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 Oct 8, 2012, 01:29 PM   #26
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
An interesting argument can be made that these big companies that deal with patent suits are, indeed, stifling innovation - even their own. How so? As stated in the article - which would need to be verified - these companies spend more money on the lawsuits than on R&D. Tells you something...

I think patents should regress back to the day when you had to actually demo the product/service/etc to obtain a patent vs just submitting a sketch and description.
samcraig is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:31 PM   #27
kd5jos
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver, CO
What this proves...

What this proves is that we need more powerful and capable 3-d printers. Patents protect a company from another company profiting by "stealing" innovation. However, if you use an innovation to build something you use (and don't sell it) there is no protection in place. So, if I had a 3-d printer that could handle the job, I could build myself an iPhone, and there is nothing that Apple could do about it (as long as I don't sell it).

I agree we need patent reform, but while we don't have it, all this BS will just serve to push 3-d printing innovation forward.

It'll be several years yet, but it will come.

And then what?
__________________
[15" MBP 9,1, 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 750 GB Momentus XT] [Mac Mini Server, 2.53 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 1 1TB HD, 1 2 TB HD] [AirPort Extreme]
kd5jos is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:31 PM   #28
ECUpirate44
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by jontech View Post
You being Outperforming then another Samsung comes along....


How do you protect innovation?


We tend to forget that we compete in a world market and every locality has different rules.
I might be alone on this, but I think thats part of the problem. Apple's patent lawsuit with Samsung is completely ridiculous. Look at the patents Apple claims Samsung infringed on, I don't think Apple should have been given patents with such a broad description.
ECUpirate44 is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:32 PM   #29
Radio
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California
Miss those days when companies worked together
Radio is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:36 PM   #30
pandamonia
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Apple patents the things that others own and uses its money and influence to win court cases they dont deserve to even have heard in court.

The US patent system is for sale just like the presidency
pandamonia is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:36 PM   #31
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd5jos View Post
What this proves is that we need more powerful and capable 3-d printers. Patents protect a company from another company profiting by "stealing" innovation. However, if you use an innovation to build something you use (and don't sell it) there is no protection in place. So, if I had a 3-d printer that could handle the job, I could build myself an iPhone, and there is nothing that Apple could do about it (as long as I don't sell it).

I agree we need patent reform, but while we don't have it, all this BS will just serve to push 3-d printing innovation forward.

It'll be several years yet, but it will come.

And then what?
3d printers that could make all the technology associated with an iphone that is affordable for the average household is at least half a century away, and that's being extremely generous. You have fun with your iphone 5 then.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:37 PM   #32
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio View Post
Miss those days when companies worked together
What days were those??

With the exception of (illegal) collusion between companies with the purpose of killing another company, or controlling the market... when was it that companies "worked together" here?
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:38 PM   #33
bryanescuela
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
So

Apple = Patent Troll
bryanescuela is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:39 PM   #34
euphlyusUNO
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
"..... and boy have we patented it!"
euphlyusUNO is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:40 PM   #35
Swift
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
The problem with no patents

The story in the Times begins with a sad story about a smallish developer who was had patents but couldn't enforce them in time because of the money their opponent, Nuance, spent to keep their patents up in the air. That's a place where we need court reform, so that access to protection is not unequal. What a thought. It would be great to do the same thing with accused criminals, too. Courts, in fact, are underfunded so that they don't give speedy justice for all.

But the bigger problem is a LARGE company like Samsung and Google, who have no regard for patent laws, or intellectual property in general. They are supported by the tech teeny bops, who see no reason for any software patents at all. Samsung makes nice pieces of tech, but first they made Blackberry knockoffs, and then they made Apple knockoffs. And Google fan's talking point is that "Google was at work on Android two years before the iPhone came out!" (Yeah, but it looked like a Blackberry, see?) Or "The iPhone wasn't first! The Palm Pilot was just the same!" (And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.)

I love the idea of open source, though, since it waives patent protection it is not possible that anyone will make any money on what they do. The open source movement is made up of people who make real living elsewhere, for the most part. And that's the way it always will be. The main Linux distribution exists because a billionaire decided to put money into it as a cause. I have no quarrel with that, but it will never be the mainstream.

A patent is on a method. Software patents were found viable by the Supreme Court, because they are a method of operation. This is the way that the writers of the Constitution chose to protect private business, in distinction to the British method: if the King declares the East India Company has a monopoly on tea, and the company gives a really nice cash present to the royal in question, then there was a monopoly that lasted hundreds of years. In contrast, we file a patent, the government accepts it, and you have legal protection for a limited time. Patents can be invalidated by a court, or upheld.

Google has a very troubling and incorrect reading of the patent laws. They are a huge company that doesn't seem to have any regard for the laws of the land in this regard. They scan millions of books; good. But they take no care of the rights of the various authors, so they get hit by a lawsuit and whine. They want a music player, but they don't get the licensing for such a thing, and so all you can do is store your own music with them. They start up Google TV, and then are surprised that all the "free tv" that is on the web gets shut down to their machine.

I think we should do something about trolls; those who buy up patents with no intent to use them as anything but a money farm. I would say that a patent can be bought, but that the new owner has to make something within three years that uses that patent, and its ownership only starts when it brings a product to market.
Swift is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:40 PM   #36
tdtran1025
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Patent fees are higher than costs of R&D? There will be consequences of this, though the result might be unpredictable.
tdtran1025 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:40 PM   #37
MH01
macrumors 68030
 
MH01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
This should bring smiles to the lawyers. They are going to be the biggest winners in all this.
MH01 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:44 PM   #38
FieldingMellish
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
What days were those??

With the exception of (illegal) collusion between companies with the purpose of killing another company, or controlling the market... when was it that companies "worked together" here?
Yes, what days were those? Brings me back to the days of Bill Gates, a lawyer's progeny, and Gate's discussions with IBM, who opted to wield the hardware portion of their planned association.


BIG mistake.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post
The story in the Times begins with a sad story about a smallish developer who was had patents but couldn't enforce them in time because of the money their opponent, Nuance, spent to keep their patents up in the air. That's a place where we need court reform, so that access to protection is not unequal. What a thought. It would be great to do the same thing with accused criminals, too. Courts, in fact, are underfunded so that they don't give speedy justice for all.

But the bigger problem is a LARGE company like Samsung and Google, who have no regard for patent laws, or intellectual property in general. They are supported by the tech teeny bops, who see no reason for any software patents at all. Samsung makes nice pieces of tech, but first they made Blackberry knockoffs, and then they made Apple knockoffs. And Google fan's talking point is that "Google was at work on Android two years before the iPhone came out!" (Yeah, but it looked like a Blackberry, see?) Or "The iPhone wasn't first! The Palm Pilot was just the same!" (And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.)

I love the idea of open source, though, since it waives patent protection it is not possible that anyone will make any money on what they do. The open source movement is made up of people who make real living elsewhere, for the most part. And that's the way it always will be. The main Linux distribution exists because a billionaire decided to put money into it as a cause. I have no quarrel with that, but it will never be the mainstream.

A patent is on a method. Software patents were found viable by the Supreme Court, because they are a method of operation. This is the way that the writers of the Constitution chose to protect private business, in distinction to the British method: if the King declares the East India Company has a monopoly on tea, and the company gives a really nice cash present to the royal in question, then there was a monopoly that lasted hundreds of years. In contrast, we file a patent, the government accepts it, and you have legal protection for a limited time. Patents can be invalidated by a court, or upheld.

Google has a very troubling and incorrect reading of the patent laws. They are a huge company that doesn't seem to have any regard for the laws of the land in this regard. They scan millions of books; good. But they take no care of the rights of the various authors, so they get hit by a lawsuit and whine. They want a music player, but they don't get the licensing for such a thing, and so all you can do is store your own music with them. They start up Google TV, and then are surprised that all the "free tv" that is on the web gets shut down to their machine.

I think we should do something about trolls; those who buy up patents with no intent to use them as anything but a money farm. I would say that a patent can be bought, but that the new owner has to make something within three years that uses that patent, and its ownership only starts when it brings a product to market.

Agreed on those who are sufficiently large and who disregard patent law. They play catch me if you can and whomever has the deepest pockets wins.
FieldingMellish is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:45 PM   #39
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post
But the bigger problem is a LARGE company like Samsung and Google, who have no regard for patent laws, or intellectual property in general. They are supported by the tech teeny bops, who see no reason for any software patents at all. Samsung makes nice pieces of tech, but first they made Blackberry knockoffs, and then they made Apple knockoffs. And Google fan's talking point is that "Google was at work on Android two years before the iPhone came out!" (Yeah, but it looked like a Blackberry, see?) Or "The iPhone wasn't first! The Palm Pilot was just the same!" (And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.)
Samsung has far more patents than Apple does.

As for your history of Android - it's pretty inaccurate. But posted in this forum - that's not surprising given the amount of inaccurate information you're probably just spewing from "memory" vs fact.
samcraig is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:45 PM   #40
Bafflefish
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrmjenkins View Post
You're misreading what he's stating. He's allowing the possibility they may change their decision to bring to market later, but don't want to find themselves in the position where they do to decide to bring it to market and they didn't file those patents.
No where in Jobs' original quote is your bolded statement present. The bolded statement is simply a personal interpretation of what Jobs said, such that Tones wasn't "misreading" anything given that Jobs very much did say "even if we never build it, which implies they would patent an idea and then sit on (since that's where the "never build part" comes in).

The defensive component is ambiguous, so it could be potentially that it's in case they change their mind, or it could be used to simply prevent others from using that idea, or any other number of reasons. Ultimately though, there's no way to read into it that they were using it for the purpose you prescribed.
__________________
13" MBP SB | 20" Intel iMac | PowerMac G5 Dual 2.7 | PowerMac G4 867 | i5 2500K PC
Bafflefish is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:51 PM   #41
jctevere
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Instead of trying to "revamp" the patent system. I think the larger issue is to revamp the law system. We need to switch to a "loser pays" system. There is no reason not to. Besides for the fact that lawyers won't make their ridiculous salaries... Damn lobbyists.
jctevere is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:53 PM   #42
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bafflefish View Post
No where in Jobs' original quote is your bolded statement present. The bolded statement is simply a personal interpretation of what Jobs said, such that Tones wasn't "misreading" anything given that Jobs very much did say "even if we never build it, which implies they would patent an idea and then sit on (since that's where the "never build part" comes in).
Which was an implied possibility in my statement.

Quote:
The defensive component is ambiguous, so it could be potentially that it's in case they change their mind, or it could be used to simply prevent others from using that idea, or any other number of reasons. Ultimately though, there's no way to read into it that they were using it for the purpose you prescribed.
Which I challenge anyone to provide a realistic scenario in which that would happen. Patent trolls have a very specific mode of operation which you do not see at all in legitimate consumer electronics companies. I cannot think of a single case in which a consumer electronics companies with actual products has sued over a patent that they either used to use and no longer do, or never did.

People are out to make apple the bully when they are just as guilty as the other parties involved. HTC, Samsung, Motorola etc. have all launched their own suits against Apple. In fact, Nokia started the sue-fest by suing Apple back in 2008.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:58 PM   #43
Swift
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Samsung has far more patents than Apple does.

As for your history of Android - it's pretty inaccurate. But posted in this forum - that's not surprising given the amount of inaccurate information you're probably just spewing from "memory" vs fact.
So give us what you think of the facts. If you were there, I'll take it seriously.

Regarding Samsung, one of the most damning pieces of evidence was the evolution of their phones over the years. The jury thought it was damning.

And i distinctly remember the prototype Android before the iPhone: it sure looked like a Blackberry. I guess that Eric was serving on the board, passing info to the Google board, and when Apple succeeded their iPhone project went live. And Eric stayed on the board.
Swift is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 01:58 PM   #44
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
 
GFLPraxis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
...good.

I don't know how good of a job I can do at explaining this, but I'm going to try.


When you are playing a competitive game, everyone should try to abuse the game as much as possible. If the game is flawed, the problems will become evident. If the game is not flawed, someone will find a counter for the abuse, and the original abuser will find a counter for the counter, and the opponent will counter that, and then the abuser can try to sneak the original tactic back in, and so on and so forth and the game will grow in depth.

Once it's discovered that the game is flawed, then you need to sit down and either play a different game, or find a ruleset that maintains those flaws. But you don't want to do that until the issues presented are clearly layed out.

(Highly recommend reading David Sirlin's book, "Playing To Win", on competitive gaming, btw.)

If everyone tries to play "nice" and doesn't abuse a clear abuse avenue, one of two things happen; either the game fails to grow in depth and just becomes a poor game because players are refusing to grow in every way they can find, *or*, the flaw is not demonstrated and the players continue to play with their homemade gentleman's arrangement until someone else comes along who destroys them all and makes them cry about it.

What Apple's doing here should not be allowed, yes. But you know what? It IS allowed, they are legally allowed to do it. Great. They are exploiting flaws in our poor patent system. In the process, they are demonstrating it. And forcing others to exploit it to to fight back.

What SHOULD happen next is that this forces the patent system to be overhauled now that the problem is evident. Unfortunately, our politicians suck too much to do this.
GFLPraxis is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 02:01 PM   #45
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tones2 View Post
Um, that's exactly what Steve Jobs told his employees to do, apparantly, as quoted in the OP: "His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it's a defensive tool,"

Quote:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
No, Steve didn't tell his employees to become patent trolls, and Apple *hasn't*. Steve said to patent everything so they can use those patents as *defensive* tools if they don't bring them to market. A patent troll uses them as *offensive* weapons, going after people for infringing patents that they have no intention of practicing themselves.

You can't just read the last half of a definition, and ignore the first half. Apple hasn't included *any* patents in their suits that they don't practice themselves. That, right there, precludes Apple from being considered a patent troll by any definition more nuanced than "I don't like them and they're suing over a patent!".
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 02:01 PM   #46
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post
So give us what you think of the facts. If you were there, I'll take it seriously.

Regarding Samsung, one of the most damning pieces of evidence was the evolution of their phones over the years. The jury thought it was damning.

And i distinctly remember the prototype Android before the iPhone: it sure looked like a Blackberry. I guess that Eric was serving on the board, passing info to the Google board, and when Apple succeeded their iPhone project went live. And Eric stayed on the board.
You can mroogle all you want. I'm not going to waste my time (yet again) on someone who can't research for themselves vs relying on "fan" mentality.
samcraig is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 02:02 PM   #47
blackhand1001
macrumors 68030
 
blackhand1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Apples role in the patent industry is a tragedy. They are not protecting things they invented with their lawsuits. They have set a ton of very bad precedents and have slowed down the innovation in the industry a ton. Software patents absolutely need to go. They never should have legal to begin with. Copyright your code. The idea of the what the code should not be protected. Some of the patents out there are so vague and stupid like the one about clicking a link and it opening the phone dialer. How the hell is that patentable. Thats was hyperlinks have been doing for years.

Attempting to ban the one x, evo lte, galaxy nexus, and galaxy s3 is shameful. None of these are stolen products.
__________________
Macbook 2008
HP Dv7t - 2.53 ghz, 9600m GT, WSXGA+, 120gb ssd, 250 gb 7200rpm
Core i7 3770k, 8gb ram, 2x 120gb sdd raid0, 500gb hdd, GTX 460
Moto X Dev Edition (VZW) Nexus 7
blackhand1001 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 02:05 PM   #48
nagromme
macrumors G4
 
nagromme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Every other company uses patents defensively; given the current system, is it reasonable to demand that Apple NOT do so? They’d be making themselves uniquely vulnerable to attacks. They HAVE to play game, broken though it is.

Also, as of last year, Apple was the most-sued tech company. Have we seen more recent numbers to prove that has changed? Or are we simply assuming that Apple initiates more than it defends?
nagromme is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 02:09 PM   #49
blackhand1001
macrumors 68030
 
blackhand1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post
Every other company uses patents defensively; given the current system, is it reasonable to demand that Apple NOT do so? They’d be making themselves uniquely vulnerable to attacks. They HAVE to play game, broken though it is.

Also, as of last year, Apple was the most-sued tech company. Have we seen more recent numbers to prove that has changed? Or are we simply assuming that Apple initiates more than it defends?
They aren't using them defensively. They are using them offensively, that's the difference.
__________________
Macbook 2008
HP Dv7t - 2.53 ghz, 9600m GT, WSXGA+, 120gb ssd, 250 gb 7200rpm
Core i7 3770k, 8gb ram, 2x 120gb sdd raid0, 500gb hdd, GTX 460
Moto X Dev Edition (VZW) Nexus 7
blackhand1001 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 02:11 PM   #50
rendevouspoo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post
Every other company uses patents defensively; given the current system, is it reasonable to demand that Apple NOT do so? They’d be making themselves uniquely vulnerable to attacks. They HAVE to play game, broken though it is.

Also, as of last year, Apple was the most-sued tech company. Have we seen more recent numbers to prove that has changed? Or are we simply assuming that Apple initiates more than it defends?
Apple is not using the system defensively. They actively go out of there way to thrown money at the chance of winning a rediculous suit.
rendevouspoo is offline   4 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

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Declines to Sanction Samsung for Role in Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 17 Mar 5, 2014 06:16 AM
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 01:31 PM
U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 295 Jan 30, 2013 07:35 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 PM.

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

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