It's not that simple. First all participants must agree that any particular patent is includable. Working group or not, the law doesn't allow members to strip any owner of IP of their properly defined rights.
They can't just say, "That patent can be used by us for free.".
They didn't just say that. But W3C members usually give out royalty-free licenses for stuff that becomes part of an open standard.
And software patents are as far from "IP" as it gets. Everyone knows that software patents are useless.
Are you and others really suggesting that SW one creates should not be protected in any way?
This is not about software anyone created. This is about a patent, a document describing a theoretical method. It's about Apple monopolizing software updates and preventing everyone else from doing software updates. This stifles innovation and holds the entire industry back.
You are talking about forcing Apple to open-source everything or allow Mac OS X to distributed freely or some nonsense like that. But that isn't what this thing is all about.
Read the article again: Apple has worked very hard to make sure that their automatic update procedure secure, both in the sense that it is private, and in the sense that it works dependably.
In the case of mechanisms that are patented, they by definition cannot be "private" ie. trade secrets. All of the relevant details necessary to describe exactly how a patented invention works are published by the USPTO, a US government agency, and are therefore in the public domain.
Patents are mostly there to protect the inventor from others who are generally willing to play fair and obey the law. People who are already intent on doing illegal things like breaking into private computer systems, wouldn't let a trifling matter like a infringing on a patent stop them (until they are prosecuted and forced to start obeying the law, that is).
If Apple's goal with this particular mechanism was to maintain security by secrecy or obscurity, then the absolute last thing they would have done would have been to publish its inner workings in a patent for all the world to see.
This argument doesn't hold up when compared with reality. Opera is the most innovative browser, and other browsers keep borrowing features from Opera, including the top sites feature in Safari 4. Do you see Opera whining about that? Of course not. They have to keep innovating to stay ahead.
Banning software patents causes innovation to accelerate because you can't just be a one-trick pony, rest on your laurels and watch the money flood in because you happened to patent a software algorithm that a lot of people are using.
Oh please, Opera is also one of the worst browsers around. That's why almost no one is interested in it.
You're speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's never invented anything.
This is not about software anyone created. This is about a patent, a document describing a theoretical method. It's about Apple monopolizing software updates and preventing everyone else from doing software updates. This stifles innovation and holds the entire industry back.
You are talking about forcing Apple to open-source everything or allow Mac OS X to distributed freely or some nonsense like that. But that isn't what this thing is all about.
Why don't you describe the patent to us, in detail, since you seem to know so much about it. Or is all you "know" the little you've read in the article?
In the case of mechanisms that are patented, they by definition cannot be "private" ie. trade secrets. All of the relevant details necessary to describe exactly how a patented invention works are published by the USPTO, a US government agency, and are therefore in the public domain.
Patents are mostly there to protect the inventor from others who are generally willing to play fair and obey the law. People who are already intent on doing illegal things like breaking into private computer systems, wouldn't let a trifling matter like a infringing on a patent stop them (until they are prosecuted and forced to start obeying the law, that is).
If Apple's goal with this particular mechanism was to maintain security by secrecy or obscurity, then the absolute last thing they would have done would have been to publish its inner workings in a patent for all the world to see.
Another thing that some people here don't understand about patents, is that by requiring the publishing of same, others can study it, and find other, sometimes better, ways of doing the same thing.
That's perfectly fair and valid. That's one major way industry advances, by studying what the other guy has done, and finding alternative ways around them.
In the case where an invention is so overwhelmingly superior, then the inventor deserves the ability to profit handsomely from it over the life of the patent.
This notion that patents of any kind are evil is so ridiculous.
Patents in general may not be evil. Software patents are definitely evil, though.
Quote:
Software is no different than hardware. An invention is still an invention. And inventions should be able to be protected.
Software is different from hardware. You can't patent an idea. Software does not fulfill the "mechanical" requirement for patents.
Quote:
It's just that people here saying this have nothing worth protecting, and so have no idea what it means.
Or some Apple fans are too into Apple, and therefore will defend anything Apple does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Oh please, Opera is also one of the worst browsers around. That's why almost no one is interested in it.
This isn't a discussion about whether Opera is good or bad. It is a discussion about software patents. I used Opera as an example of a company which keeps innovating and opposes software patents.
Nice red herring, though.
Quote:
You're speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's never invented anything.
Has Opera never invented anything? Opera Software opposes software patents. As does Mozilla.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
This is essentially what a few here are suggesting.
But that is not what this case is about.
Quote:
Only people who know nothing about the process think that software patents are useless.
On the contrary. Software patents are favored by those who wish to dominate and stifle innnovation, while actual developers and people in favor of a free market oppose software patents. If you are unaware of the arguments against software patents, maybe you should look them up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Why don't you describe the patent to us, in detail, since you seem to know so much about it. Or is all you "know" the little you've read in the article?
What does this comment have to do with what I wrote? Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation? If not, why are you asking me to explain the patent in detail? I don't need to explain a patent in detail to explain what a patent (the concept) is.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
Quote:
by requiring the publishing of same, others can study it, and find other, sometimes better, ways of doing the same thing
Right, so instead of doing it the obvious way you have to spend huge amounts of resources to work around the patent and figure out a completely different way to do it. Good point.
Quote:
That's one major way industry advances, by studying what the other guy has done, and finding alternative ways around them.
Not if a patent is overly broad, which software patents tend to be.
Quote:
In the case where an invention is so overwhelmingly superior, then the inventor deserves the ability to profit handsomely from it over the life of the patent.
Exactly. A one-trick pony. No need to innovate any further. Just get that single patent in there, and you can leech off of the rest of the market for the rest of your life.
In fact, patent trolls often don't even invent anything. They just buy patents from other companies and use them to extort people.
...It's about Apple monopolizing software updates and preventing everyone else from doing software updates. This stifles innovation and holds the entire industry back.
NEWS FLASH: APPLE BLOCKING SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR ALL NON-APPLE SOFTWARE
I wasn't aware of this. Bastards! No wonder my Netscape browser and Windows 95 are so outdated.</sarcasm>
Seriously, Other companies are welcome to invent a better system using a different method.
But if they want to use Apple's patented way of doing it, they need to licensee it.
Patents in general may not be evil. Software patents are definitely evil, though.
Again, a ridiculous statement not backed up by any information.
Quote:
Software is different from hardware. You can't patent an idea. Software does not fulfill the "mechanical" requirement for patents.
And yet again, mother statements without ant knowledge. I know what a patent is. Prove that software patents are just about "ideas".
There's no "mechanical" requirement for patents. Again, show that there is.
Quote:
Or some Apple fans are too into Apple, and therefore will defend anything Apple does.
The usual fallback position when there is no answer to a question of statement. Good work!
Quote:
This isn't a discussion about whether Opera is good or bad. It is a discussion about software patents. I used Opera as an example of a company which keeps innovating and opposes software patents.
When it's brought up as a bed of innovation, it sure is. Opera is a failed product. It's more than patents that make a product a success. That's only part of it.
Netscape had a wonderful product. They started the internet revolution. What happened? They gave their IP away to everyone. MS copied it, and then outflanked them by giving IE away which destroyed Netscape's business.
If Netscape was smarter, and kept their innovations, today, they would still have the most marketshare, and could be a multi billion business.
Quote:
Nice red herring, though.
It shouldn't have been brought up. not my fault.
Quote:
Has Opera never invented anything? Opera Software opposes software patents. As does Mozilla.
I don;'t know what your point is here, as you don't want me to mention it, but you constantly do.
But, I'll tell you this, as I mentioned, Netscape is out of business because of that hairbrained scheme, and Opera is foundering.
Is that so great?
Quote:
But that is not what this case is about.
But you're one of those people!!!
Quote:
On the contrary. Software patents are favored by those who wish to dominate and stifle innnovation, while actual developers and people in favor of a free market oppose software patents. If you are unaware of the arguments against software patents, maybe you should look them up?
Sigh! You don't get it, do you?
It doesn't MATTER! Of course those who invent something want to make a lot of money from it. But they all know that in the end, the paten expires. This isn't a copyright, which is slowly being extended into infinity. No patent holders have ever been able to dominate and stifle innovation.
The invention itself was innovation, or don't you understand that?
Most developers do NOT oppose patents.
I have nothing against the open software community. But that doesn't mean that all software should be done that way. And indeed, most software is not.
Maybe YOU should look up why patents are needed.
Quote:
What does this comment have to do with what I wrote? Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation? If not, why are you asking me to explain the patent in detail? I don't need to explain a patent in detail to explain what a patent (the concept) is.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
My comment pertains to the fact that you are making comments about something that you obviously know little of.
Unless you can show that you understand APPLE's patent, the patent we are specifically discussing here, then you can't make the comments you have been throwing around about it. By your answer, you don't seem to understand my question to you. Or, you are deliberately talking around it.
While you have just stated a partly correct fact about patents, it still contains incorrect information. A patent indeed describes an implementation. It can also describe a more general usage. A patent can be narrow in scope, or it can be broad.
Quote:
Right, so instead of doing it the obvious way you have to spend huge amounts of resources to work around the patent and figure out a completely different way to do it. Good point.
This very line you wrote shows that you have absolutely NO idea of what a patent is for. There is a provision that specifically EXCLUDES obvious inventions from being patented. It is even called the obviousiness provision.
If an invention is obvious to the average practitioner of the "art", it can't receive a patent. It must withstand that test. That was recently held up by the courts in a major decision.
Quote:
Not if a patent is overly broad, which software patents tend to be.
If a patent is "overly" broad, then it can, and is often challenged in court. If it is "overly" broad, then it will be knocked down to where it should be, or even, sometimes, be thrown out entirely.
Quote:
Exactly. A one-trick pony. No need to innovate any further. Just get that single patent in there, and you can leech off of the rest of the market for the rest of your life.
Boy, you have a sick way of looking at things. Esp. when you have no real answer.
Quote:
In fact, patent trolls often don't even invent anything. They just buy patents from other companies and use them to extort people.
No one likes patent trolls, other than patent trolls.
I don't like patent trolls.
They are trying to work out a way to minimize their effects.
NEWS FLASH: APPLE BLOCKING SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR ALL NON-APPLE SOFTWARE
I wasn't aware of this. Bastards! No wonder my Netscape browser and Windows 95 are so outdated.</sarcasm>
Seriously, Other companies are welcome to invent a better system using a different method.
But if they want to use Apple's patented way of doing it, they need to licensee it.
Apple is a business not a charity.
He seems to think that Microsoft isn't doing automatic software updates either.
Or the many other companies that do.
In fact, my Adobe updater came on a couple of hours ago to automatically update my software. I only have about 20 programs that do this. I wouldn't even know that most of them did it if it weren't for Lil' Snitch letting me know!
How can some people have such a lack of knowledge of the world around them?
It's not that simple. First all participants must agree that any particular patent is includable. Working group or not, the law doesn't allow members to strip any owner of IP of their properly defined rights.
They can't just say, "That patent can be used by us for free.".
My point, in response to Johnny Mozzarella - "THEN company A, B or C can not claim ownership of technologies",
is that the company CAN still claim ownership, even if used by the group.
NEWS FLASH: APPLE BLOCKING SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR ALL NON-APPLE SOFTWARE
The point here is that if Apple has patented software updates and are enforcing it to prevent an open standard from using methods covered by the patent, then they are likely to enforce it elsewhere as well.
Quote:
Seriously, Other companies are welcome to invent a better system using a different method.
Why should other companies have to jump through hoops to work around a software patent?
Quote:
But if they want to use Apple's patented way of doing it, they need to licensee it.
Apple is a business not a charity.
Being a business doesn't automatically mean you have to be an asshole.
Again, a ridiculous statement not backed up by any information.
Are you really unaware of the arguments against software patents? For example, different programmers can come up with similar algorithms, and if one of them patents it, the other guy gets screwed. Software patents make it nearly impossible to write software which doesn't infringe on something, somewhere. Which means that megacorporations with deep pockets can basically spend lots of money on patents to keep smaller companies from competing.
Quote:
The usual fallback position when there is no answer to a question of statement. Good work!
It was a response to the usuall fallback position when you had no answer to other people's statement and started spewing nonsense about how they never patended anything, therefore their arguments are invalid.
Quote:
When it's brought up as a bed of innovation, it sure is. Opera is a failed product. It's more than patents that make a product a success. That's only part of it.
Again you are changing the subject. I'm not discussing whether Opera is a failed product or not, I'm pointing out the fact that other companies can innovate just fine without abusing software patents.
Quote:
If Netscape was smarter, and kept their innovations, today, they would still have the most marketshare, and could be a multi billion business.
So what you are saying is that if Netscape had patented all sorts of obvious techniques to keep everyone else from using them, they could have completely monopolized the market for eternity? Wow, that sounds great!
Quote:
It shouldn't have been brought up. not my fault.
You brought up the silly "failed or not" discussion, which was not the topic.
Quote:
But, I'll tell you this, as I mentioned, Netscape is out of business because of that hairbrained scheme, and Opera is foundering.
LOL. Opera has had growth in all business areas for many years. Last quarter, overall revenues increased by more than 50%. Desktop revenue alone increased more than 100%. Opera's desktop user base has more than doubled in less than two years. Their mobile business is booming. Their profits tripled or something like that compared to the same quarter last year.
Foundering?
LOL.
You really seem desperate to smear Opera. Maybe it's because you don't want people to know about all the stuff Apple ripped off from Opera, such as the zooming and panning thing which Opera did on devices like the Nintendo DS and Wii before the iPhone was even public knowledge?
Quote:
The invention itself was innovation, or don't you understand that?
You are assuming that a patent covers an innovation, and not just an obvious method.
Quote:
Most developers do NOT oppose patents.
Most developrs oppose software patents.
Quote:
I have nothing against the open software community. But that doesn't mean that all software should be done that way. And indeed, most software is not.
This discussion has got nothing to do with open source. Opera is not an open source browser. Heck, Microsoft isn't open-source, and yet they keep issuing patents royalty-free to the W3C. Like other W3C members. Apparently except Apple.
Apple must be going down the drain when they are resorting to desperate stuff like this.
Quote:
My comment pertains to the fact that you are making comments about something that you obviously know little of.
Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation?
Quote:
Unless you can show that you understand APPLE's patent, the patent we are specifically discussing here, then you can't make the comments you have been throwing around about it.
Yes, yes I can. But this particular part of the discussion is about someone claiming that this is about an actual software implementation.
Quote:
While you have just stated a partly correct fact about patents, it still contains incorrect information. A patent indeed describes an implementation. It can also describe a more general usage. A patent can be narrow in scope, or it can be broad.
So do you agree that a patent is not an implementation or not?
Quote:
This very line you wrote shows that you have absolutely NO idea of what a patent is for. There is a provision that specifically EXCLUDES obvious inventions from being patented.
Oh yeah, and it works so well!
Quote:
Boy, you have a sick way of looking at things. Esp. when you have no real answer.
Says the guy who has tried to change the subject multiple times when he has been unable to answer something.
Quote:
No one likes patent trolls, other than patent trolls.
Software patents are a dream come true to patent trolls.
My point, in response to Johnny Mozzarella - "THEN company A, B or C can not claim ownership of technologies",
is that the company CAN still claim ownership, even if used by the group.
They can claim ownership. but the implication is that they will still be giving their IP away by being forced to license it for free.
That isn't possible without the consent of the member.
What I'm seeing being written in a number of posts is that just by joining, they MUST allow access to, and free use of, any patents the group thinks pertains to their work. That's can't be true.
I worked on a couple of electronics standards bodies in the late '70's involving audio, and this is always negotiated.
Apple, and any other company that has IP that they think is crucial to their business is going to object to giving it out at all, or for free.
Some of the biggest fights in standards bodies is over this issue.
The other major fight is almost the opposite, when a company insists that IT'S IP be used, but that they have the right to retain control over it. They then have the group over the barrel, as they can change it any way they want.
Without actually reading Apple's patent, and the entire technical issues involved from both sides, we can't say anything that's really relevant.
Let's see what the experts are saying regarding software patents. How about Nobel Laureate Eric Maskin? You know, actual expert statements based on actual research?
Quote:
Maskin suggested that software patents inhibit innovation rather than stimulate progress. Software, semiconductor, and computer industries have been innovative despite historically weak patent protection, he argued. Innovation in those industries has been sequential and complementary, so competition can increase firms' future profits. In such a dynamic industry, "patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare." A natural experiment occurred in the 1980s when patent protection was extended to software," wrote Maskin. "Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur." Other evidence supporting this model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry.
What do you think about the arguments, such as the one where software patents are being used by big corporations with lots of money and armies of lawyers to keep smaller competitors out of the market? And they cross-license patents to each other to keep the wall up.
"Patents turn software publishing into the privilege of a few."
And they last for 20 years! What did the industry look like 20 years ago?
Comments
Looks like a lot of people are missing something important:
Apple's patent is a SOFTWARE PATENT.
Software patents are evil.
Patents in general are not necessarily evil, but software patents are.
Are you and others really suggesting that SW one creates should not be protected in any way?
It's not that simple. First all participants must agree that any particular patent is includable. Working group or not, the law doesn't allow members to strip any owner of IP of their properly defined rights.
They can't just say, "That patent can be used by us for free.".
They didn't just say that. But W3C members usually give out royalty-free licenses for stuff that becomes part of an open standard.
And software patents are as far from "IP" as it gets. Everyone knows that software patents are useless.
Are you and others really suggesting that SW one creates should not be protected in any way?
This is not about software anyone created. This is about a patent, a document describing a theoretical method. It's about Apple monopolizing software updates and preventing everyone else from doing software updates. This stifles innovation and holds the entire industry back.
You are talking about forcing Apple to open-source everything or allow Mac OS X to distributed freely or some nonsense like that. But that isn't what this thing is all about.
Read the article again: Apple has worked very hard to make sure that their automatic update procedure secure, both in the sense that it is private, and in the sense that it works dependably.
In the case of mechanisms that are patented, they by definition cannot be "private" ie. trade secrets. All of the relevant details necessary to describe exactly how a patented invention works are published by the USPTO, a US government agency, and are therefore in the public domain.
Patents are mostly there to protect the inventor from others who are generally willing to play fair and obey the law. People who are already intent on doing illegal things like breaking into private computer systems, wouldn't let a trifling matter like a infringing on a patent stop them (until they are prosecuted and forced to start obeying the law, that is).
If Apple's goal with this particular mechanism was to maintain security by secrecy or obscurity, then the absolute last thing they would have done would have been to publish its inner workings in a patent for all the world to see.
There hasn't be one good reason provided as to why that's true.
Software is no different than hardware. An invention is still an invention. And inventions should be able to be protected.
It's just that people here saying this have nothing worth protecting, and so have no idea what it means.
This argument doesn't hold up when compared with reality. Opera is the most innovative browser, and other browsers keep borrowing features from Opera, including the top sites feature in Safari 4. Do you see Opera whining about that? Of course not. They have to keep innovating to stay ahead.
Banning software patents causes innovation to accelerate because you can't just be a one-trick pony, rest on your laurels and watch the money flood in because you happened to patent a software algorithm that a lot of people are using.
Oh please, Opera is also one of the worst browsers around. That's why almost no one is interested in it.
You're speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's never invented anything.
That's an easy viewpoint to work from.
They didn't just say that. But W3C members usually give out royalty-free licenses for stuff that becomes part of an open standard.
And software patents are as far from "IP" as it gets. Everyone knows that software patents are useless.
This is essentially what a few here are suggesting.
I'm saying that in the real world that can't happen.
You are "everyone" I suppose. Only people who know nothing about the process think that software patents are useless.
Do you even understand what IP really is?
This is not about software anyone created. This is about a patent, a document describing a theoretical method. It's about Apple monopolizing software updates and preventing everyone else from doing software updates. This stifles innovation and holds the entire industry back.
You are talking about forcing Apple to open-source everything or allow Mac OS X to distributed freely or some nonsense like that. But that isn't what this thing is all about.
Why don't you describe the patent to us, in detail, since you seem to know so much about it. Or is all you "know" the little you've read in the article?
In the case of mechanisms that are patented, they by definition cannot be "private" ie. trade secrets. All of the relevant details necessary to describe exactly how a patented invention works are published by the USPTO, a US government agency, and are therefore in the public domain.
Patents are mostly there to protect the inventor from others who are generally willing to play fair and obey the law. People who are already intent on doing illegal things like breaking into private computer systems, wouldn't let a trifling matter like a infringing on a patent stop them (until they are prosecuted and forced to start obeying the law, that is).
If Apple's goal with this particular mechanism was to maintain security by secrecy or obscurity, then the absolute last thing they would have done would have been to publish its inner workings in a patent for all the world to see.
Another thing that some people here don't understand about patents, is that by requiring the publishing of same, others can study it, and find other, sometimes better, ways of doing the same thing.
That's perfectly fair and valid. That's one major way industry advances, by studying what the other guy has done, and finding alternative ways around them.
In the case where an invention is so overwhelmingly superior, then the inventor deserves the ability to profit handsomely from it over the life of the patent.
This notion that patents of any kind are evil is so ridiculous.
Patents in general may not be evil. Software patents are definitely evil, though.
Software is no different than hardware. An invention is still an invention. And inventions should be able to be protected.
Software is different from hardware. You can't patent an idea. Software does not fulfill the "mechanical" requirement for patents.
It's just that people here saying this have nothing worth protecting, and so have no idea what it means.
Or some Apple fans are too into Apple, and therefore will defend anything Apple does.
Oh please, Opera is also one of the worst browsers around. That's why almost no one is interested in it.
This isn't a discussion about whether Opera is good or bad. It is a discussion about software patents. I used Opera as an example of a company which keeps innovating and opposes software patents.
Nice red herring, though.
You're speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's never invented anything.
Has Opera never invented anything? Opera Software opposes software patents. As does Mozilla.
This is essentially what a few here are suggesting.
But that is not what this case is about.
Only people who know nothing about the process think that software patents are useless.
On the contrary. Software patents are favored by those who wish to dominate and stifle innnovation, while actual developers and people in favor of a free market oppose software patents. If you are unaware of the arguments against software patents, maybe you should look them up?
Why don't you describe the patent to us, in detail, since you seem to know so much about it. Or is all you "know" the little you've read in the article?
What does this comment have to do with what I wrote? Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation? If not, why are you asking me to explain the patent in detail? I don't need to explain a patent in detail to explain what a patent (the concept) is.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
by requiring the publishing of same, others can study it, and find other, sometimes better, ways of doing the same thing
Right, so instead of doing it the obvious way you have to spend huge amounts of resources to work around the patent and figure out a completely different way to do it. Good point.
That's one major way industry advances, by studying what the other guy has done, and finding alternative ways around them.
Not if a patent is overly broad, which software patents tend to be.
In the case where an invention is so overwhelmingly superior, then the inventor deserves the ability to profit handsomely from it over the life of the patent.
Exactly. A one-trick pony. No need to innovate any further. Just get that single patent in there, and you can leech off of the rest of the market for the rest of your life.
In fact, patent trolls often don't even invent anything. They just buy patents from other companies and use them to extort people.
...It's about Apple monopolizing software updates and preventing everyone else from doing software updates. This stifles innovation and holds the entire industry back.
NEWS FLASH: APPLE BLOCKING SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR ALL NON-APPLE SOFTWARE
I wasn't aware of this. Bastards! No wonder my Netscape browser and Windows 95 are so outdated.</sarcasm>
Seriously, Other companies are welcome to invent a better system using a different method.
But if they want to use Apple's patented way of doing it, they need to licensee it.
Apple is a business not a charity.
Blah blah blah...
How rude of me.
I forgot to say...Welcome to the AppleInsider forums!
Patents in general may not be evil. Software patents are definitely evil, though.
Again, a ridiculous statement not backed up by any information.
Software is different from hardware. You can't patent an idea. Software does not fulfill the "mechanical" requirement for patents.
And yet again, mother statements without ant knowledge. I know what a patent is. Prove that software patents are just about "ideas".
There's no "mechanical" requirement for patents. Again, show that there is.
Or some Apple fans are too into Apple, and therefore will defend anything Apple does.
The usual fallback position when there is no answer to a question of statement. Good work!
This isn't a discussion about whether Opera is good or bad. It is a discussion about software patents. I used Opera as an example of a company which keeps innovating and opposes software patents.
When it's brought up as a bed of innovation, it sure is. Opera is a failed product. It's more than patents that make a product a success. That's only part of it.
Netscape had a wonderful product. They started the internet revolution. What happened? They gave their IP away to everyone. MS copied it, and then outflanked them by giving IE away which destroyed Netscape's business.
If Netscape was smarter, and kept their innovations, today, they would still have the most marketshare, and could be a multi billion business.
Nice red herring, though.
It shouldn't have been brought up. not my fault.
Has Opera never invented anything? Opera Software opposes software patents. As does Mozilla.
I don;'t know what your point is here, as you don't want me to mention it, but you constantly do.
But, I'll tell you this, as I mentioned, Netscape is out of business because of that hairbrained scheme, and Opera is foundering.
Is that so great?
But that is not what this case is about.
But you're one of those people!!!
On the contrary. Software patents are favored by those who wish to dominate and stifle innnovation, while actual developers and people in favor of a free market oppose software patents. If you are unaware of the arguments against software patents, maybe you should look them up?
Sigh! You don't get it, do you?
It doesn't MATTER! Of course those who invent something want to make a lot of money from it. But they all know that in the end, the paten expires. This isn't a copyright, which is slowly being extended into infinity. No patent holders have ever been able to dominate and stifle innovation.
The invention itself was innovation, or don't you understand that?
Most developers do NOT oppose patents.
I have nothing against the open software community. But that doesn't mean that all software should be done that way. And indeed, most software is not.
Maybe YOU should look up why patents are needed.
What does this comment have to do with what I wrote? Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation? If not, why are you asking me to explain the patent in detail? I don't need to explain a patent in detail to explain what a patent (the concept) is.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
My comment pertains to the fact that you are making comments about something that you obviously know little of.
Unless you can show that you understand APPLE's patent, the patent we are specifically discussing here, then you can't make the comments you have been throwing around about it. By your answer, you don't seem to understand my question to you. Or, you are deliberately talking around it.
While you have just stated a partly correct fact about patents, it still contains incorrect information. A patent indeed describes an implementation. It can also describe a more general usage. A patent can be narrow in scope, or it can be broad.
Right, so instead of doing it the obvious way you have to spend huge amounts of resources to work around the patent and figure out a completely different way to do it. Good point.
This very line you wrote shows that you have absolutely NO idea of what a patent is for. There is a provision that specifically EXCLUDES obvious inventions from being patented. It is even called the obviousiness provision.
If an invention is obvious to the average practitioner of the "art", it can't receive a patent. It must withstand that test. That was recently held up by the courts in a major decision.
Not if a patent is overly broad, which software patents tend to be.
If a patent is "overly" broad, then it can, and is often challenged in court. If it is "overly" broad, then it will be knocked down to where it should be, or even, sometimes, be thrown out entirely.
Exactly. A one-trick pony. No need to innovate any further. Just get that single patent in there, and you can leech off of the rest of the market for the rest of your life.
Boy, you have a sick way of looking at things. Esp. when you have no real answer.
In fact, patent trolls often don't even invent anything. They just buy patents from other companies and use them to extort people.
No one likes patent trolls, other than patent trolls.
I don't like patent trolls.
They are trying to work out a way to minimize their effects.
NEWS FLASH: APPLE BLOCKING SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR ALL NON-APPLE SOFTWARE
I wasn't aware of this. Bastards! No wonder my Netscape browser and Windows 95 are so outdated.</sarcasm>
Seriously, Other companies are welcome to invent a better system using a different method.
But if they want to use Apple's patented way of doing it, they need to licensee it.
Apple is a business not a charity.
He seems to think that Microsoft isn't doing automatic software updates either.
Or the many other companies that do.
In fact, my Adobe updater came on a couple of hours ago to automatically update my software. I only have about 20 programs that do this. I wouldn't even know that most of them did it if it weren't for Lil' Snitch letting me know!
How can some people have such a lack of knowledge of the world around them?
It's not that simple. First all participants must agree that any particular patent is includable. Working group or not, the law doesn't allow members to strip any owner of IP of their properly defined rights.
They can't just say, "That patent can be used by us for free.".
My point, in response to Johnny Mozzarella - "THEN company A, B or C can not claim ownership of technologies",
is that the company CAN still claim ownership, even if used by the group.
NEWS FLASH: APPLE BLOCKING SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR ALL NON-APPLE SOFTWARE
The point here is that if Apple has patented software updates and are enforcing it to prevent an open standard from using methods covered by the patent, then they are likely to enforce it elsewhere as well.
Seriously, Other companies are welcome to invent a better system using a different method.
Why should other companies have to jump through hoops to work around a software patent?
But if they want to use Apple's patented way of doing it, they need to licensee it.
Apple is a business not a charity.
Being a business doesn't automatically mean you have to be an asshole.
Again, a ridiculous statement not backed up by any information.
Are you really unaware of the arguments against software patents? For example, different programmers can come up with similar algorithms, and if one of them patents it, the other guy gets screwed. Software patents make it nearly impossible to write software which doesn't infringe on something, somewhere. Which means that megacorporations with deep pockets can basically spend lots of money on patents to keep smaller companies from competing.
The usual fallback position when there is no answer to a question of statement. Good work!
It was a response to the usuall fallback position when you had no answer to other people's statement and started spewing nonsense about how they never patended anything, therefore their arguments are invalid.
When it's brought up as a bed of innovation, it sure is. Opera is a failed product. It's more than patents that make a product a success. That's only part of it.
Again you are changing the subject. I'm not discussing whether Opera is a failed product or not, I'm pointing out the fact that other companies can innovate just fine without abusing software patents.
If Netscape was smarter, and kept their innovations, today, they would still have the most marketshare, and could be a multi billion business.
So what you are saying is that if Netscape had patented all sorts of obvious techniques to keep everyone else from using them, they could have completely monopolized the market for eternity? Wow, that sounds great!
It shouldn't have been brought up. not my fault.
You brought up the silly "failed or not" discussion, which was not the topic.
But, I'll tell you this, as I mentioned, Netscape is out of business because of that hairbrained scheme, and Opera is foundering.
LOL. Opera has had growth in all business areas for many years. Last quarter, overall revenues increased by more than 50%. Desktop revenue alone increased more than 100%. Opera's desktop user base has more than doubled in less than two years. Their mobile business is booming. Their profits tripled or something like that compared to the same quarter last year.
Foundering?
LOL.
You really seem desperate to smear Opera. Maybe it's because you don't want people to know about all the stuff Apple ripped off from Opera, such as the zooming and panning thing which Opera did on devices like the Nintendo DS and Wii before the iPhone was even public knowledge?
The invention itself was innovation, or don't you understand that?
You are assuming that a patent covers an innovation, and not just an obvious method.
Most developers do NOT oppose patents.
Most developrs oppose software patents.
I have nothing against the open software community. But that doesn't mean that all software should be done that way. And indeed, most software is not.
This discussion has got nothing to do with open source. Opera is not an open source browser. Heck, Microsoft isn't open-source, and yet they keep issuing patents royalty-free to the W3C. Like other W3C members. Apparently except Apple.
Apple must be going down the drain when they are resorting to desperate stuff like this.
My comment pertains to the fact that you are making comments about something that you obviously know little of.
Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation?
Unless you can show that you understand APPLE's patent, the patent we are specifically discussing here, then you can't make the comments you have been throwing around about it.
Yes, yes I can. But this particular part of the discussion is about someone claiming that this is about an actual software implementation.
While you have just stated a partly correct fact about patents, it still contains incorrect information. A patent indeed describes an implementation. It can also describe a more general usage. A patent can be narrow in scope, or it can be broad.
So do you agree that a patent is not an implementation or not?
This very line you wrote shows that you have absolutely NO idea of what a patent is for. There is a provision that specifically EXCLUDES obvious inventions from being patented.
Oh yeah, and it works so well!
Boy, you have a sick way of looking at things. Esp. when you have no real answer.
Says the guy who has tried to change the subject multiple times when he has been unable to answer something.
No one likes patent trolls, other than patent trolls.
Software patents are a dream come true to patent trolls.
My point, in response to Johnny Mozzarella - "THEN company A, B or C can not claim ownership of technologies",
is that the company CAN still claim ownership, even if used by the group.
They can claim ownership. but the implication is that they will still be giving their IP away by being forced to license it for free.
That isn't possible without the consent of the member.
What I'm seeing being written in a number of posts is that just by joining, they MUST allow access to, and free use of, any patents the group thinks pertains to their work. That's can't be true.
I worked on a couple of electronics standards bodies in the late '70's involving audio, and this is always negotiated.
Apple, and any other company that has IP that they think is crucial to their business is going to object to giving it out at all, or for free.
Some of the biggest fights in standards bodies is over this issue.
The other major fight is almost the opposite, when a company insists that IT'S IP be used, but that they have the right to retain control over it. They then have the group over the barrel, as they can change it any way they want.
Without actually reading Apple's patent, and the entire technical issues involved from both sides, we can't say anything that's really relevant.
Maskin suggested that software patents inhibit innovation rather than stimulate progress. Software, semiconductor, and computer industries have been innovative despite historically weak patent protection, he argued. Innovation in those industries has been sequential and complementary, so competition can increase firms' future profits. In such a dynamic industry, "patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare." A natural experiment occurred in the 1980s when patent protection was extended to software," wrote Maskin. "Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur." Other evidence supporting this model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbDfo4q5pw
Should be understandable to most people
What do you think about the arguments, such as the one where software patents are being used by big corporations with lots of money and armies of lawyers to keep smaller competitors out of the market? And they cross-license patents to each other to keep the wall up.
"Patents turn software publishing into the privilege of a few."
And they last for 20 years! What did the industry look like 20 years ago?