Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.
I think you should be forced to sell your second kidney. You're not using it and you can make more money by selling it than by keeping it.
In the end, Apple's inventions are their own property and they're entitled to use their property however they wish.
Regardless, they're making billions of dollars from selling iPhones. When you consider that Apple makes more money than the rest of the cell phone industry combined, even if they take every penny of profit from the remainder of the industry, it would be less than they make now.
How do you know Apple doesn't have a working implementation? A working implementation doesn't mean the patent has to be used in a commercial product people can buy. It can be used on a prototype in the lab that isn't ready to be released, yet has still been defined enough to warrant a patent.
For as far as I can see all Apples patents are valid in this respect.
The argument was related to the question what's currently wrong with the patent system.
Google's everything is free business model has been designed so that it's impossible to steal from them. So when they petition lawmakers to legalise theft under some spurious standards claim it's not a surprise.
....
Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.
If I own a patent, I'm free to do whatever I want with it. I can give it away, use it, sell it, or license it. If I choose to sell it to someone, it is then their property to do whatever they want to do with. They can sell it, license it, use it, or do nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires a patent holder to practice their patent in order to enforce their rights. In fact, the law very specifically does NOT require the patent holder to practice the invention.
What you're calling a patent troll is actually a critical part of the process for allowing an inventor to be compensated for his invention. ...
On the other hand, if the "inventor" can't actually implement his "invention" in some manner, how is his "invention" distinct from simply an idea, which isn't patentable, and isn't in fact considered an invention?
Not requiring an implementation, as was previously required, has allowed the lines between ideas, often vague ones at that, and actual inventions to become hopelessly blurred. (Again, Apple's iPhone patents don't suffer from this confusion, because they have been implemented.)
Patent trolls are very real and they live in this grey area of confusion, where "inventions" without implementations shape shift into whatever the owner claims them to be. With no concrete definition to tie it down, the patent can morph into whatever technology seems hot at the moment.
And patents are not like other property. They are property granted by the government for a very specific purpose. Patent trolls are effectively gaming the system.
Here's a concrete example: Back when MS was acting like Google is today (before getting its ears pinned back and growing up a bit), they repeatedly sabotaged and undercut many of their ISV's, including WordPerfect, which was (and is) a superior word processing tool. This effected MY ability to work - and undercut the local economy of the state of Utah where I do business. As noted in one prominent publication of the time, after leading WP to believe DOS development was continuing, they also kept jiggering the Windows API's (even though there was supposedly a "firewall" between the Windows and Office teams in Redmond), and the article I read noted that the slogan in Redmond was, "The coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run."
Subsequently, it took WP about 18 extra months to come out with a working Win version and they never recovered from MS' head start. And I still have to use the black box of Word formatting in order to share docs with the world.
And I yeah, hated them for that. Sue me.
I dont think you should be sued but I do think you might want to get some help for your anger management issues if this is all it takes to set you off. Much more important things in life...
I believe Google is saying, in a roundabout way, that the patent system is terribly broken, and is stifling innovation.
For the people saying Google should get out of the business, keep dreaming. If it wasn't for Android, iOS6 wouldn't have new maps, notifications, NFC, larger screen, and a bunch of other things innovated on Android. Competition is good, and since Android is the #1 smartphone platform, Apple clearly has some competing to do.
Advantage: Consumer.
Just think Android wouldn't have any of those things without Apple, Microsoft, Palm, Symbian or any of the others they blatantly ripped off.
This is interesting. Let's say Apple wins convincingly in courts around the world, and all touchscreen phones are found to violate their IP (granted, this would be extreme and unlikely). Will courts ban touchscreen phones? It's unlikely Apple will grant a license to anyone. Then what?
Apple aren't taking action against "all touchscreen phones", only the one's they feel infringe their IP.
Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.
Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.
There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?
While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.
"Misinformed morons" huh?
I don't have to "imagine if." Everything is patented. Copy-and-paste is patented, in case you didn't know--and you didn't (US6944821). Dozens of companies own patents related to GPS. Mobile web page rendering. MP3s. All patented. By every company you can name: IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, Motorola, Qualcomm, Apple, Sun, Netscape, Adobe... (and on and on). All patented. And companies sue each over patents all the time. They also cross-license patents to each other. Even Apple. Yes, Apple licenses its patents to other companies (but it can choose which ones to keep for its own secret sauce). This is how the system works.
That is why your theoretical "Imagine if Kia..." example is ludicrous. Everything in a mobile phone is in fact, already patented, yet mobile devices still get made. The mobile phone industry doesn't owe its existence to a lack of patents, as you seem to think. For example, every Apple mobile device can play MP3s because Apple pays a license to Fraunhofer and Thompson. Apple doesn't just declare it "standards essential" to justify infringing on Fraunhofer's patent rights. And MP3s are about as de facto as it gets.
Patents don't prevent things from getting made; patents encourage an economic return on innovation.
Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.
Maybe it's because they "waste" millions in court to make billions out of court.
From the online legal dictionary: "[Latin, In fact.] In fact, in deed, actually.
This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position, or status existing under a claim or color of right, such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one that is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is Voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade that is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade.
A de facto corporation is one that has been given legal status despite the fact that it has not complied with all the statutory formalities required for corporate existence. Only the state may challenge the validity of the existence of a de facto corporation."
I can almost imagine Google trying to argue that Apple has illegally established an '[I]de facto[/I] standard which the government must rein-in (thereby circumventing the courts), before they kill the whole industry. A staggering hubristic conceit run up the flagpole of popular convenience which they 'know' will be saluted by the scurrilous interwebz nut jobs out there. It reminds me of juvenile playground posturing. It's demeaning and whiny. It's also consistent with Google's PR where they have repeatedly released statements aimed solely at muddying the waters. They know these provocative sound bites will multiply...and they spend hundreds of $millions more than Apple lobbying politicians do they not? Does any country have enough impartial and knowledgable backbone amongst it's politicians, that we could trust? Leave it to the courts.
Windows has affected his well being because it has effected him into a state of being frustrated and angry.
That's his problem and his choice to use Windows or not.
Thanks for the spelling lesson too.
That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?
Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.
Because Apple makes great things and they are rewarded with sales and loyal customers. Money is meaningless if you make garbage. That is the DNA of the company that Jobs left behind and hopefully that philosophy will never leave them.
That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?
Care to twist words anymore? If he was affected or not is his issue to deal and quite sad to have such an emotional response to a product/company.
Not sure what part of that you cannot seem to understand...
Had enough of you now champ so off to the block list you go! bye bye
Because Apple makes great things and they are rewarded with sales and loyal customers. Money is meaningless if you make garbage. That is the DNA of the company that Jobs left behind and hopefully that philosophy will never leave them.
It's actually quite sad that someone would be "loyal" to a company unless you work there of course. I'm loyal to my friends and family but not to any companies I buy products from...
I own many Apple products but only bought them because they suit my needs the best and I will continue until they dont, nothing to do with "loyalty".
That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?
Care to twist words anymore? If he was affected or not is his issue to deal and quite sad to have such an emotional response to a product/company.
Not sure what part of that you cannot seem to understand...
Had enough of you now champ so off to the block list you go! bye bye
Clearly struck a nerve there, and fully according to pattern - when he totally runs out of ideas he wheels out the block list. Maybe one day he will put Appleinsider on the block list and the torture will be over.
Why would I as I like Apple products and this is an Apple forum correct? I just don't agree with so many of the blind fanboys that talk utter nonsense.
Why would I as I like Apple products and this is an Apple forum correct? I just don't agree with so many of the blind fanboys that talk utter nonsense.
Happy to know I'm "torture" to Muppet though lol
Oh dear. He took "torture" to mean something positive, rather than the "cringeworthy" sense that I had intended. Hey - and stop quoting me - he can't see me hiding over here.
For someone who likes Apple products, he sure doesn't have much good to say about them or the company. Oh, I forgot. Standard TMO.
Comments
That's a perfect description. The weird, unpredictable formatting in Word is the most annoying thing of all the crap Microsoft has foisted on us.
I think you should be forced to sell your second kidney. You're not using it and you can make more money by selling it than by keeping it.
In the end, Apple's inventions are their own property and they're entitled to use their property however they wish.
Regardless, they're making billions of dollars from selling iPhones. When you consider that Apple makes more money than the rest of the cell phone industry combined, even if they take every penny of profit from the remainder of the industry, it would be less than they make now.
For as far as I can see all Apples patents are valid in this respect.
The argument was related to the question what's currently wrong with the patent system.
J.
Google's everything is free business model has been designed so that it's impossible to steal from them. So when they petition lawmakers to legalise theft under some spurious standards claim it's not a surprise.
On the other hand, if the "inventor" can't actually implement his "invention" in some manner, how is his "invention" distinct from simply an idea, which isn't patentable, and isn't in fact considered an invention?
Not requiring an implementation, as was previously required, has allowed the lines between ideas, often vague ones at that, and actual inventions to become hopelessly blurred. (Again, Apple's iPhone patents don't suffer from this confusion, because they have been implemented.)
Patent trolls are very real and they live in this grey area of confusion, where "inventions" without implementations shape shift into whatever the owner claims them to be. With no concrete definition to tie it down, the patent can morph into whatever technology seems hot at the moment.
And patents are not like other property. They are property granted by the government for a very specific purpose. Patent trolls are effectively gaming the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Windows has affected his well being because it has effected him into a state of being frustrated and angry.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
That's his problem and his choice to use Windows or not.
Thanks for the spelling lesson too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Here's a concrete example: Back when MS was acting like Google is today (before getting its ears pinned back and growing up a bit), they repeatedly sabotaged and undercut many of their ISV's, including WordPerfect, which was (and is) a superior word processing tool. This effected MY ability to work - and undercut the local economy of the state of Utah where I do business. As noted in one prominent publication of the time, after leading WP to believe DOS development was continuing, they also kept jiggering the Windows API's (even though there was supposedly a "firewall" between the Windows and Office teams in Redmond), and the article I read noted that the slogan in Redmond was, "The coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run."
Subsequently, it took WP about 18 extra months to come out with a working Win version and they never recovered from MS' head start. And I still have to use the black box of Word formatting in order to share docs with the world.
And I yeah, hated them for that. Sue me.
I dont think you should be sued but I do think you might want to get some help for your anger management issues if this is all it takes to set you off. Much more important things in life...
For those who are welded to arguing 'prior art':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Selden
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135
I believe Google is saying, in a roundabout way, that the patent system is terribly broken, and is stifling innovation.
For the people saying Google should get out of the business, keep dreaming. If it wasn't for Android, iOS6 wouldn't have new maps, notifications, NFC, larger screen, and a bunch of other things innovated on Android. Competition is good, and since Android is the #1 smartphone platform, Apple clearly has some competing to do.
Advantage: Consumer.
Just think Android wouldn't have any of those things without Apple, Microsoft, Palm, Symbian or any of the others they blatantly ripped off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
This is interesting. Let's say Apple wins convincingly in courts around the world, and all touchscreen phones are found to violate their IP (granted, this would be extreme and unlikely). Will courts ban touchscreen phones? It's unlikely Apple will grant a license to anyone. Then what?
Apple aren't taking action against "all touchscreen phones", only the one's they feel infringe their IP.
Not "extreme and unlikely" but impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroNix
Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.
Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.
There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?
While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.
"Misinformed morons" huh?
I don't have to "imagine if." Everything is patented. Copy-and-paste is patented, in case you didn't know--and you didn't (US6944821). Dozens of companies own patents related to GPS. Mobile web page rendering. MP3s. All patented. By every company you can name: IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, Motorola, Qualcomm, Apple, Sun, Netscape, Adobe... (and on and on). All patented. And companies sue each over patents all the time. They also cross-license patents to each other. Even Apple. Yes, Apple licenses its patents to other companies (but it can choose which ones to keep for its own secret sauce). This is how the system works.
That is why your theoretical "Imagine if Kia..." example is ludicrous. Everything in a mobile phone is in fact, already patented, yet mobile devices still get made. The mobile phone industry doesn't owe its existence to a lack of patents, as you seem to think. For example, every Apple mobile device can play MP3s because Apple pays a license to Fraunhofer and Thompson. Apple doesn't just declare it "standards essential" to justify infringing on Fraunhofer's patent rights. And MP3s are about as de facto as it gets.
Patents don't prevent things from getting made; patents encourage an economic return on innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.
Maybe it's because they "waste" millions in court to make billions out of court.
"[Latin, In fact.] In fact, in deed, actually.
This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position, or status existing under a claim or color of right, such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one that is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is Voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade that is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade.
A de facto corporation is one that has been given legal status despite the fact that it has not complied with all the statutory formalities required for corporate existence. Only the state may challenge the validity of the existence of a de facto corporation."
I can almost imagine Google trying to argue that Apple has illegally established an '[I]de facto[/I] standard which the government must rein-in (thereby circumventing the courts), before they kill the whole industry. A staggering hubristic conceit run up the flagpole of popular convenience which they 'know' will be saluted by the scurrilous interwebz nut jobs out there. It reminds me of juvenile playground posturing. It's demeaning and whiny.
It's also consistent with Google's PR where they have repeatedly released statements aimed solely at muddying the waters. They know these provocative sound bites will multiply...and they spend hundreds of $millions more than Apple lobbying politicians do they not? Does any country have enough impartial and knowledgable backbone amongst it's politicians, that we could trust?
Leave it to the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
Excellent post. I don't know why apple doesn't just accept payment for their stuff rather than injunctions. That's crazy to waste billions in court when they can make billions more out of court.
Because Apple makes great things and they are rewarded with sales and loyal customers. Money is meaningless if you make garbage. That is the DNA of the company that Jobs left behind and hopefully that philosophy will never leave them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
That's the spirit - just move the goal posts and hope no one notices. This whole stupid exchange started with you stridently attempting to argue that he should not have an emotional response to a company (originally Google, then it moved on to MS) unless he were personally affected by them. So, now you are conceding that he was affected, but that it was his problem?
Care to twist words anymore? If he was affected or not is his issue to deal and quite sad to have such an emotional response to a product/company.
Not sure what part of that you cannot seem to understand...
Had enough of you now champ so off to the block list you go! bye bye
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Because Apple makes great things and they are rewarded with sales and loyal customers. Money is meaningless if you make garbage. That is the DNA of the company that Jobs left behind and hopefully that philosophy will never leave them.
It's actually quite sad that someone would be "loyal" to a company unless you work there of course. I'm loyal to my friends and family but not to any companies I buy products from...
I own many Apple products but only bought them because they suit my needs the best and I will continue until they dont, nothing to do with "loyalty".
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Maybe one day he will put Appleinsider on the block list and the torture will be over.
Ah, what dreams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, what dreams.
Why would I as I like Apple products and this is an Apple forum correct? I just don't agree with so many of the blind fanboys that talk utter nonsense.
Happy to know I'm "torture" to Muppet though
For someone who likes Apple products, he sure doesn't have much good to say about them or the company. Oh, I forgot. Standard TMO.