If it was THAT obvious why hadn't it been done like this before?
By that argument every single patent is non-obvious, which is clearly not the court's view. If the mere fact that something was done first was proof of non-obviousness there would be no need for the law to specify both novelty and non-obviousness as requirements.
Also, you're rather assuming that it never had been done before - all you actually know is that it hadn't been done before on a smartphone platform. IDE's were doing pattern recognition on user entered data and allowing the user to then execute actions based on that back in the 90s. As I've already pointed out emacs folding mode was written back in 1991.
I think the problem is, in some cases patents have been approved on some things that they probably shouldn't have been.
A company that invests heavily in R & D should be rewarded for that investment without the fear of everyone and their brother waiting to see what they do and then copying them.
Why don't they allow time-limits, like the drug industry? Say a company invents a new way of doing something on a smartphone. They alone can use this technique (if they so wish, or license it to others) after a set period, perhaps five years, that technique is open for others to freely use.
I don't know that this should be used in all cases necessarily, but I can see where this might benefit the industry as a whole while still rewarding those who innovate.
False, false, false. Linux is a reimplementation of some of Unix ideas, but definitely not a copy. In any case, a copy would be a copyright violation, not a patent violation. Much of Unix was never patented -- the idea of a software patent had not been determined in 1970, when Unix was developed. The US Supreme Court did not rule that software was patentable until 1981 in Diamond v Diehr.
I probably shouldn't have used the word "copy" in a patent fight.
I didn't mean that Linux was patent encumbered *because* "it's a copy of Unix" but it's true that Linux has not been examined sufficiently closely (IMO of course), to ensure that it doesn't infringe. Unix is was you say for the most part not patented.
I meant only "copy" in the colloquial sense of Linux obviously being a copy of Unix and therefore a "Unix-like system." I also meant to imply from that, that Linux is not an "original" (and therefore copyrighted system) in and of itself.
I think the problem is, in some cases patents have been approved on some things that they probably shouldn't have been.
A company that invests heavily in R & D should be rewarded for that investment without the fear of everyone and their brother waiting to see what they do and then copying them.
Why don't they allow time-limits, like the drug industry? Say a company invents a new way of doing something on a smartphone. They alone can use this technique (if they so wish, or license it to others) after a set period, perhaps five years, that technique is open for others to freely use.
I don't know that this should be used in all cases necessarily, but I can see where this might benefit the industry as a whole while still rewarding those who innovate.
There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.
I meant only "copy" in the colloquial sense of Linux obviously being a copy of Unix and therefore a "Unix-like system." I also meant to imply from that, that Linux is not an "original" (and therefore copyrighted system) in and of itself.
Linux is most definitely a copyrighted system, the source is copyright, the fact that it's available under various open source licenses doesn't detract from that.
Patents are fine. Software patents are ridiculous.
I respectfully disagree. I see no reason why money spent on R & D in the area of software design or UI should not be at least somewhat protected.
Apple spends a lot of time and money focussing on creating the best possible end user experience. The success of their products seems to indicate that they are doing a pretty good job. Why should their competition get to copy features and designs that Apple created?
Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that virtually every feature should be a patentable feature, but I do feel that the look an feel of the UI and trade dress should most definitely be patentable. Apple has proven time and time again, that the UI and end user experience is vitally important to the success of the device, so why shouldn't they be allowed to protect their UI innovations?
As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.
I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.
Ok gotta fry Apple again...here is the catch, the CEO of the Apple stands up and stated "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, is absolutely NUTS.
They just lost a patent war with Nokia that cost them over $600 million US dollars. Had they followed there own statement and not stolen use of those patents the iPhone whould not exist
Ok gotta fry Apple again...here is the catch, the CEO of the Apple stands up and stated "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, is absolutely NUTS.
They just lost a patent war with Nokia that cost them over $600 million US dollars. Had they followed there own statement and not stolen use of those patents the iPhone whould not exist
1) Your point is moot in regardless because you'd have Apple pay for the patent use which means that they aren't "creat[ing] their own original technology" which means you're taking Jobs comment too literally.
2) Note that Apple also buys companies whose IP fits in with their needs, thus making it their own, but they aren't the originators or a great deal of the tech, just the ones that refine and mainstream it.
3) As I recall, the original issue wasn't Apple's unwillingness to pay for patents but unwillingness to pay Nokia the excessive, above and beyond the rest of the industry fee, they were charging Apple, and only Apple.
It's slightly more complicated than 14 vs. 20 years. For a utility patent, the life span is 20 years, counting from the date of filing. For a design patent, it is 14 years, counting from the date of issue.
I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.
Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.
I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.
And yet many countries with Democratic Socialist aspects of government far beyond ours have healthy private industries with healthier levels of political participation, more equitable access to healthcare, and believe it or not, MORE entrepreneurialism than does the US.
And yet many countries with Democratic Socialist aspects of government far beyond ours have healthy private industries with healthier levels of political participation, more equitable access to healthcare, and believe it or not, MORE entrepreneurialism than does the US.
Not just more equitable access to healthcare - more cost-effective too.
But more entrepreneurialism, or rather entrepreneurship? How is that measured? What data are you looking at?
It's slightly more complicated than 14 vs. 20 years. For a utility patent, the life span is 20 years, counting from the date of filing. For a design patent, it is 14 years, counting from the date of issue.
In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.)
In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.)
Given the convolutions in the wording of patents, it is only appropriate that their life spans require a mainframe to determine.
And, as that video makes clear, it makes as much sense to claim Xerox "stole" antecedents to their work as it does to make that claim of Apple.
Typically, when anyone wants to deny Apple's contributions to the field of computing, they either claim that they stole key components or that they dumbed down preexisting technologies or that they simply lucked out and mainstreamed a paradigm that was "obvious."
This, of course, makes a hash of the creative process so well described in the Everything Is a Remix series. It's a strategy that can deny authorship to literally any work, ever. The Parthenon, Moby Dick, the printing press, penicillin, abstract expressionism, the internet, The Sopranos, etc., etc., etc: none can stand up to the criteria demanded of Apple to prove their originality, because that's not how originality works.
It used to be the case if you won a patent infringement case, the federal court would generally issue an injunction on any infringing products. It was essentially a matter of course. The Supreme Court's decision was relevant because it said it wasn't appropriate to issue as a matter of course an injunction. Instead, after a judgement is entered, a Court should weigh a variety of factors, including the public interest, to figure out if an injunction is appropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That applies mostly to preliminary injunctions and very unusual cases. The Supreme Court has allowed companies to refuse to license their technologies.
By that argument every single patent is non-obvious, which is clearly not the court's view. If the mere fact that something was done first was proof of non-obviousness there would be no need for the law to specify both novelty and non-obviousness as requirements.
Of course this is true if the original statement is taken as a blanket statement, but it's relevant that the technological ability to implement the feature had existed ever since smartphones have existed, yet no one had thought to do so. Many obvious patents are of the form "oh, put emerging technology a with existing technology b and now it's a new thing!" In those cases it's really just the first party who manages get the patent office to swallow a bunch of obvious applications of a technology wins the gold rush. However, there was nothing 'emerging' about the capability in the 2007 iPhone except that it was the first to actually *do* it. We could say things about obviousness with touch screens and other features that were still new, but the basic capability would have been useful and technically feasible ever since the advent of stylus smartphones.
So, it's clear that it wasn't so obvious. Having said that, the actual patent may be obvious even if the application/embodiment clearly wasn't. I don't have anything approaching the skills to enter those legal weeds.
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
Interesting you like picked a year before the patent was filed, too bad there were no smartphones...
Comments
Who has the patent on hyperlinks? I s'pose I should be worried about getting sued for using them....
Making hot links out of phone numbers and addresses? Same thing. Things that are intuitive shouldn't be patent-able.
If it was THAT obvious why hadn't it been done like this before?
If it was THAT obvious why hadn't it been done like this before?
By that argument every single patent is non-obvious, which is clearly not the court's view. If the mere fact that something was done first was proof of non-obviousness there would be no need for the law to specify both novelty and non-obviousness as requirements.
Also, you're rather assuming that it never had been done before - all you actually know is that it hadn't been done before on a smartphone platform. IDE's were doing pattern recognition on user entered data and allowing the user to then execute actions based on that back in the 90s. As I've already pointed out emacs folding mode was written back in 1991.
A company that invests heavily in R & D should be rewarded for that investment without the fear of everyone and their brother waiting to see what they do and then copying them.
Why don't they allow time-limits, like the drug industry? Say a company invents a new way of doing something on a smartphone. They alone can use this technique (if they so wish, or license it to others) after a set period, perhaps five years, that technique is open for others to freely use.
I don't know that this should be used in all cases necessarily, but I can see where this might benefit the industry as a whole while still rewarding those who innovate.
False, false, false. Linux is a reimplementation of some of Unix ideas, but definitely not a copy. In any case, a copy would be a copyright violation, not a patent violation. Much of Unix was never patented -- the idea of a software patent had not been determined in 1970, when Unix was developed. The US Supreme Court did not rule that software was patentable until 1981 in Diamond v Diehr.
I probably shouldn't have used the word "copy" in a patent fight.
I didn't mean that Linux was patent encumbered *because* "it's a copy of Unix" but it's true that Linux has not been examined sufficiently closely (IMO of course), to ensure that it doesn't infringe. Unix is was you say for the most part not patented.
I meant only "copy" in the colloquial sense of Linux obviously being a copy of Unix and therefore a "Unix-like system." I also meant to imply from that, that Linux is not an "original" (and therefore copyrighted system) in and of itself.
I think the problem is, in some cases patents have been approved on some things that they probably shouldn't have been.
A company that invests heavily in R & D should be rewarded for that investment without the fear of everyone and their brother waiting to see what they do and then copying them.
Why don't they allow time-limits, like the drug industry? Say a company invents a new way of doing something on a smartphone. They alone can use this technique (if they so wish, or license it to others) after a set period, perhaps five years, that technique is open for others to freely use.
I don't know that this should be used in all cases necessarily, but I can see where this might benefit the industry as a whole while still rewarding those who innovate.
There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.
I meant only "copy" in the colloquial sense of Linux obviously being a copy of Unix and therefore a "Unix-like system." I also meant to imply from that, that Linux is not an "original" (and therefore copyrighted system) in and of itself.
Linux is most definitely a copyrighted system, the source is copyright, the fact that it's available under various open source licenses doesn't detract from that.
There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.
14 years according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Patents are fine. Software patents are ridiculous.
I respectfully disagree. I see no reason why money spent on R & D in the area of software design or UI should not be at least somewhat protected.
Apple spends a lot of time and money focussing on creating the best possible end user experience. The success of their products seems to indicate that they are doing a pretty good job. Why should their competition get to copy features and designs that Apple created?
Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that virtually every feature should be a patentable feature, but I do feel that the look an feel of the UI and trade dress should most definitely be patentable. Apple has proven time and time again, that the UI and end user experience is vitally important to the success of the device, so why shouldn't they be allowed to protect their UI innovations?
As much as I dislike Android and all the other iPhone knockoffs. It seems that Apple is becoming the big patent troll these days.
I would love to see all the android devices fall off the face of the earth, but not like this.
Ok gotta fry Apple again...here is the catch, the CEO of the Apple stands up and stated "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, is absolutely NUTS.
They just lost a patent war with Nokia that cost them over $600 million US dollars. Had they followed there own statement and not stolen use of those patents the iPhone whould not exist
Ok gotta fry Apple again...here is the catch, the CEO of the Apple stands up and stated "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, is absolutely NUTS.
They just lost a patent war with Nokia that cost them over $600 million US dollars. Had they followed there own statement and not stolen use of those patents the iPhone whould not exist
1) Your point is moot in regardless because you'd have Apple pay for the patent use which means that they aren't "creat[ing] their own original technology" which means you're taking Jobs comment too literally.
2) Note that Apple also buys companies whose IP fits in with their needs, thus making it their own, but they aren't the originators or a great deal of the tech, just the ones that refine and mainstream it.
3) As I recall, the original issue wasn't Apple's unwillingness to pay for patents but unwillingness to pay Nokia the excessive, above and beyond the rest of the industry fee, they were charging Apple, and only Apple.
There is a roughly 20 year time limit on standard patents. I don't know about design patents.
14 years according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
It's slightly more complicated than 14 vs. 20 years. For a utility patent, the life span is 20 years, counting from the date of filing. For a design patent, it is 14 years, counting from the date of issue.
I am fully grown up. I was just trying to figure out how much of this guy's post was actually sarcasm by replying with sarcasm. Sorry if you didn't see it.
Sorry if the way I read his "Apple cash hoard is way too much and needs to be spread around to the less fortunate competitors" (paraphrased) reminded me of our President's socialist mentality.
I am also sorry if I think that if I earn more money because I work harder or innovate better than my fellow man (or competing company, in this case) I should not be allowed to keep it for myself. And for the same reason, I don't think I should have to pay a disproportionately higher tax rate. It's like punishing people for doing well for themselves. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away the incentive to innovate.
And yet many countries with Democratic Socialist aspects of government far beyond ours have healthy private industries with healthier levels of political participation, more equitable access to healthcare, and believe it or not, MORE entrepreneurialism than does the US.
And yet many countries with Democratic Socialist aspects of government far beyond ours have healthy private industries with healthier levels of political participation, more equitable access to healthcare, and believe it or not, MORE entrepreneurialism than does the US.
Not just more equitable access to healthcare - more cost-effective too.
But more entrepreneurialism, or rather entrepreneurship? How is that measured? What data are you looking at?
It's slightly more complicated than 14 vs. 20 years. For a utility patent, the life span is 20 years, counting from the date of filing. For a design patent, it is 14 years, counting from the date of issue.
It's even more complicated than that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_term
In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.)
It's even more complicated than that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_term
In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (The exact date of termination may be zealously litigated, especially where daily profits from a patent amount to millions of dollars, e.g., pharmaceuticals.)
Given the convolutions in the wording of patents, it is only appropriate that their life spans require a mainframe to determine.
Good link. Thank you!
And, as that video makes clear, it makes as much sense to claim Xerox "stole" antecedents to their work as it does to make that claim of Apple.
Typically, when anyone wants to deny Apple's contributions to the field of computing, they either claim that they stole key components or that they dumbed down preexisting technologies or that they simply lucked out and mainstreamed a paradigm that was "obvious."
This, of course, makes a hash of the creative process so well described in the Everything Is a Remix series. It's a strategy that can deny authorship to literally any work, ever. The Parthenon, Moby Dick, the printing press, penicillin, abstract expressionism, the internet, The Sopranos, etc., etc., etc: none can stand up to the criteria demanded of Apple to prove their originality, because that's not how originality works.
That applies mostly to preliminary injunctions and very unusual cases. The Supreme Court has allowed companies to refuse to license their technologies.
By that argument every single patent is non-obvious, which is clearly not the court's view. If the mere fact that something was done first was proof of non-obviousness there would be no need for the law to specify both novelty and non-obviousness as requirements.
Of course this is true if the original statement is taken as a blanket statement, but it's relevant that the technological ability to implement the feature had existed ever since smartphones have existed, yet no one had thought to do so. Many obvious patents are of the form "oh, put emerging technology a with existing technology b and now it's a new thing!" In those cases it's really just the first party who manages get the patent office to swallow a bunch of obvious applications of a technology wins the gold rush. However, there was nothing 'emerging' about the capability in the 2007 iPhone except that it was the first to actually *do* it. We could say things about obviousness with touch screens and other features that were still new, but the basic capability would have been useful and technically feasible ever since the advent of stylus smartphones.
So, it's clear that it wasn't so obvious. Having said that, the actual patent may be obvious even if the application/embodiment clearly wasn't. I don't have anything approaching the skills to enter those legal weeds.
No, he has a valid point... there actually is prior art around (I created a smartphone for LG in 1994 that detected phone numbers in text and provided a call or view contact option in the popup menu).
Many people want to see innovation and healthy competition in the market... it's good for all and frankly on that alone Apple will likely clean everyone's clock... Like the typical whiny fanboi you don't really care (probably due to every dime you have in AAPL stock) and just won't be happy until your Lord and Savior Jobs has the net worth of the planet in his account.
Your comment is simply over the top fanboy nonsense... get whatever iDevice you stuffed where the sun don't shine to prove your fanboi fanaticism out... it's causing you to think unclearly and may do permanent damage
Interesting you like picked a year before the patent was filed, too bad there were no smartphones...
The first "smartphone" hit the market in 1996.
Keep on trolling brother.
Not the company or the brand I like that's for sure. You are now the bully boys of Silicon Valley.
You've never created anything.
My next phone wil soooo be an Android. Might actually give me CHOICE about my style too.
Enjoy your trash!