Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Again, it is disingenuous to argue the validity of a patent by it's title.

UK and Dutch judges didn't argued the validity of the patent by its title

[jamesnajera]

Also, Neonode is now looking to do a friendly license for there patent. If friendly is cheap, that is what I think should be done. I do not know if that is FRAND, but that is probably how software patents should work.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Oletros

UK and Dutch judges didn't argued the validity of the patent by its title

No, they didn't. I agree with them based on prior art from the Neonode and the obviousness of adding an unlock image to illustrate the correct motion. I don't think there was anything else particularly unique about the remainder of the claims, but I don't understand what many of them were getting at. But KnightWRX continues to argue it's validity based on its title.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by jamesnajera

Also, Neonode is now looking to do a friendly license for there patent. If friendly is cheap, that is what I think should be done. I do not know if that is FRAND, but that is probably how software patents should work.

You do not know what FRAND is period. FRAND is not really a concept that applies to patents per se. A patent is said to be FRAND when it is submitted to a standards body for incorporation into an actual technical standard. Companies that submit their patented technologies for standardisation then agree not to discriminate or charge unfair and unreasonable tariffs for their patents, preventing other players from implementing the standard.

UI gestures and other such software patents that are not essential to an industry standard do not fall under such agreement because they aren't part of industry standards pushed by the likes of the IETF or ANSI or ISO standard bodies.

Now, though, why should software patents even be valid ? Software already has protection under copyright and trademark, something physical inventions often lack. Why should software also have patents to protect them ? Patents prevent other players often without their knowledge, from bettering software. It holds us back by preventing the "building on the shoulders of giants" that helps the industry grow at the fast pace it does.

Software takes a lot of time and ressources to implement. You can't just clone software out of thin air easily just because suddenly there are no software patents. It will take you a lot of money, time and ressources to do. While you're at it, you might also discover better ways of performing the method or implementing the idea, bettering the whole of the technology industry.

I don't understand what people feel patents adds to copyright and trademarks.

And Baldi, stop talking about me, you're on my ignore list because you never understand my posts, as again you prove by saying I'm talking about the Slide-to-unlock by its title. I'm not. Get over it, you failed to understand me yet again and that is why you're ignored.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

And Baldi, stop talking about me, you're on my ignore list because you never understand my posts, as again you prove by saying I'm talking about the Slide-to-unlock by its title. I'm not. Get over it, you failed to understand me yet again and that is why you're ignored.

The fact that you put me on your ignore list is not my problem. (And understanding your posts in not why you claimed to add me to it.)

If you would like to have a discussion about my claim, feel free to respond to my post.

[samcraig]

This just in...

Judge Dismisses Apple Lawsuit against Motorola over FRAND

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/05/j...frand-patents/