TS, personally I think copyrights are more appropriate for software, but I'm far from an expert.
What (and maybe you're the wrong person to ask), in summary, is the difference in protection afforded to patents and copyrights?
Since patents are supposed to be protection of an implementation of an idea (not the idea itself) and software, by definition, is an implementation, it seems like that would be valid…
But (and with very little knowledge of my own in this regard) I'm thinking that entire pieces of software should be copywritten (not patented) and the specific implementation of a feature within that software heretofore unseen in any software could be patented.
I dunno. I just think that intellectual property, regardless of form, should be protected in some way, even if it's not a patent.
Yeah I'm probably the wrong guy to ask but I'll at least tell you how I understand it.
The basic difference (I think??) between the protection of a software copyright and patent is that a copyright would protect the expression of that idea used by the programmer/owner, but that the actual processes/methods used to accomplish it would not be protected. In other words Google couldn't copy Apple's data tapping implementation if it was protected by copyright, but they could create their own version of it from scratch.
A comparison I had seen somewhere uses Microsoft Word and Corel Wordperfect as examples. MS has a copyright on Word so that Corel could not legally copy it. But they could still legally create their own expression of Word features to use for Wordperfect.
IMHO ( I'm no expert either) It seems like copyrights would encourage more creativity and innovation in software than the most of the software patents we have now. It's far from clear how specific patents assigned to ABC, DEF, and HIG companies might apply to products XYZ company wishes to produce today, with numerous and vaguely worded claims and unforseen uses. Smaller companies may not even chance what they believe to be a new and innovative product for fear that some big player might claim to have had the idea first. I believe I read an average patent case could reach a million dollars. What start-up or small developer has the backing to stand up to a patent claim, bogus or not, from one of the major companies?
As long as the software was created from scratch, with that companies own spin on the idea, I don't why there should be a problem. Others will of course disagree and their opinions are no less valid than mine.
I thought Samsung Nexus was a phone that Google designed to be this pure Android experience, no shells like TouchWiz. The SG3 which has Touchwiz is the replacement for the SG2 not a Nexus, not even Nexus like, completely two different beasts. The new Nexus is also traditionally released late in the year from Google. I think this injunction is wrong and nothing will come of it. I believe Apple is defiantly hindering competition here and I maybe it's time for the Government to step in, who does that in the states, the DOJ.
Since patents are supposed to be protection of an implementation of an idea (not the idea itself) and software, by definition, is an implementation, it seems like that would be valid…
So what exactly is an implementation in this sense? How exactly is force against this kind of an implementation justified? Do physical property rights not mean anything?
If I leave my computer on indefinitely and some copyrighted/patented material is stored in my ram (from a website, let's say) does the creator then effectively own part of my ram indefinitely?
Information is information. If I memorize a song, in detail, and am able to reproduce it to a very high degree, am I in violation of a copyright because I remember it well? Does a copyright owner then have some legal claim to some part of my brain?
This might seem ridiculous, but it is only because we are at a point in history when we can kind of pretend that information stored in one device (hard drive, for example) is somehow morally different than information stored in another (brain). What happens when/if Ray Kurzweil's (and others') prediction about the augmentation/enhancement of brains with computers becomes realized? At that point we can't trick ourselves into thinking there is a distinction.
Edit: I realize it isn't this simple. That's why I can't wrap my brain around this issue. Obviously humans and computers create/absorb/transmit information differently (our relationship with computers, and the time/resources/effort it takes to develop software, for example, matters in the current context of society). Therefore, there is an effective distinction. However, on the fundamental level of information, I don't see a distinction.
They did. That's what this is all about. Apple developed things and Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Google, etc all copied it.
If a burglar breaks into your house, you call the police.
No one ever suggested anything like that. What he said was that you shouldn't substitute outright theft for innovation.
Why is it silly? You said that Apple is threatened by Samsung. Where's the evidence to back up your claim?
Why don't you explain to us why Apple should be scared of Tizen?
Even better, why not explain it to Samsung? They're obviously not convinced - since they can't seem to decide between Android or WIndows Mobile or Tizen or Linux or a few other options. If Tizen is so great, why do they need so many different OSs?
More importantly, where's the evidence that Tizen is so great? I've been hearing since the iPhone came out about how technology xxxx would blow Apple out of the water. It hasn't happened yet, so I'll wait for reality rather than accepting your delusions.
first, there are two separate things with regards to copying. Android did not copy iOS source code, Android is an implementation of an operating system for embedded devices (mostly phones). It was started BEFORE the iphone was released. What has been "copied" is portions of the interface... ie how a user interacts with the device. It wasn't copied though, as no source code (that I know of) was stolen from apple and used to make the device. The idea for some of these things was borrowed... However lets put it this way... Apple was not the first smart phone maker. What if RIM sued apple for making a phone that has a built in web browser? sure apple took RIMs idea (and don't tell me they didn't borrow ideas from RIM etc, everyone does, even if unconsciously) and made it far better, but they still built their phone off of the ideas laid out previously. Likewise apple wasn't the first to make an mp3 player etc. Should they not be allowed to have made those devices then? There was no burglar that ran in and stole apple's code. Saying that it is theft is just plain silly.
Now, one could ask how much has android "improved" upon the iphone experience, and many would say it hasn't. However, what if a fandroid said apple shouldn't have been allowed to implement multitasking because android did it first, or notifications or whatever. Right now the smart phone market is becoming relatively mature, and it's not likely that a "killer new feature" will blow away people and be a must have. I'm using an iphone4, and I can't think of what an iphone 5 would offer that would make me go "I really need to upgrade to this device". In a mature market like this, you cannot expect every new product to be mind blowing, and as android got to the touch screen after apple they're going to be called the copycat.
maybe android manufacturers owe apple for patent royalties (i haven't really seen a great case for this yet), but this current move by apple just makes apple look greedy. companies "violate" patents left and right, this isn't theft, it's a fact of life in the tech business. Apple is probably in violation of thousands of patents, many by the big guys who won't sue apple because they're in violation of apple's patents etc. This is the reality with the messed up patent system we have right now. There are some things samsung should be forced to do (change their icons for instance, as they were way too similar to apple's to be a coincidence), but should their phones and tablets be blocked from being sold? Flat out NO. Doing that would only serve to add a few billion more dollars to apple's coffers, and is not a "fair" business tactic. Hopefully the courts have as much sense.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
TS, personally I think copyrights are more appropriate for software, but I'm far from an expert.
What (and maybe you're the wrong person to ask), in summary, is the difference in protection afforded to patents and copyrights?
Since patents are supposed to be protection of an implementation of an idea (not the idea itself) and software, by definition, is an implementation, it seems like that would be valid…
But (and with very little knowledge of my own in this regard) I'm thinking that entire pieces of software should be copywritten (not patented) and the specific implementation of a feature within that software heretofore unseen in any software could be patented.
I dunno. I just think that intellectual property, regardless of form, should be protected in some way, even if it's not a patent.
Yeah I'm probably the wrong guy to ask but I'll at least tell you how I understand it.
The basic difference (I think??) between the protection of a software copyright and patent is that a copyright would protect the expression of that idea used by the programmer/owner, but that the actual processes/methods used to accomplish it would not be protected. In other words Google couldn't copy Apple's data tapping implementation if it was protected by copyright, but they could create their own version of it from scratch.
A comparison I had seen somewhere uses Microsoft Word and Corel Wordperfect as examples. MS has a copyright on Word so that Corel could not legally copy it. But they could still legally create their own expression of Word features to use for Wordperfect.
IMHO ( I'm no expert either) It seems like copyrights would encourage more creativity and innovation in software than the most of the software patents we have now. It's far from clear how specific patents assigned to ABC, DEF, and HIG companies might apply to products XYZ company wishes to produce today, with numerous and vaguely worded claims and unforseen uses. Smaller companies may not even chance what they believe to be a new and innovative product for fear that some big player might claim to have had the idea first. I believe I read an average patent case could reach a million dollars. What start-up or small developer has the backing to stand up to a patent claim, bogus or not, from one of the major companies?
As long as the software was created from scratch, with that companies own spin on the idea, I don't why there should be a problem. Others will of course disagree and their opinions are no less valid than mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Since patents are supposed to be protection of an implementation of an idea (not the idea itself) and software, by definition, is an implementation, it seems like that would be valid…
So what exactly is an implementation in this sense? How exactly is force against this kind of an implementation justified? Do physical property rights not mean anything?
If I leave my computer on indefinitely and some copyrighted/patented material is stored in my ram (from a website, let's say) does the creator then effectively own part of my ram indefinitely?
Information is information. If I memorize a song, in detail, and am able to reproduce it to a very high degree, am I in violation of a copyright because I remember it well? Does a copyright owner then have some legal claim to some part of my brain?
This might seem ridiculous, but it is only because we are at a point in history when we can kind of pretend that information stored in one device (hard drive, for example) is somehow morally different than information stored in another (brain). What happens when/if Ray Kurzweil's (and others') prediction about the augmentation/enhancement of brains with computers becomes realized? At that point we can't trick ourselves into thinking there is a distinction.
Edit: I realize it isn't this simple. That's why I can't wrap my brain around this issue. Obviously humans and computers create/absorb/transmit information differently (our relationship with computers, and the time/resources/effort it takes to develop software, for example, matters in the current context of society). Therefore, there is an effective distinction. However, on the fundamental level of information, I don't see a distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Agree 100%
They did. That's what this is all about. Apple developed things and Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Google, etc all copied it.
If a burglar breaks into your house, you call the police.
No one ever suggested anything like that. What he said was that you shouldn't substitute outright theft for innovation.
Why is it silly? You said that Apple is threatened by Samsung. Where's the evidence to back up your claim?
Why don't you explain to us why Apple should be scared of Tizen?
Even better, why not explain it to Samsung? They're obviously not convinced - since they can't seem to decide between Android or WIndows Mobile or Tizen or Linux or a few other options. If Tizen is so great, why do they need so many different OSs?
More importantly, where's the evidence that Tizen is so great? I've been hearing since the iPhone came out about how technology xxxx would blow Apple out of the water. It hasn't happened yet, so I'll wait for reality rather than accepting your delusions.
first, there are two separate things with regards to copying. Android did not copy iOS source code, Android is an implementation of an operating system for embedded devices (mostly phones). It was started BEFORE the iphone was released. What has been "copied" is portions of the interface... ie how a user interacts with the device. It wasn't copied though, as no source code (that I know of) was stolen from apple and used to make the device. The idea for some of these things was borrowed... However lets put it this way... Apple was not the first smart phone maker. What if RIM sued apple for making a phone that has a built in web browser? sure apple took RIMs idea (and don't tell me they didn't borrow ideas from RIM etc, everyone does, even if unconsciously) and made it far better, but they still built their phone off of the ideas laid out previously. Likewise apple wasn't the first to make an mp3 player etc. Should they not be allowed to have made those devices then? There was no burglar that ran in and stole apple's code. Saying that it is theft is just plain silly.
Now, one could ask how much has android "improved" upon the iphone experience, and many would say it hasn't. However, what if a fandroid said apple shouldn't have been allowed to implement multitasking because android did it first, or notifications or whatever. Right now the smart phone market is becoming relatively mature, and it's not likely that a "killer new feature" will blow away people and be a must have. I'm using an iphone4, and I can't think of what an iphone 5 would offer that would make me go "I really need to upgrade to this device". In a mature market like this, you cannot expect every new product to be mind blowing, and as android got to the touch screen after apple they're going to be called the copycat.
maybe android manufacturers owe apple for patent royalties (i haven't really seen a great case for this yet), but this current move by apple just makes apple look greedy. companies "violate" patents left and right, this isn't theft, it's a fact of life in the tech business. Apple is probably in violation of thousands of patents, many by the big guys who won't sue apple because they're in violation of apple's patents etc. This is the reality with the messed up patent system we have right now. There are some things samsung should be forced to do (change their icons for instance, as they were way too similar to apple's to be a coincidence), but should their phones and tablets be blocked from being sold? Flat out NO. Doing that would only serve to add a few billion more dollars to apple's coffers, and is not a "fair" business tactic. Hopefully the courts have as much sense.
Phil
If you have a few minutes, this video will show just how un-iPhone-like the new Galaxy S3 is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ake1B0WPXYg
Or for those bothered by his English, try this one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT0gO_wNOhA&feature=related