Normal, (non-geeks) would argue that this is entirely backwards. Stealing other people's ideas is generally the thing that most people think should be most illegal and is what patent law is intended to protect us from. Outside of computer hackers, it's never been the case that stealing ideas has been considered "generally good."
On the other hand, most people also see "code" as just a bunch of language that describes the idea and therefore something that anyone should be able to copy any time they want. Code is generally seen as the same as a paragraph describing an idea rather than an idea or innovation itself.
If what you say is true about how geeks view things, then they are operating with opposite assumptions than those the rest of the population employs in these cases. It's also worth noting that the patent office sees things closer to the way the general population thinks than they do the way the "geeks" think.
Really - so you think Shakespeare was terrible because he 'stole' his ideas? But plagiarism, which only steals the words is ok? Why aren't plots patentable?
It's not just geeks who think this, it's just only geeks who think this CLEARLY.
Really - so you think Shakespeare was terrible because he stole his ideas? But plagiarism, which only steals the words is ok?
It's not just geeks who think this, it's just only geeks who think this CLEARLY.
i didn't say either was right or wrong, I merely pointed out the differences in "world-view" as it were.
Also you are messing things up by bringing up Shakespeare in that I was talking about patent law on devices, whereas a discussion of Shakespeare would involve copyright law and literature which is enough of a different thing as to make the analogy very difficult at best.
Even in literature however, you can't "steal ideas." You can do a Romeo and Juliette type of story, but you can't just copy Romeo and Juliette. Also, you realise that discussions like this are going to go down a rabbit hole over what an "idea" is in any case, so it's probably pointless to continue.
I think it's pretty clear that "geeks" think of "code" in an entirely different way from the general population though regardless of what one thinks about whether this is right/wrong good/bad.
Not that I'm aware of, but I just meant to point out the inaccuracy of the overly broad statement. It doesn't really affect what I said either way.
Yes it does - you stated that the very fact of the patent being granted meant that ipso facto it was valid and non-obvious. If that was the case it would be impossible to invalidate patents, which is of course not the case.
If you meant to point out the inaccuracy of an overly broad statement you might want to avoid doing it with an inaccurate and overly broad statement.
Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.
Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.
Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product
This product is not actually made by Samsung. It is however certified by them and they do sell it.
i didn't say either was right or wrong, I merely pointed out the differences in "world-view" as it were.
Also you are messing things up by bringing up Shakespeare in that I was talking about patent law on devices, whereas a discussion of Shakespeare would involve copyright law and literature which is enough of a different thing as to make the analogy very difficult at best.
Except we're talking about software which can indeed be copyrighted, so perhaps it's better considered like literature and music, where copying ideas is completely acceptable?
I think it's pretty clear that "geeks" think of "code" in an entirely different way from the general population though regardless of what one thinks about whether this is right/wrong good/bad.
I'll agree with that statement, but I would have to add that geeks being the people who write code are in a better place to judge what kind of artistic domain it most closely resembles than laymen.
Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.
Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.
Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product
You've got to be kidding me!
Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!
These patents turn 17 years old this summer and next spring anyways, so why is this a big issue? With appeals this case will clearly extend beyond the patent viability of both offending patents. After all patents are only good for 17 years, then it is public domain.
At times like this I always refer back to this gorgeous web of legal action, write the whole industry off as a sorry mess and try to get on with my day.
To give everyone a piece of history, after the merger with NeXT and Apple, Apple contacted Adobe about renegotiating the cost of the cross-licensing fee for Postscript that is part of Display Postscript [co-developed by Adobe and NeXT] and Adobe's answer was they weren't going to reduce the fee they charged on each sale of the future version of Mac OS that they charge on the current version of Openstep.
The User Environment for Openstep was $700/seat at that time. Adobe was charging $10 for every seat.
With the cost of Consumer OS prices dictated by Microsoft Adobe did not want to renegotiate the cost down one penny.
Thus, Display PDF was born, patent free from Adobe. This was possible due to NeXT Engineers knowledge of Postscript and PDF. At the time, Apple had to always be a revision or two behind in PDF technology in it's release--part of an agreement reached by Adobe who has subsequently moved PDF/FDF to ISO status.
I'm not sure the similar $5 per user fee that Microsoft is charging for a large amount of patents will equate to the same for Apple.
Patents are generally written to be as general as possible. If you make them very specific you make it easy for folks to create around the patent. Further, smart phones are essentially computers. Apple's computer related patents would carry over to a smart phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13
The two patents HTC allegedly infringes are incredibly general and describe functions that are surely not specific to mobile phones.
What does Apple litigating against Android handset makers have to do with HP and Palm? And if Apple is "one of the copycats", why did the entire mobile handset industry shift to Apple's model only after the iPhone was released?
Too soon to say about much of this but as one who considers much of Androids design a total rip of Apples and a betrayal by Eric Schmidt, I would love to see some kind of payback down the line here. And if Larry Ellison gets in on the fun, I would feel even better about it.
I 'love the competition' and all, but straight up copying something as brilliant as the iPhone with no comeuppance would be like Rupert Murdoch getting away with bribing cops.
Yes it does - you stated that the very fact of the patent being granted meant that ipso facto it was valid and non-obvious. If that was the case it would be impossible to invalidate patents, which is of course not the case.
If you meant to point out the inaccuracy of an overly broad statement you might want to avoid doing it with an inaccurate and overly broad statement.
It seems to me that you're still upset about the argument yesterday where you were bested by someone else, and that you're carrying over this anger towards me today for some reason.
I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors. Since my belief is that you "know what I meant" and that you don't really have a counter argument to it anyway (or necessarily even disagree), I'm just going to stop talking about this.
Those 2 patents are 17 years and 15 years old. So they will expire in 3 and 5 years, cool.
Don't know if you are aware of this, but writing " http://www.appleinsider.com " in this text field, and if the forum software (here vBulletin Solutions) recognize it as an URL, Apple could sue them too.
Yeah...
There are two more things. It is interesting that articles about this topic on this site always report about the ruling as the done thing, that only needs approval from the panel, and HTC/Android is doomed already. If you look at any less biased site, they usually note that this panel already recommended that all the patent infringement in this case should be dismissed, and it is very rare that judge went against this recommendation. It is generally believed, that he would need to bring strong evidence to make the panel to change their initial decision, so it is a small victory for Apple, but there is still a very long way ahead for them for this to have any meaning.
The other thing is very interesting aspect of the patent law. Patent office grants you the patent, but there is no guarantee that patent "stands". If you try to sue someone, then and only then the patent is eventually evaluated if it has any merit, and can be dismissed forever. This happened to the other 8 patents in this claim and very well the same fate may meet the remaining two.
Pretty much all the "multitouch" patents are in this risky zone, as this is clearly a prior art and Apple knows they have very limited usability, other than being items in their 1000+ patent portfolio used to deter anybody and force him to pay licence fees instead.
The whole patent law is totally screwed and it is the end customers who pay the final price for all these lawyers and diminished rate of innovation.
Listen, i understand that intellectual property is a valuable asset to a company, but on the other hand, it also stifles competition when a company has a vague patent and goes after any company that infringes upon it. If Apple is trying to slow the competition, i get that, but if they are ruthless enough they will push Companies like samsung out of the android market. Good move for apple, bad outcome for consumers. As for digital patents, you should not be able to patent any little tiny gizmo or feature, rather an OS, Core function or Source Code should be the primary focus when applying for a patent. It's basically like if Crest toothpaste patented every ingredient in its toothpaste individually. I dont think apple has any problems selling their products, so i find it silly that they are pursuing so many lawsuits over small infringements that are minimal. Why isn't Google suing? Easy, its an open source code as of now, so they have no interest in suing. You know i used to like apple, thought they were a decent innovative company. They have become a corporate giant, their bottom line is the most important, and they are trying to rape smaller tech companies into paying them royalties. Sound familiar? Microsoft! That is what they are becoming. Microsoft!
It's basically like if Crest toothpaste patented every ingredient in its toothpaste individually.!
That's a profoundly bad analogy. Any new ingredient that Crest might want to use in toothpaste would require extensive testing to prove it was biologically safe. THat's actually a case where patent protection is absolutely deserved, even necessary.
There are two more things. It is interesting that articles about this topic on this site always report about the ruling as the done thing, that only needs approval from the panel, and HTC/Android is doomed already. If you look at any less biased site, they usually note that this panel already recommended that all the patent infringement in this case should be dismissed, and it is very rare that judge went against this recommendation. It is generally believed, that he would need to bring strong evidence to make the panel to change their initial decision, so it is a small victory for Apple, but there is still a very long way ahead for them for this to have any meaning.
You're mixing things up a bit. The ITC staff recommended the patents be considered non-infringed, the Judge overruled them on these two. The ITC panel is the last stage, which is yet to come. The panel will make the final determination, though it may bounce up and down a bit before they do.
Comments
This is partially what fuels the debate though.
Normal, (non-geeks) would argue that this is entirely backwards. Stealing other people's ideas is generally the thing that most people think should be most illegal and is what patent law is intended to protect us from. Outside of computer hackers, it's never been the case that stealing ideas has been considered "generally good."
On the other hand, most people also see "code" as just a bunch of language that describes the idea and therefore something that anyone should be able to copy any time they want. Code is generally seen as the same as a paragraph describing an idea rather than an idea or innovation itself.
If what you say is true about how geeks view things, then they are operating with opposite assumptions than those the rest of the population employs in these cases. It's also worth noting that the patent office sees things closer to the way the general population thinks than they do the way the "geeks" think.
Really - so you think Shakespeare was terrible because he 'stole' his ideas? But plagiarism, which only steals the words is ok? Why aren't plots patentable?
It's not just geeks who think this, it's just only geeks who think this CLEARLY.
Really - so you think Shakespeare was terrible because he stole his ideas? But plagiarism, which only steals the words is ok?
It's not just geeks who think this, it's just only geeks who think this CLEARLY.
i didn't say either was right or wrong, I merely pointed out the differences in "world-view" as it were.
Also you are messing things up by bringing up Shakespeare in that I was talking about patent law on devices, whereas a discussion of Shakespeare would involve copyright law and literature which is enough of a different thing as to make the analogy very difficult at best.
Even in literature however, you can't "steal ideas." You can do a Romeo and Juliette type of story, but you can't just copy Romeo and Juliette. Also, you realise that discussions like this are going to go down a rabbit hole over what an "idea" is in any case, so it's probably pointless to continue.
I think it's pretty clear that "geeks" think of "code" in an entirely different way from the general population though regardless of what one thinks about whether this is right/wrong good/bad.
Because no patent granted has ever subsequently been invalidated either in part or whole due to obviousness right?
Not that I'm aware of, but I just meant to point out the inaccuracy of the overly broad statement. It doesn't really affect what I said either way.
Not that I'm aware of, but I just meant to point out the inaccuracy of the overly broad statement. It doesn't really affect what I said either way.
Yes it does - you stated that the very fact of the patent being granted meant that ipso facto it was valid and non-obvious. If that was the case it would be impossible to invalidate patents, which is of course not the case.
If you meant to point out the inaccuracy of an overly broad statement you might want to avoid doing it with an inaccurate and overly broad statement.
Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.
Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.
Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product
This product is not actually made by Samsung. It is however certified by them and they do sell it.
i didn't say either was right or wrong, I merely pointed out the differences in "world-view" as it were.
Also you are messing things up by bringing up Shakespeare in that I was talking about patent law on devices, whereas a discussion of Shakespeare would involve copyright law and literature which is enough of a different thing as to make the analogy very difficult at best.
Except we're talking about software which can indeed be copyrighted, so perhaps it's better considered like literature and music, where copying ideas is completely acceptable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variati...Theme_by_Haydn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variati...ganini_(Brahms)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variati...eme_of_Corelli
I think it's pretty clear that "geeks" think of "code" in an entirely different way from the general population though regardless of what one thinks about whether this is right/wrong good/bad.
I'll agree with that statement, but I would have to add that geeks being the people who write code are in a better place to judge what kind of artistic domain it most closely resembles than laymen.
Such a broad and completely unsupported statement! Try leaving the hyperbole at home next time.
Apple is definitely *not* the same as other companies when it comes to borrowing ideas and primarily thinks up everything on it's own rather than even "borrowing" (let alone outright stealing) from others.
Case in point: Take a look at Samsung's latest product
You've got to be kidding me!
Don't these guys have a remote sense of self-esteem?! Pride?! Heck, decency?!
Apple has hand? It's handy to have hand, especially if you make handsets.
At times like this I always refer back to this gorgeous web of legal action, write the whole industry off as a sorry mess and try to get on with my day.
great beach towel
9
The User Environment for Openstep was $700/seat at that time. Adobe was charging $10 for every seat.
With the cost of Consumer OS prices dictated by Microsoft Adobe did not want to renegotiate the cost down one penny.
Thus, Display PDF was born, patent free from Adobe. This was possible due to NeXT Engineers knowledge of Postscript and PDF. At the time, Apple had to always be a revision or two behind in PDF technology in it's release--part of an agreement reached by Adobe who has subsequently moved PDF/FDF to ISO status.
I'm not sure the similar $5 per user fee that Microsoft is charging for a large amount of patents will equate to the same for Apple.
http://www.wepolls.com/p/1322167
The two patents HTC allegedly infringes are incredibly general and describe functions that are surely not specific to mobile phones.
What does Apple litigating against Android handset makers have to do with HP and Palm? And if Apple is "one of the copycats", why did the entire mobile handset industry shift to Apple's model only after the iPhone was released?
Well said.
I 'love the competition' and all, but straight up copying something as brilliant as the iPhone with no comeuppance would be like Rupert Murdoch getting away with bribing cops.
Yes it does - you stated that the very fact of the patent being granted meant that ipso facto it was valid and non-obvious. If that was the case it would be impossible to invalidate patents, which is of course not the case.
If you meant to point out the inaccuracy of an overly broad statement you might want to avoid doing it with an inaccurate and overly broad statement.
It seems to me that you're still upset about the argument yesterday where you were bested by someone else, and that you're carrying over this anger towards me today for some reason.
I'm not saying anything controversial or non-obvious here, you're just twisting my words around looking for errors. Since my belief is that you "know what I meant" and that you don't really have a counter argument to it anyway (or necessarily even disagree), I'm just going to stop talking about this.
Those 2 patents are 17 years and 15 years old. So they will expire in 3 and 5 years, cool.
Don't know if you are aware of this, but writing " http://www.appleinsider.com " in this text field, and if the forum software (here vBulletin Solutions) recognize it as an URL, Apple could sue them too.
Yeah...
There are two more things. It is interesting that articles about this topic on this site always report about the ruling as the done thing, that only needs approval from the panel, and HTC/Android is doomed already. If you look at any less biased site, they usually note that this panel already recommended that all the patent infringement in this case should be dismissed, and it is very rare that judge went against this recommendation. It is generally believed, that he would need to bring strong evidence to make the panel to change their initial decision, so it is a small victory for Apple, but there is still a very long way ahead for them for this to have any meaning.
The other thing is very interesting aspect of the patent law. Patent office grants you the patent, but there is no guarantee that patent "stands". If you try to sue someone, then and only then the patent is eventually evaluated if it has any merit, and can be dismissed forever. This happened to the other 8 patents in this claim and very well the same fate may meet the remaining two.
Pretty much all the "multitouch" patents are in this risky zone, as this is clearly a prior art and Apple knows they have very limited usability, other than being items in their 1000+ patent portfolio used to deter anybody and force him to pay licence fees instead.
The whole patent law is totally screwed and it is the end customers who pay the final price for all these lawyers and diminished rate of innovation.
It's basically like if Crest toothpaste patented every ingredient in its toothpaste individually.!
That's a profoundly bad analogy. Any new ingredient that Crest might want to use in toothpaste would require extensive testing to prove it was biologically safe. THat's actually a case where patent protection is absolutely deserved, even necessary.
There are two more things. It is interesting that articles about this topic on this site always report about the ruling as the done thing, that only needs approval from the panel, and HTC/Android is doomed already. If you look at any less biased site, they usually note that this panel already recommended that all the patent infringement in this case should be dismissed, and it is very rare that judge went against this recommendation. It is generally believed, that he would need to bring strong evidence to make the panel to change their initial decision, so it is a small victory for Apple, but there is still a very long way ahead for them for this to have any meaning.
You're mixing things up a bit. The ITC staff recommended the patents be considered non-infringed, the Judge overruled them on these two. The ITC panel is the last stage, which is yet to come. The panel will make the final determination, though it may bounce up and down a bit before they do.