instead rely on copyright protection to prevent code theft. Ideas are separate from implementation. Parenting “a flying car” (idea) isn’t legit, but patenting exactly how *your* car flies (specifics of the anti-grav motor design) is. Should be the same with software...the idea is easy and vague, but the coded implementation is the hard part, and, as written speech, is already protected by copyright.
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
But... what would all the patent lawyers do then? Think of all the poor, jobless lawyers! Unfortunately, there's enough money here that these lawsuits will continue.
I agree with StrangeDays but find it odd how many other areas of interface design, etc that have supposedly been patented have been copied and been found not to infringe when challenged in court yet we still see lawsuits like this.
Does this company happen to reside in the Eastern District of Texas?
“Managing virtual cards stored on mobile devices” sounds like a blatantly obvious concept that shouldn’t be patentable. Are they going to file a patent for a system of “managing physical cards on mobile people” and sue regular wallet makers too?
It may be obvious to everyone now but was it obvious when the patent was filed? That’s a common mistake that people make who are not familiar with how patents work.
Austin is not in the Eastern District of Texas but almost any company can file there whether they reside there or not.
Since all it is a an electronic version of a physical wallet, yes, I would say it’s been obvious since devices had they capability to do so.
Was it obvious back at the end of 2010?
And it is not the concept of an electronic patent that causes infringement, it is the specific claims of the patent. That makes it narrower than just an electronic wallet. Here are the claims; in order for Apple to be infringing, they have to satisfy every claim element. And there re more claims than just the first one I am providing.
1. A method for installing a wallet application in a mobile device, comprising:
requesting, by the mobile device, a mobile wallet application comprising a corresponding Over-the-Air (OTA) proxy;
receiving mobile wallet application installation information;
installing the mobile wallet application in the mobile device;
capturing mobile device information by using the OTA proxy, the mobile device information comprising secure element (SE) information; and
transmitting the mobile device information for registering the installed mobile wallet application.
And how are the claims not obvious and generic? Obviously, a phone must install an application to get that application onto the phone. Obviously, that connection takes place "over the air", whether it's via cell tower or WiFi, since I'm not aware of any phones that have an Ethernet connection. Obviously, when it receives the install the install application must have some information as to how to install the app and how to connect it to the wallet and it must also have secure elements. How is any of this patentable? It's just an idea, not an execution.
Can I patent TV holography just by describing it and not by indicating how the engineering exactly works? Can I patent a flying car, simply by showing a diagram of a car in the air? Can I patent a computer the size of a thumb simply by drawing its block diagrams?
FWIW, “anti-gravity” and perpetual motion devices are not patentable.
A real, working model of either would, in fact, be eligible for a patent. It's just that it's relatively easy to fake either one, so the bar for "working" is much higher than it would be for most products.
Comments
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
I agree with StrangeDays but find it odd how many other areas of interface design, etc that have supposedly been patented have been copied and been found not to infringe when challenged in court yet we still see lawsuits like this.
Can I patent TV holography just by describing it and not by indicating how the engineering exactly works? Can I patent a flying car, simply by showing a diagram of a car in the air? Can I patent a computer the size of a thumb simply by drawing its block diagrams?