Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

NAG · Jul 5, 2012

Over The Hill said:
Solve one problem (stop issuing funny patents, like "slide to unlock“ or anything based on common sense) and the second problem will go away on its own.

Because that works great for the app store review process. They reject tons of bad apps, and we have absolutely no bad or copy cat apps in the store!

The problem stands, you can't just say the system is fine and they just need to stop approving them in such volume. The volume is a product of the system.

leman said:
That is my proposal, more or less: make products (or algorithm which define the products) protectable. But more general ideas, which can be applied in a whole range of products of different kinds, should not be patentable.

This. We need to limit the patents to the more specific applications (this also applies to biotech).

TsunamiTheClown · Jul 5, 2012

Bezetos said:
Stupid, ludicrous patents are already hindering motivation for innovation. How can you work on innovative, new sofwtare while there are so many pitfalls on the way? It's all about improving the patent system so that ludicrous software patents don't go through.

I'm personally against all software patents.

Then go GNU. And only develop free, open source software. But some people like to eat.

angrynstupid · Jul 5, 2012

Posner isn't totally right. Some companies have paid millions for some software technologies and are not as trivial as he alludes. However, determining what's trivial and not is part of the problem.

Bezetos · Jul 5, 2012

I Am Designer said:
I disagree with the judge wholeheartedly.

Protection of works should be allowed.

The judge has only shown he has probably never created anything new, interesting and highly original in his life.

Big Pharma might take years to develop a drug etc and then want to reap the rewards of it - but just because a good idea can come a long in a heartbeat - it doesn't mean that the person with the idea should have any less chance to reap the same awards.

These last few weeks of patent news have been incredible to watch - as a creative across range of media and industries I can tell you that when someone copies your ideas, steals your original work or tries to piggy back off things you have created - it only serves to devalue your original work, to water it down - you have less and less chance of reaping any sort of reward because you have nothing to be unique about and there is always someone willing to rip you off and do it virtually for free.

Protection of original work and ideas is necessary.

Nobody is saying that original work should not be protected.

The problem is that the patent system is heavily abused.

Software is different from pharmaceuticals and machines. If you come up with a great algorithm to perform a search in a certain data structure, that's great. Patent it. But you shouldn't be able to patent completely generic ideas like "slide to unlock".

TsunamiTheClown · Jul 5, 2012

leman said:
Very good post.
...
That is my proposal, more or less: make products (or algorithm which define the products) protectable. But more general ideas, which can be applied in a whole range of products of different kinds, should not be patentable.

This sounds like a reasonable suggestion. The "concrete application" of an idea is patentable, not merely the idea itself. Am i reading you correctly? If so i agree with this in theory.

semitry · Jul 5, 2012

I Am Designer said:
I disagree with the judge wholeheartedly.

Protection of works should be allowed.

The judge has only shown he has probably never created anything new, interesting and highly original in his life.

Big Pharma might take years to develop a drug etc and then want to reap the rewards of it - but just because a good idea can come a long in a heartbeat - it doesn't mean that the person with the idea should have any less chance to reap the same awards.

These last few weeks of patent news have been incredible to watch - as a creative across range of media and industries I can tell you that when someone copies your ideas, steals your original work or tries to piggy back off things you have created - it only serves to devalue your original work, to water it down - you have less and less chance of reaping any sort of reward because you have nothing to be unique about and there is always someone willing to rip you off and do it virtually for free.

Protection of original work and ideas is necessary.

You can't patent all "Drugs to cure cancer" or all "designs of an apple with a bite out of it", but you can patent all implementations of "slide to unlock" or "pinch to zooms"? If I can say it in a few sentences and ONE person can write the code needed to do it in a few days, I don't think it should be patentable.

Bezetos · Jul 5, 2012

TsunamiTheClown said:
Then go GNU. And only develop free, open source software. But some people like to eat.

That's not the only alternative to software patents, so don't ridicule my point of view.

Over The Hill · Jul 5, 2012

NAG said:
Because that works great for the app store review process. They reject tons of bad apps, and we have absolutely no bad or copy cat apps in the store!

The problem stands, you can't just say the system is fine and they just need to stop approving them in such volume. The volume is a product of the system.

This. We need to limit the patents to the more specific applications (this also applies to biotech).

Ok, what are you suggesting?

Bezetos · Jul 5, 2012

semitry said:
You can't patent all "Drugs to cure cancer" or all "designs of an apple with a bite out of it", but you can patent all implementations of "slide to unlock" or "pinch to zooms"? If I can say it in a few sentences and ONE person can write the code needed to do it in a few days, I don't think it should be patentable.

This.

Patent a solution, not the problem.

Chupa Chupa · Jul 5, 2012

But the bottom line here is he is a federal judge, not a member of congress. It's not his job to determine the need for s/w patents. He should run for House or Senate if he feels passionate about reforming IP laws. I have tremendous respect for him as a jurist but his policy opinion gives the feeling he is prepared to legislate from the bench, which is a grosser offense, and more damaging to the country, than any abuse of current IP laws.

honjoe · Jul 5, 2012

I agree with the judge, it seems foolish to hold patents for software (since so many person can come up with the same idea at the same time) in the same standings as pharmaceuticals which sometimes takes over a billion dollars to research an effective drug. I'm not saying ideas shouldn't be patented, but just be held to a different standard.

NAG · Jul 5, 2012

semitry said:
You can't patent all "Drugs to cure cancer" or all "designs of an apple with a bite out of it", but you can patent all implementations of "slide to unlock" or "pinch to zooms"? If I can say it in a few sentences and ONE person can write the code needed to do it in a few days, I don't think it should be patentable.

Actually, a gene connected to breast cancer was patented with a broad scope (BRCA1 and 2).

True, overly broad patents is more of a software industry issue but it is a problem with the patent system in general.

Over The Hill said:
Ok, what are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting I would like to know why you simultaneously think the patent system is fine yet you admit that the system currently approves too many patents.

BaldiMac · Jul 5, 2012

NAG said:
Yet the small companies are not submitting anywhere close to the number of patents a few big ones are. Yes, some small companies are patenting but most aren't.

By what metric? Seems pretty logical that large companies would hold more patents than small companies, and that large companies would have more resources to protect those patents through litigation.

(if you run the costs, patenting does not come out winning in a cost benefit analysis for small, couple people shops...which is what a lot of app devs are)

I have no idea why patenting a valuable innovation wouldn't win a cost benefit analysis. Unless the innovation is worth less than the few thousand dollars it takes to research and file a patent application.

And the article further illustrates this. Those small companies probably never used those patents. Yet, the instant they fail and have their assets sold the patents are suddenly found to have many people infringing on them.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the inventor doesn't feel the need to enforce their patent, that isn't a problem with the system to me.

The system is broken. I'm not saying we should completely get rid of them but as it stands I believe leaving the current system will only hurt us.

Absolutely. I'm just not sure that your large vs small company argument is one of the main symptoms.

MCP-511 · Jul 5, 2012

At least someone is putting more thought into the process. I wish they would also address the patent holders who never bring a product to market, but sit and wait for someone to infringe it. I think they need a use it or lose it clause. Some sort of limited time frame, if you don't bring the idea to market and actually sell a product based on the patent in question, then the patent expires. Perhaps that idea should be limited to software as well. Also becomes a tricky issue to i guess.

KnightWRX · Jul 5, 2012

I Am Designer said:
I disagree with the judge wholeheartedly.

Protection of works should be allowed.

And the judge isn't saying it shouldn't be allowed, just that patents might not be the best way to do it for the industry at large.

Copyright protects your works in the software world.

----------

PeterQVenkman said:
Do you really feel that innovation has been helped by having every tiny little thing patented and everyone and their mom being sued - often times unjustly?

In the software industry, the patent system has become a nothing more than a weapon for the wealthy and powerful to threaten and obliterate smaller, more innovative, and more nimble up and coming competitors.

It's no longer about protecting innovation. It's about stifling competition.

Imagine if IBM had patented their BIOS. What would the PC landscape look like now ?

Mackan · Jul 5, 2012

Sadly, Apple will just put this judge on do-not-like list, and move on.

KnightWRX · Jul 5, 2012

Over The Hill said:
Its very easy to see it from the other side. It can be just as hard to invovate without software patents.

How so ? Patents aren't needed for innovation, they are filed for post-innovation. You need to think up of an idea and implement a certain method before you can patent it.

The patent is the last step.

TsunamiTheClown · Jul 5, 2012

Bezetos said:
This.

Patent a solution, not the problem.

Totally agree.

throttlemeister · Jul 5, 2012

Chupa Chupa said:
But the bottom line here is he is a federal judge, not a member of congress. It's not his job to determine the need for s/w patents. He should run for House or Senate if he feels passionate about reforming IP laws. I have tremendous respect for him as a jurist but his policy opinion gives the feeling he is prepared to legislate from the bench, which is a grosser offense, and more damaging to the country, than any abuse of current IP laws.

So, what you are saying is, a federal judge doesn't have freedom of speech? The man is being interviewed and asked about his opinion. Is he not allowed to give it? It's not like he is motivating a ruling.

AppleGuesser · Jul 5, 2012

KnightWRX said:
Imagine if IBM had patented their BIOS. What would the PC landscape look like now ?

Very true. The whole situation seems so childish. On one hand I understand that people want to protect what they invent, i get that. But at the same time I feel this patent wars are eventually going to hurt the industry even more. The whole situation has a lot of issues. Sad really. PC makers in the 80's could have done something similar to this and didn't (correct me if im wrong here). They should take a cue from that.

KnightWRX · Jul 5, 2012

leman said:
That is my proposal, more or less: make products (or algorithm which define the products) protectable.

They already are through copyright. Obfuscating variable names does not work to circumvent it.

NAG · Jul 5, 2012

BaldiMac said:
Absolutely. I'm just not sure that your large vs small company argument is one of the main symptoms.

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree as far as what is a main symptom. I see it as main because of situations such as a big company infringing on a small company patent can result in the big company destroying the small one (quite a few ways) just due to the size of their bank account. In other words, the patent system does not sufficiently protect small companies from big ones (either from patent trolls or from big companies infringing on the small companies' patents).

KnightWRX · Jul 5, 2012

TsunamiTheClown said:
Then go GNU. And only develop free, open source software. But some people like to eat.

How does open source prevent one from eating ? Just go down to the fridge between 2 compiles and grab a bite.

Winni · Jul 5, 2012

TsunamiTheClown said:
Then go GNU. And only develop free, open source software. But some people like to eat.

Leave the discussion to people who actually write code. The GPL only works because of copyright laws, but even Open Source software can be torpedoed with patents. But you could also patent Open Source software and then sue others who build upon your work. That's what Oracle tried with Java.

I yet have to meet the first software developer who supports software patents. There must be a reason for that. Software patents are about as stupid as patents for mathematical equations or human language would be. All actual developers agree on this, only managers and lawyers say otherwise. Guess why.

Germany and most other countries get along very well without software patents. Actually, the entire world developed very well for thousands of years without patents. How could this happen?

igot2n0 · Jul 5, 2012

Big Pharma - Bad Example

Big Pharma is a bad example. They frequently patent medicines that were developed using tax dollars. If they accept tax dollars for the research I think they should not be able to patent that medication.

Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G5

macrumors newbie

macrumors 68030

macrumors G3

macrumors member

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 65816

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 68030

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 68040

macrumors newbie

Our Staff