Apple delaying web standard with patent royalty claim

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 123
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jocknerd View Post


    The W3C doesn't hold patents. Its a standards organization. Software patents are evil.



    The point of the patent isn't about the W3C. It's about the patent that protects IP from other companies like Microsoft, IBM and other operating system companies who would have most definitely filed such a patent after Apple had added that functionality to their system.



    This will get worked out.
  • Reply 62 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slosh001 View Post


    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.



    You can't patent an algorithm, or didn't you know that? The question is more complex than that. The question revolves around what a program is, and what exactly is being patented.



    Quote:

    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.



    I do find it interesting that those who have been involved some way with patents and IP, such as myself, tend to favor patents and copyrights, while those who haven't, don't.



    Quote:

    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.



    And you're missing the point that innovation isn't a means to success. There are more issues involved. As you brought up Opera, I can show why whatever they're doing isn't doing them much good.



    Quote:

    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!



    Wow! What a simplistic viewpoint you have. I suppose that there is only one way to do something? You talk about all the innovations Opera is doing. You mean to say that if Netscape owned its IP instead of giving it away, no one else would ever have come up with new ideas? What a sad way of looking at things!



    Quote:

    You brought up the silly "failed or not" discussion, which was not the topic.



    It's an important part of the topic.



    Quote:

    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.



    LOL yourself. What do they have 2% of the market after all these years? LOL How's that?



    Quote:

    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?



    If you didn't decide to mention a third rate browser in the first place, we wouldn't be wasting our time on it.



    Quote:

    You are assuming that a patent covers an innovation, and not just an obvious method.



    That's not an assumption. Look it up.



    Quote:

    Most developrs oppose software patents.



    Really? And you know this because...



    Quote:

    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.



    This has everything to do with open source. They oppose software patents for obvious reasons, though they believe in tight regulation of their own written use.



    [quote]

    Apple must be going down the drain when they are resorting to desperate stuff like this.





    Are you denying that patents describe methods, and that a patent in itself is not an actual implementation?





    Yes, yes I can. But this particular part of the discussion is about someone claiming that this is about an actual software implementation.



    Quote:

    So do you agree that a patent is not an implementation or not?



    What I wrote was pretty clear. It's a description of an implementation. How can a description be an ACTUAL implementation? The sodtware or device is the actual implementation.



    Quote:

    Oh yeah, and it works so well!



    Great response! No, no one says it works as well as it should. they are attempting to improve it, but it isn't easy. The world is a far more complex place than when this nation, or others, were founded.



    Quote:

    Says the guy who has tried to change the subject multiple times when he has been unable to answer something.



    Oh please! I haven't changed the subject, and I've responded to every one of your statements, unlike some of your responses to mine.
  • Reply 63 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slosh001 View Post


    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?



    You might have noticed his constant qualifying of his own statements



    "suggested", "may reduce", consistent with OUR MODEL.



    I'm not even sure if he knows what he's saying there.



    "Other evidence supporting this model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry."



    What exactly does that mean?
  • Reply 64 of 123
    madivanmadivan Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    "All patents are evil."



    I LOL'd hard at that. Thanks.



    Why? They are evil.
  • Reply 65 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slosh001 View Post


    Software patents - for kids:



    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?



    That's a rather biased view from those who oppose them. What exactly would you expect?



    If you've read my other posts here, I've stated that software patents should last for seven years. I do agree that software patents for twenty years is too long. The software industry moves faster than do others.
  • Reply 66 of 123
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Why is Apple acting so trollish?
  • Reply 67 of 123
    madivanmadivan Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    There are plenty of cases of patents that have enabled inventors to get something in exchange for their work. Also, companies have a right to make some money from their R&D without having somebody copy it. Imagine a world where iPhone knockoffs were just as good as the original. If that happened, companies like Apple could not survive.



    Having said that, most software patents are evil, because they are baseless, poorly defined, make overbroad claims, etc. Also, software advances so quickly that standard patent periods (17 years) in effect stifle innovation. To the extent that software could be patented reasonably, the patent period should be no more than five years.



    The problem is that the patent process is so slow, that this would be unworkable. Also, a much higher bar needs to be set to grant software patents. Overall, I'd say software should not be patentable. Copyright law provides enough protection.



    You refuted your own argument. Copyrights and trademarks provide ample protections. Do you honestly believe that patents are why iPhone knock offs aren't as good? Of course not. It is the quality of the engineering and production that makes an iPhone worth having. Patents protect nothing that should be protected. People will choose the best or the cheapest product based on their own needs. Apple would still do fine.
  • Reply 68 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Why is Apple acting so trollish?



    They aren't.



    A patent troll is a company, or individual, who owns patents, does nothing with them, waits until a business has built up to a sizable entity, then sues for a substantial portion of the profits going back as far as they can get them.



    Does that really sound like apple?
  • Reply 69 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MadIvan View Post


    You refuted your own argument. Copyrights and trademarks provide ample protections. Do you honestly believe that patents are why iPhone knock offs aren't as good? Of course not. It is the quality of the engineering and production that makes an iPhone worth having. Patents protect nothing that should be protected. People will choose the best or the cheapest product based on their own needs. Apple would still do fine.



    Trademarks have nothing to do with this, and copyrights do not provide the same protection.



    Let's put this out then, as you mentioned copyrights.



    If software companies had copyright protection for their work, and it provided ample protection, would you want that instead? Be careful here!



    If you did, be aware that it extends for 99 years, and even longer, for the heirs.
  • Reply 70 of 123
    slosh001slosh001 Posts: 28member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If software companies had copyright protection for their work, and it provided ample protection, would you want that instead?



    Oh, but they do! Mac OS X is protected by copyright laws!



    But I guess Apple is getting desperate in these bad times.



    BTW, Opera has a 2% market share?



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...1-20090408-bar



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-R...1-20090408-bar



    Guess that depends on where you look, now doesn't it!



    Not that browser stats are reliable anyway. Too many error sources.
  • Reply 71 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slosh001 View Post


    Oh, but they do! Mac OS X is protected by copyright laws!



    But I guess Apple is getting desperate in these bad times.



    BTW, Opera has a 2% market share?



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...1-20090408-bar



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-R...1-20090408-bar



    Guess that depends on where you look, now doesn't it!



    Not that browser stats are reliable anyway. Too many error sources.



    OS X is protected overall, as to USAGE, by copyright laws. but individual parts, the parts people argue about, are also protected by patents.



    Those stats are so far off, its a joke. The Russian Federation? And that's about, what, a total of 5 to 10% of all browser use?



    Even the other stat is way off what the general numbers show.



    Actually, I was off by a factor of more than two with Opera. Actually, it has a share hovering around 0.70%, and slowly trending downwards.



    http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...41580-113.html
  • Reply 72 of 123
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Actually, I was off by a factor of more than two with Opera. Actually, it has a share hovering around 0.70%, and slowly trending downwards.



    http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...41580-113.html



    Opera certainly had some innovative additions in years past but that stuff is now standardizing and I see no way for them to gain a meaningful marketshare, especially when Chrome is already beating it. Also, wasn't Opera a paid for browser for a very long time?



    PS: Notice that IE usage drops around 12% of its userbase every weekend to be picked up by the other browsers. In the long run, that won't be good for IE.



    edit: I just realized they mention that in the article.
  • Reply 73 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Opera certainly had some innovative additions in years past but that stuff is now standardizing and I see no way for them to gain a meaningful marketshare, especially when Chrome is already beating it. Also, wasn't Opera a paid for browser for a very long time?



    PS: Notice that IE usage drops around 12% of its userbase every weekend to be picked up by the other browsers. In the long run, that won't be good for IE.



    edit: I just realized they mention that in the article.



    Most all browsers have had innovations that have passed on to others.



    Opera was a paid for program. It failed at that. It's hard to sell browsers though. It's not a business model I would ever want to work with.



    Slosh is misunderstanding me anyway. I've said that I'm not against open software, or giving innovations away. Just that it's not good policy to give it ALL away. Then there's no reason for anyone to want your product, paid or not, because without that something special that no one else has, unless your product is just about perfect, and what is, others will be better, and take your market away. Then you end up with nothing, and most people don't work hard for nothing.
  • Reply 74 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    All patents are evil. They've held rapid progress back since their inception. And for what, for the benefit of corporations? So they can milk their customers for a decade?



    Money in general has held back rapid progress, but yet, would there be any progression at all without the incentive of money? If organizations didn't have the ability to hold patents, which protect their ideas so they can make money from them, would they bother coming up with the ideas in the first place? It is a difficult dilemma. Commercialism is both our strength and our weakness.
  • Reply 75 of 123
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by collide007 View Post


    Money in general has held back rapid progress, but yet, would there be any progression at all without the incentive of money? If organizations didn't have the ability to hold patents, which protect their ideas so they can make money from them, would they bother coming up with the ideas in the first place? It is a difficult dilemma. Commercialism is both our strength and our weakness.



    It cuts both ways. Without money you wouldn't stand a chance in hell of becoming the herd stud of your posse and we wouldn't have the advances in society we so conveniently act as if they materialized before our eyes.
  • Reply 76 of 123
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by collide007 View Post


    Money in general has held back rapid progress, but yet, would there be any progression at all without the incentive of money? If organizations didn't have the ability to hold patents, which protect their ideas so they can make money from them, would they bother coming up with the ideas in the first place? It is a difficult dilemma. Commercialism is both our strength and our weakness.



    In the Soviet Union, there was no monetary incentive, and it showed.



    Shoe factory 1, shoe factory 2, etc. Everything the same, everything poor quality.



    Nothing they produced was original. Everything was copies. even the Checka, the big cars the Soviet officials used to travel in were reproductions of an early Chrysler model.



    We could have that wonderful progress here as well without monetizing things of worth.



    It seems that some people here would like that as they don't understand where their ideas would lead, in the opposite way they think.
  • Reply 77 of 123
    seafoxseafox Posts: 90member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    As a result, Apple believes that it's owed royalties for implementations that include the update feature. It's here, however, that the dispute arises. Under the W3C's membership policies, those within the standards group -- including Apple -- are required to offer their patents royalty-free, which the company has so far refused to do, according to the report.



    Before they of spend a bunch of time trying to figure out if Apple's patents are really legitimate for this use, why don't they kick Apple out of the WC3 first? Whether the patents are valid or not, Apple is clearly not abiding by rules for members.
  • Reply 78 of 123
    slosh001slosh001 Posts: 28member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    OS X is protected overall, as to USAGE, by copyright laws. but individual parts, the parts people argue about, are also protected by patents.



    Distribution, usage, etc. is already protected by copyright laws. Indeed. What parts are people arguing about?



    Quote:

    Those stats are so far off, its a joke. The Russian Federation? And that's about, what, a total of 5 to 10% of all browser use?



    Russia is just an example. In most of Eastern Europe, Opera is very strong. You don't think that counts, do you? Of course not. Jingoism sucks. Only the U.S. matters, right?



    Opera completely destroys Safari and Google in Europe in general:



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...1-20090408-bar



    Quote:

    Even the other stat is way off what the general numbers show.



    There are no "general numbers". Even the statistics I'm linking to are pure speculation since it's impossible to measure market share for continents, much less the whole world.



    Quote:

    Actually, I was off by a factor of more than two with Opera. Actually, it has a share hovering around 0.70%, and slowly trending downwards.



    And that is based on what? Oh yeah, an article quoting 10% for Safari with no sources, and the source it supplies is Net Applications, the compani which is known to lie and cheat:



    http://tinyurl.com/netapplies



    Not only do they lie, cheat and manipulate their own statistics, but they are U.S.-only.
  • Reply 79 of 123
    slosh001slosh001 Posts: 28member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Opera certainly had some innovative additions in years past but that stuff is now standardizing and I see no way for them to gain a meaningful marketshare, especially when Chrome is already beating it.



    Chrome is not beating Opera:



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...1-20090408-bar



    Furthermore, Opera's market share has more than doubled in less than two years. And after Chrome was released, Opera's user growth has only accelerated.



    Even worldwide Opera is still ahead:



    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...1-20090408-bar



    It's interesting that Chrome is failing this badly, considering that Google is the most powerful advertising company on the planet, and has been pushing Chrome HARD all over the place.
  • Reply 80 of 123
    slosh001slosh001 Posts: 28member
    But anyway, all of this market share nonsense is besides the point.



    Opera tripled its profits last quarter. Income increased more than 50%. Desktop income alone increased more than 100%! The user base on desktop more than doubled in less than two years. The Opera Mini user base increased by 300-400% or so in 12 months.



    Opera now has, what, 40 million users on desktop (they report on these numbers in their financial presentations), and Opera Mini must be approaching 30 million?



    Whatever those flawed browser stats show, Opera is growing like mad.



    And Opera Software does not believe in software patents. Nor does Mozilla, which is growing like mad as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.