Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:38 AM   #101
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sishaw View Post
There are a lot of people that think software code would be adequately protected by some sort of copyright rather than patent.
Software already is protected by copyright, and that's what we all relied on back in the early days.

Ideas themselves were free to copy if you were good enough to code it.

Btw, one interesting History of Software Patents here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
However, most things I just figure out as problems come up. And so do many other people. The fact that a solution to a problem might be found in a patent doesn't help me at all, ...
This needs to be emphasized to the non-developers around here, some of whom incredibly seem to believe that somehow developers have the time to search patent applications to see if their idea on how to solve a problem infringes on anyone. Developers often solve problems a dozen times a day.

Quote:
Suggestion: Ask the developer who infringed on the software patent under oath whether he has seen, read and understood the patent before infringing or not, and if not, how long it took him to re-invent the patented invention. And take that to decide whether it's obvious or not.
I've posted a similar idea: the USPTO should keep a dozen experienced developers on tap. When a new application comes in, give them the problem that the patent is supposed to solve... and see if anyone comes up with the same solution. If so, then it's obvious to someone actually skilled in the art... not just an examiner who hasn't done development in years, if ever.
kdarling is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:40 AM   #102
applesith
macrumors 68000
 
applesith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Ok, but software patents do exist and apple has filed them. Deciding that software shouldnt have patents doesnt address the case in his court.
applesith is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:40 AM   #103
FakeWozniak
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
No one is talking about deregulating software. Software already benefits from protection through Copyright. No one can copy your software. Patents don't cover your actual software, but the ideas and methods behind it. That is what is hurting the consumer and the industry in general. Software patents shouldn't be granted, software should be protected by copyright only.
So if I developed the game Pac-Man and spent money marketing it until it was popular, then you make a copy of the game but didn't use my source code, pray tell how I am protected? The consumer gets a cheaper version of the game from you because you didn't have the development costs that I did.

How am I protected?

Without protection, I'd just say ****** it and leave the game business, then no more innovation from me and you can keep spinning off iterations of your mediocre games and then the industry languishes and the consumers suffer.
FakeWozniak is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:41 AM   #104
djphat2000
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezetos View Post
Exactly.

Let's translate what happens in the area of software patents to more conventional patents.

Let's say I come up with an idea of a flying car powered by water - quite a generic idea. I can patent that idea. Now, I don't even have to construct that car, I just own the (software) patent. But let's say I build the flying car, it's quite slow, only hovers 2 feet above the ground, but kinda works. Then company X builds another car that floats 2.3 feet above the ground. It doesn't matter how they've done it, but I can sue them because they have infringed my patent (idea). Should I be allowed to sue them? Isn't this stopping innovation?
Well, I would start by saying that I think you would be pissed if someone did that to you. Again, that's just my assumption. But, if you came up with that awesome idea, and actually made it work to boot. While some other company comes up after you and does the same thing, but improves on it. You should have every right to sue (if you so choose too).

Now, I also think your saying that if the idea you came up with is pretty "Generic" in nature, but somehow you were able to get it patented anyway. If that should have been the case, well then IDK. You get a patent because you think your idea is great or worth protecting so that you can develop it further (or at least first), before someone else comes along and possibly steals, copies, clones, or patents it before you do.

Its not stopping innovation, its stopping theft. Innovation comes from doing things differently. Finding another way, developing something new. And even from old ideas that maybe no one could ever get to work before, but someone figured it out. Patents are just supposed to protect those that do it first (or get to the patent office first!). It doesn't stop the next person from trying to get something done in another way. Slide to unlock is a very good idea. But, one could use like a "toggle to unlock" or "voice to unlock", or whatever else for that matter. It's questionable if that should be patented in the first place. But, now that its kind of the way to do it. Maybe it should be allowed to be patented?.. I'll leave that for the courts.

Maybe there could be a way to apply for a patent. If nothing matches it, you get the approval. If someone else applies for a patent on a similar idea. But, somehow gets approval. When it goes to court, it can be forced into some basic FRAND license deal between the 2 companies. Because both companies applied and got approval. At least they did there jobs in making sure they were the only ones to have approval. Honest mistake, not there faults. But, if a company does something with either full knowledge that it already exists, and they do it anyway (without checking first). They get to pay a higher penalty (royalties), that get determined by the courts. For as long as they continue to use that method.

IDK, just throwing something out there.
djphat2000 is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:41 AM   #105
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Pretty sure everyone is copying Palm on that at this point. Hell....Apple hired the guy that helped develop the notification module in WebOS prior to iOS 5.
You could argue that everyone copied an early version of Windows Mobile for slide to unlock too then
rmwebs is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:43 AM   #106
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgrove View Post
Although I agree with this judge, I wonder how it's his business to question these matters. He's there to rule fairly according to law, not question the system in place, in which software patents are part of at least in the USA.
The judiciary branch is there to interpret the law, not enforce it.
kas23 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:45 AM   #107
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeWozniak View Post
So if I developed the game Pac-Man and spent money marketing it until it was popular, then you make a copy of the game but didn't use my source code, pray tell how I am protected? The consumer gets a cheaper version of the game from you because you didn't have the development costs that I did.

How am I protected?

Without protection, I'd just say ****** it and leave the game business, then no more innovation from me and you can keep spinning off iterations of your mediocre games and then the industry languishes and the consumers suffer.
The same way that games, movies or books are protected now?

Copyright
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:45 AM   #108
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
This "judge" should have recused himself a long time ago if he's going to put out these kinds of views.

If there were no software patents the only thing left on the electronic shelve would be the most alluring cheerios box regardless of the nutritional value , taste or look of the food inside.
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 48
Peace is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:45 AM   #109
gixxerfool
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMNB1tch View Post
for those thinking

deregulate software sure...

patents are evil only big pharma can have them

no one dies if software messes up

unless your software is running;

trafficlights
bank transfers
airplane autopilots
missile defense systems
lazer satellites
drones flying over the usa
machines that go Ping!
Quoted for Monty Python. Well played.
__________________
Mac Mini 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo120G iPod Classic16G iPhone 3GS Jailbroken 4.3.3 (now an "iPod touch")64G iPhone 5 Verizon in whiteApple TV (3rd Gen)
gixxerfool is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:46 AM   #110
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
Clearly there's a balance. The problem is Apple shouldn't have to fight off an iOS equivalent of a Hackintosh.
Copyright is what prevents that. In Apple vs Psystar is proof enough of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
A company should not be able to release an OS called eOS
eOS would probably fall under trademark law. Though good luck protecting that, since it's just a letter in front of the acronym for Operating System. Maybe you're suggesting Apple should sue IBM over z/OS ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
and have all the same features.
Apple sure seems in a rush to catch up to Android's feature list. A list of features is just that, a list of features. Why do you feel it should be unique to a vendor ? Because Ford lists MP3 radios in their cars, Honda shouldn't be allowed to have MP3 radios now ?
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:49 AM   #111
FakeWozniak
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Over The Hill View Post
It’s very easy to see it from the other side. It can be just as hard to invovate without software patents.

The problem is not the patent system, but some patents that are granted can be thought of as common sense, logical thing to do.

If patent office start doing a better job when issueing patents i don’t see a problem with having software patents, because some things are actually worth a patent. Not the „i did it first“ patent where almost anyone can come up with the same idea in the logical thought process.
I agree with you. Patents are supposed to be novel, which would keep the common sense ideas from being patented. It's the test for novelty that needs to be improved/enforced better.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
The same way that games, movies or books are protected now?

Copyright
No, no, no.

Copyright does not protect look and feel, Oletros. It doesn't even protect APIs, as we see in the Oracle v. Google case. It has to be source code.

There is NO protection save maybe trade dress or registered trade mark.
FakeWozniak is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:51 AM   #112
biggreydog
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
There are software patents and then there are proposed standards. I find it interesting when Apple or another company is willing to license its technology for free in order to create a universal standard. Standards are good for the consumer. I'm still ticked at MS for taking what they could from 100% pure java and going their own route, creating incompatibilities along the way.
biggreydog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:52 AM   #113
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeWozniak View Post
Copyright does not protect look and feel, Oletros. It doesn't even protect APIs, as we see in the Oracle v. Google case. It has to be source code.

There is NO protection save maybe trade dress or registered trade mark.
Look and feel for software? Look and feel has to be protected with design patents

And API's doesn't have to be protected, is their implementation (source code) the thing that has to be protected, copyright
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:53 AM   #114
SactoGuy18
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
Send a message via Yahoo to SactoGuy18
I think Judge Posner has seriously considered the famous US v. United Shoe Machinery Company case in his opinion on software patents because he's seen Apple use its patents to try to eliminate competition in a predatory fashion like what United Shoe tried to do with its patents on shoemaking machines.

This is, by definition, abusing the law to eliminate competitors to create a monopoly or near-monopoly.
__________________
3G iPod nano (8 GB teal blue case), 7G iPod nano (16 GB blue case), 4G iPod touch (32 GB), iPad Air "Silver" (32 GB)
SactoGuy18 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:53 AM   #115
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by applesith View Post
Ok, but software patents do exist and apple has filed them. Deciding that software shouldnt have patents doesnt address the case in his court.
He did address the case in his court though in how it relates to current law, last week. He's now just giving his opinion on patents in general, as he's allowed to do as a citizen of the United States.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:54 AM   #116
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoGuy18 View Post
I think Judge Posner has seriously considered the famous US v. United Shoe Machinery Company case in his opinion on software patents because he's seen Apple use its patents to try to eliminate competition in a predatory fashion like what United Shoe tried to do with its patents on shoemaking machines.

This is, by definition, abusing the law to eliminate competitors to create a monopoly or near-monopoly.
You do know he threw out Motorola stuff too right ?
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 48
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:54 AM   #117
bedifferent
macrumors Demi-God
 
bedifferent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NY
Finally, someone who seems to understand. While some may have legal legitimacy, these patent/IP lawsuits are out of control. It's tantamount to a pissing contest. In the end, the consumer is losing the most. We shouldn't be so ready to justify these suits by Apple, or any company, just because we may like their products. Objectivity is crucial in these matters.
bedifferent is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:54 AM   #118
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
This "judge" should have recused himself a long time ago if he's going to put out these kinds of views.

If there were no software patents the only thing left on the electronic shelve would be the most alluring cheerios box regardless of the nutritional value , taste or look of the food inside.
I don't quite buy patents drive innovation. It's the consumers checkbook that drive innovation. Look at the cellphone industry pre-iPhone. It was stagnant, no innovation. But there were still plenty of patents produced during this period. So, we had plenty of patents with zero innovation.

Apple comes around and makes an innovative phone. One that is fantastic and the consumers take notice and buy, buy, buy. Do you really think Apple would have put out a piece of crap without the ability to patent it? If they did, no one would have bought one and they wouldn't have 98 billion in the bank. Clearly they innovated a great phone purely for the monetary reward.
kas23 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:54 AM   #119
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
The same way that games, movies or books are protected now?

Copyright
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think the question was, "How is it protected by copyright?" What elements are protected?
BaldiMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:57 AM   #120
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeWozniak View Post
So if I developed the game Pac-Man and spent money marketing it until it was popular, then you make a copy of the game but didn't use my source code, pray tell how I am protected?
Trademark. Patenting a game ? I've never heard of such a ridiculous concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeWozniak View Post
The consumer gets a cheaper version of the game from you because you didn't have the development costs that I did.
Uh ? The hard part of making a game is not coming up with the concept itself, but rather code the game engine, draw up the graphics, make the sounds, all things protected under copyright/trademark law. That's why no one ever patents game ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeWozniak View Post
How am I protected?
Trademark
Copyright.

Simple uh ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeWozniak View Post
Without protection, I'd just say ****** it and leave the game business, then no more innovation from me and you can keep spinning off iterations of your mediocre games and then the industry languishes and the consumers suffer.
I don't think the game industry would miss someon that has no idea what makes a video game hard to make and that patents aren't required to protect those parts.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:57 AM   #121
AustinIllini
macrumors Demi-God
 
AustinIllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Copyright is what prevents that. In Apple vs Psystar is proof enough of that.
Good point, but what if the OS is built from the ground but has all the same functions?


Quote:
eOS would probably fall under trademark law. Though good luck protecting that, since it's just a letter in front of the acronym for Operating System. Maybe you're suggesting Apple should sue IBM over z/OS ?
Again, I'm more referring to something that is meant to be a blatant knockoff. It happens in every other industry.


Quote:
Apple sure seems in a rush to catch up to Android's feature list. A list of features is just that, a list of features. Why do you feel it should be unique to a vendor ? Because Ford lists MP3 radios in their cars, Honda shouldn't be allowed to have MP3 radios now ?
Ford didn't develop .mp3 technology and neither did Honda. They bought the product from a third party vendor. No radio maker would seriously create an exclusive license. Terrible example.
__________________
Victory ILLINOIS Varsity
#teamshield
AustinIllini is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 11:58 AM   #122
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by kas23 View Post
I don't quite buy patents drive innovation. It's the consumers checkbook that drive innovation. Look at the cellphone industry pre-iPhone. It was stagnant, no innovation. But there were still plenty of patents produced during this period. So, we had plenty of patents with zero innovation.

Apple comes around and makes an innovative phone. One that is fantastic and the consumers take notice and buy, buy, buy. Do you really think Apple would have put out a piece of crap without the ability to patent it? If they did, no one would have bought one and they wouldn't have 98 billion in the bank. Clearly they innovated a great phone purely for the monetary reward.
I wasn't implying patents drive innovation . I was saying innovation without some kind of protection leads to droves of products that are the same.
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 48
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 12:00 PM   #123
w00master
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Funny how Coca-cola cannot patent it's recipe for Coca-cola. Funny.

Oh that's right, it's because you cannot patent a food recipe.

Amazing how Coca-cola is able to survive without food recipe patents.


Software patents are unnecessary and need to go away. Just like you cannot patent a food recipe, you shouldn't be able to patent software.

W00master
w00master is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 12:00 PM   #124
FakeWozniak
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilstrider View Post
Apple lost a patent battle with HTC in london yesterday, this is to quote from what the judge said........

"It would of been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that apple later used."
The judge/magistrate is a tool, IMO. Mobile device companies were putting physical slide switches on phones for a long time. It might be obvious after Apple's implementation, but before 2007 it was a physical switch. Apple's implementation was novel and actually was accepted by the IPO in the UK. Good thing that judge doesn't work in the IPO. Actually, would be better if he was on the dole. He sorta is now, but higher pay.
FakeWozniak is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2012, 12:01 PM   #125
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsunamiTheClown View Post
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.
That's the way the patent system is supposed to work, and the way it was originally intended. You can't patent the results, only the process.

Like Siri vs. Google Now. The specific code and the implementation used to make Siri possible are patentable, but the concept of talking to a rudimentary AI on your cellphone and having it respond with results isn't.

Unfortunately, computer code tends to be very specific, and sometimes there's only one way to do a certain thing. So in the case of software patents, a company can hold the rights to the end results, which can and does stifle innovation.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC