Funny, I've had Lucent stock for years (now called Alcatel-Lucent since their merger) and it hasn't budged since this announced... Still sinking like a rock.
Once they get the Cash and their stock rises, drop the stock and invest in AAPL
Doesn't Apple use AAC for all of it's iTunes STORE songs? So how could that get affected?
Since iTunes does have the capability to playback MP3's and create MP3's, I guess that's one downside.
Their players support mp3 playback. How do you suppose they do that?. Any program that decodes or encodes mp3 is infringing on alcatel patent (according to them).
The whole point of computers is that they are easily programable, have a flexible user interface, etc. Many/most software patents these days are patenting the blatantly obvious. The idea of copying someone's phone number from a Post-it note to a paper address book suddenly becomes "pushing remote PIM data to a centralized host" and undoubtedly some idiot out there has a patent on it.
Oh, these ideas are obvious?.. to who, you?. Could you whip up a program without considerable effort to implement "these obvious ideas"?. Something is only obvious after it is done.
Fire is obvious but some one had to figure it out. Hunting for food with a spear is obvious but someone had to figure it out. It amuses me when lay people claim X or Y is obvious as if they could go into their little home office and whip up a program in a few hrs to implement the obvious.
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
Oh, these ideas are obvious?.. to who, you?. Could you whip up a program without considerable effort to implement "these obvious ideas"?. Something is only obvious after it is done.
Fire is obvious but some one had to figure it out. Hunting for food with a spear is obvious but someone had to figure it out. It amuses me when lay people claim X or Y is obvious as if they could go into their little home office and whip up a program in a few hrs to implement the obvious.
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
I think saying something is "so obvious" can be a bit facetious, I agree. I think the challenge is that a lot of the patents are not "obvious" so much as they are "very broadly defined". Your Alaska example -- people wouldn't patent the exact implementation of it... Or they would patent various levels of the on-the-ground implementation, but they would also patent very broad descriptions of "pushing remote data" and "moving data from centralised hosts" and that kinda stuff (I'm not exactly sure what the "broad descriptions" of your Alaska example would be but I hope people get the gist of what I'm trying to say).....
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
How is physical location a concern for the Internet? That example sounds like standard client-server stuff to me.
How is physical location a concern for the Internet? That example sounds like standard client-server stuff to me.
That's because you assumed i was talking about the internet (yes the net is involved but there could be other protocols).. but regardless, the physical assets are what i was talking about. There could be statellite transmission involved, there could be wireless network involved. Each of these intermediate networks have their own service gurantee. Just being in china and clicking a button and updating a database in alaska is not that simple.
I think saying something is "so obvious" can be a bit facetious, I agree. I think the challenge is that a lot of the patents are not "obvious" so much as they are "very broadly defined". Your Alaska example -- people wouldn't patent the exact implementation of it... Or they would patent various levels of the on-the-ground implementation, but they would also patent very broad descriptions of "pushing remote data" and "moving data from centralised hosts" and that kinda stuff (I'm not exactly sure what the "broad descriptions" of your Alaska example would be but I hope people get the gist of what I'm trying to say).....
That patents are too broadly defined and should be narrowed. Perhaps. However, everyone gaines (or is affected) equally by the patent system. Apple is no different. People froth at the mouth when apple is hit with a patent lawsuit but apple can do the same.. they file patents the same way everyone else does. Apple does sue too you know. It's not like they are benevolent and narrowly define their patents...Also, sometimes, an idea could be that broad, it's possible but yes, i understand where you are coming from. However, the original post claimed many patents are obvious... that was what i was disputing. People always claim something is obvious.. my criteria for obviousness is that many, many people have thought of it. If it was obvious, then many companies would have applied for the patent at the same time or around the same time. It's easy to claim something is obvious AFTER it has been demonstrated.. then my question would be.. how come you didn't think of it before it was demonstrated?. huh?.. if it was so obvious, how come it didn't occur to everyone (or at the very least, a substantial number of people)??
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
I could crack open any number of computer networking textbooks dating back to at least the mid 1980's and find sample code which sends personal information/database records/etc from one computer to another. That's practically the "hello world" of client/server software development.
Using TCP to send the data guarantees it will be delivered (regardless of the type of network the data is traveling over), or at least notification of when it can't be delivered so that you can retry sending or cancel the connection, so no extra work there. Maybe you'll need to add a timed retry loop in the case where the centralized host (server) is down, but that's hardly patent worthy. Again, standard stuff in any comp sci networking textbook.
Now, if you build your own custom protocol on top of that which specifies how the data should be structured, encrypted, etc by the sender and then decoded by the receiver, then you may be able to patent your particular protocol so that others don't build a "copy-cat" device which can interoperate with the one you're building. I don't have a problem with that because there's a multitude of ways to design such a protocol, so you're not really preventing others from innovating in the same field.
However, blanket patents such as "pushing pim data from one device to another" do prevent future innovation because something like that is a fundamental building block for all sorts of applications. Many of which are not even related to the original application for that patent, so how would they be hurting the sales of whatever invention the patent-holder was using their original patent in? Patenting something like that only serves to hinder future innovators.
If Alcatel-Lucent/Fraunhofer pursue more companies they may shoot themselves in the foot
as people will abandon MP3.
Doesn't quite sound so bad for them though. They have been making oodles of cash to date, and now a hefty Billion dollars or so....What a deal. They don't even have to have a physical product or even tech support or on staff developers. Just Lawyers.
Sounds like a very profitable business.
I hope the cure to cancer is never related to a software patient, although it seemingly would have to, because then you could prevent the world from using that knowledge....forever if you chose. Or at least charge a fee that nobody could afford.
I hope the cure to cancer is never related to a software patient, although it seemingly would have to, because then you could prevent the world from using that knowledge....forever if you chose. Or at least charge a fee that nobody could afford.
It's a possibility. Unfortunately, DNA found in nature can be patented through some weird loophole.
Comments
Funny, I've had Lucent stock for years (now called Alcatel-Lucent since their merger) and it hasn't budged since this announced... Still sinking like a rock.
Once they get the Cash and their stock rises, drop the stock and invest in AAPL
Sebastian
Once they get the Cash and their stock rises, drop the stock and invest in AAPL
Sebastian
Last time I bought AAPL, I only wish I had bought more... a lot more. It was $50 then.
Doesn't Apple use AAC for all of it's iTunes STORE songs? So how could that get affected?
Since iTunes does have the capability to playback MP3's and create MP3's, I guess that's one downside.
Their players support mp3 playback. How do you suppose they do that?. Any program that decodes or encodes mp3 is infringing on alcatel patent (according to them).
The whole point of computers is that they are easily programable, have a flexible user interface, etc. Many/most software patents these days are patenting the blatantly obvious. The idea of copying someone's phone number from a Post-it note to a paper address book suddenly becomes "pushing remote PIM data to a centralized host" and undoubtedly some idiot out there has a patent on it.
Oh, these ideas are obvious?.. to who, you?. Could you whip up a program without considerable effort to implement "these obvious ideas"?. Something is only obvious after it is done.
Fire is obvious but some one had to figure it out. Hunting for food with a spear is obvious but someone had to figure it out. It amuses me when lay people claim X or Y is obvious as if they could go into their little home office and whip up a program in a few hrs to implement the obvious.
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
Oh, these ideas are obvious?.. to who, you?. Could you whip up a program without considerable effort to implement "these obvious ideas"?. Something is only obvious after it is done.
Fire is obvious but some one had to figure it out. Hunting for food with a spear is obvious but someone had to figure it out. It amuses me when lay people claim X or Y is obvious as if they could go into their little home office and whip up a program in a few hrs to implement the obvious.
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
I think saying something is "so obvious" can be a bit facetious, I agree. I think the challenge is that a lot of the patents are not "obvious" so much as they are "very broadly defined". Your Alaska example -- people wouldn't patent the exact implementation of it... Or they would patent various levels of the on-the-ground implementation, but they would also patent very broad descriptions of "pushing remote data" and "moving data from centralised hosts" and that kinda stuff (I'm not exactly sure what the "broad descriptions" of your Alaska example would be but I hope people get the gist of what I'm trying to say).....
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
How is physical location a concern for the Internet? That example sounds like standard client-server stuff to me.
How is physical location a concern for the Internet? That example sounds like standard client-server stuff to me.
That's because you assumed i was talking about the internet (yes the net is involved but there could be other protocols).. but regardless, the physical assets are what i was talking about. There could be statellite transmission involved, there could be wireless network involved. Each of these intermediate networks have their own service gurantee. Just being in china and clicking a button and updating a database in alaska is not that simple.
It certainly is not obvious.
I think saying something is "so obvious" can be a bit facetious, I agree. I think the challenge is that a lot of the patents are not "obvious" so much as they are "very broadly defined". Your Alaska example -- people wouldn't patent the exact implementation of it... Or they would patent various levels of the on-the-ground implementation, but they would also patent very broad descriptions of "pushing remote data" and "moving data from centralised hosts" and that kinda stuff (I'm not exactly sure what the "broad descriptions" of your Alaska example would be but I hope people get the gist of what I'm trying to say).....
That patents are too broadly defined and should be narrowed. Perhaps. However, everyone gaines (or is affected) equally by the patent system. Apple is no different. People froth at the mouth when apple is hit with a patent lawsuit but apple can do the same.. they file patents the same way everyone else does. Apple does sue too you know. It's not like they are benevolent and narrowly define their patents...Also, sometimes, an idea could be that broad, it's possible but yes, i understand where you are coming from. However, the original post claimed many patents are obvious... that was what i was disputing. People always claim something is obvious.. my criteria for obviousness is that many, many people have thought of it. If it was obvious, then many companies would have applied for the patent at the same time or around the same time. It's easy to claim something is obvious AFTER it has been demonstrated.. then my question would be.. how come you didn't think of it before it was demonstrated?. huh?.. if it was so obvious, how come it didn't occur to everyone (or at the very least, a substantial number of people)??
Pushing remote pim data to a centralized host is definetly not obvious, espicially if the remote pim data is in china and the centralized host is in alaska. You could probably come up with what you think are solutions and i could show you "obvious" flaws in it. So yeah, whoever the idiot that has the patent, has a right to that patent.
I could crack open any number of computer networking textbooks dating back to at least the mid 1980's and find sample code which sends personal information/database records/etc from one computer to another. That's practically the "hello world" of client/server software development.
Using TCP to send the data guarantees it will be delivered (regardless of the type of network the data is traveling over), or at least notification of when it can't be delivered so that you can retry sending or cancel the connection, so no extra work there. Maybe you'll need to add a timed retry loop in the case where the centralized host (server) is down, but that's hardly patent worthy. Again, standard stuff in any comp sci networking textbook.
Now, if you build your own custom protocol on top of that which specifies how the data should be structured, encrypted, etc by the sender and then decoded by the receiver, then you may be able to patent your particular protocol so that others don't build a "copy-cat" device which can interoperate with the one you're building. I don't have a problem with that because there's a multitude of ways to design such a protocol, so you're not really preventing others from innovating in the same field.
However, blanket patents such as "pushing pim data from one device to another" do prevent future innovation because something like that is a fundamental building block for all sorts of applications. Many of which are not even related to the original application for that patent, so how would they be hurting the sales of whatever invention the patent-holder was using their original patent in? Patenting something like that only serves to hinder future innovators.
my first post here.
If Alcatel-Lucent/Fraunhofer pursue more companies they may shoot themselves in the foot
as people will abandon MP3.
Doesn't quite sound so bad for them though. They have been making oodles of cash to date, and now a hefty Billion dollars or so....What a deal. They don't even have to have a physical product or even tech support or on staff developers. Just Lawyers.
Sounds like a very profitable business.
I hope the cure to cancer is never related to a software patient, although it seemingly would have to, because then you could prevent the world from using that knowledge....forever if you chose. Or at least charge a fee that nobody could afford.
I hope the cure to cancer is never related to a software patient, although it seemingly would have to, because then you could prevent the world from using that knowledge....forever if you chose. Or at least charge a fee that nobody could afford.
It's a possibility. Unfortunately, DNA found in nature can be patented through some weird loophole.