But seriously if you had an idea that makes money, you'd want to hold on to it. Idea = money, stealing the idea is the same as stealing money.
Uhh.. no it isn't. Intellectual property and physical property are not the same. The simplest way to demonstrate that is, you don't lose your idea if someone "steals" it.
I would tend to agree that as long as the use of the "Genie" effect in Office remains a Mac only feature, Apple will not complain.
In fact, for Office v.X, I read that MS:MacBU had to completely write their own genie effect from scratch, because it was not (at that time) part of any public API they could call.
I think I also heard (but I'm not as sure of this part) that once Apple saw what they did, Apple actually sent the MacBU a few tips on how to better implement the effect.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple has already (or will soon) send the MacBU a free license to that patent, but only for Mac use, not on Windows. In any case, I certainly can't see Apple forcing MS to drop the feature from Office:mac.
However, all these software patents are just crazy. Somewhere at sometime someone already has developed this. These patents are going to make it impossible to write programs. When will someone patent a= b+c?
They don't seem to serve the correct purpose of patents (definition from US constitution):
(Congress can pass laws) "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
If software should be patentable at all (I understand there are good arguments against it), I think software patents' "limited time" could well be five years. That would leave time for people to cash their invention in the software world, but would not unduly block technological progress. Technology moves so much faster today that the law is obsolete.
Uhh.. no it isn't. Intellectual property and physical property are not the same. The simplest way to demonstrate that is, you don't lose your idea if someone "steals" it.
I'm not saying you'll lose the idea, but you'll lose money. It doesn't matter what kind of property it is.
I think anyone who sees this as a ridiculous patent has no appreciation for how expensive Human Computer Interaction work is. And any new development that's the result of an investment should benefit the investor. That's what drives innovation so well in the United States.
It's likely that many patents go too far, but a novel kind of video effect that conveys important information is valuable, and thus should be patentable in my opinion. I've previously seen effects which shrink and grow windows to iconify they (I remember it in twm Xwindows,) but not one that interpolates both the size and position, to essentially show the user both the new size and location in a gradual way.
Anyway, I think that while the patent system definitely grants patents that it shouldn't, that this isn't one of them and that I'm glad the US has a system where investment in ideas can pay off.
Well based on this the Creation of Watson by Karelia's Dan Wood should be able to stand. Apple borrowed from them the look and feel in addition to killing the product. Talk about stealing.
This is indeed a ridiculous patent. This is very disappointing coming from Apple.
Not sure how this is affecting you in a negative way. Afterall, they've been burned before. And this is a patent, which someone obviously did some digging to find. It's not like Apple is bragging about it. Not to mention they filed it 2 years ago (Patent Pending for the post who wondered about people stealing the idea in the mean time)
Oh well. Sad to say, but in today's world it's better to be safe than sorry with these types of things.
Wikipedia has a pretty good description of software patents. Just like physical property and IP are not the same, software patents and patents concerning physical inventions are not the same. In the software world people are currently able to patent garbage that is so general, everybody's software infringes. If the system is left to run as is, the chilling effect on small companies, single developers and free software is eventually going to be huge. If you read the Wikipedia article, note the recent numbers of software patents and the amount of R&D done in companies.
C'mon, the stealing thing again? *sigh* First off, Apple let MS create that genie effect; from what I understand, Apple helped them do it right. Also, ideas aren't patentable. If MS or whomever else wants to create a similar effect or some form of visual feedback re: minimizing windows, this patent can't proclude that. No patent can. It can only safeguard the mechanism for doing this. And as others have pointed out already, design patents and utility patents are different animals which an unfortunate similarity in name. People can talk about MS stealing the GUI from Apple, Apple stealing Watson or Konfabulator, but they are all ideas, and their implementations are different. Don't like it? Tough. Our designs and ideas are recycled, used as precedents and copied ad nauseum for thousands of years. Get over it already. That's how we improve on them.
1) they filed for this on 1/5/00. it's a divisional suggesting they filed it in 02.
2) to clarify - you patent not software. you patent software on a computer readable medium. trust me. if you just throw out software, you'll be rejected!
3) patents further innovation. dont make me argue with you
Comments
Originally posted by danielctull
But seriously if you had an idea that makes money, you'd want to hold on to it. Idea = money, stealing the idea is the same as stealing money.
Uhh.. no it isn't. Intellectual property and physical property are not the same. The simplest way to demonstrate that is, you don't lose your idea if someone "steals" it.
In fact, for Office v.X, I read that MS:MacBU had to completely write their own genie effect from scratch, because it was not (at that time) part of any public API they could call.
I think I also heard (but I'm not as sure of this part) that once Apple saw what they did, Apple actually sent the MacBU a few tips on how to better implement the effect.
I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple has already (or will soon) send the MacBU a free license to that patent, but only for Mac use, not on Windows. In any case, I certainly can't see Apple forcing MS to drop the feature from Office:mac.
Originally posted by stingerman
However, all these software patents are just crazy. Somewhere at sometime someone already has developed this. These patents are going to make it impossible to write programs. When will someone patent a= b+c?
They don't seem to serve the correct purpose of patents (definition from US constitution):
(Congress can pass laws) "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
If software should be patentable at all (I understand there are good arguments against it), I think software patents' "limited time" could well be five years. That would leave time for people to cash their invention in the software world, but would not unduly block technological progress. Technology moves so much faster today that the law is obsolete.
Originally posted by Gon
Uhh.. no it isn't. Intellectual property and physical property are not the same. The simplest way to demonstrate that is, you don't lose your idea if someone "steals" it.
I'm not saying you'll lose the idea, but you'll lose money. It doesn't matter what kind of property it is.
Originally posted by Booga
I think anyone who sees this as a ridiculous patent has no appreciation for how expensive Human Computer Interaction work is. And any new development that's the result of an investment should benefit the investor. That's what drives innovation so well in the United States.
It's likely that many patents go too far, but a novel kind of video effect that conveys important information is valuable, and thus should be patentable in my opinion. I've previously seen effects which shrink and grow windows to iconify they (I remember it in twm Xwindows,) but not one that interpolates both the size and position, to essentially show the user both the new size and location in a gradual way.
Anyway, I think that while the patent system definitely grants patents that it shouldn't, that this isn't one of them and that I'm glad the US has a system where investment in ideas can pay off.
Well based on this the Creation of Watson by Karelia's Dan Wood should be able to stand. Apple borrowed from them the look and feel in addition to killing the product. Talk about stealing.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
This is indeed a ridiculous patent. This is very disappointing coming from Apple.
Not sure how this is affecting you in a negative way. Afterall, they've been burned before. And this is a patent, which someone obviously did some digging to find. It's not like Apple is bragging about it. Not to mention they filed it 2 years ago (Patent Pending for the post who wondered about people stealing the idea in the mean time)
Oh well. Sad to say, but in today's world it's better to be safe than sorry with these types of things.
Don't make me pull up that Picasso quote again!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal. "
- Steve Jobs.
2) to clarify - you patent not software. you patent software on a computer readable medium. trust me. if you just throw out software, you'll be rejected!
3) patents further innovation. dont make me argue with you
Originally posted by BuonRotto
"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal. "
Actually, it's "Bad artists copy, Great artists steal."
Originally posted by the cool gut
Actually, it's "Bad artists copy, Great artists steal."
Wow. So Billy G. and the Monkey Boy are actually the digital Van Gogh and Picasso !