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 Nov 7, 2012, 01:43 PM   #76
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Perhaps it's not the system that is an issue, but the personnel who award patents.
Granting them can certainly be a result of the USPTO examiner not being a current professional developer in the field.

The check and balance is that an issuance isn't considered final. Patents can be challenged later on.

(In some countries, patents are granted pretty easily... with the expectation that if need be, a formal challenge will be made by someone, and that's when the patent is really examined in detail and confirmed - or not - once and for all.)

Quote:
Also, any government contract should require any resulting non-classified IP to become public domain. If the article is correct, then it sounds like US citizens have paid for this patent already.
Perhaps. Siri, for example, originally came from government paid research. (And sure enough, you can download a lot of that code.)

Tough call. I lean towards your view, but what if the government only pays you to make a few of something you invent, and then drops the much more lucrative followup contract? You'd need to sell your invention to more customers to make up for that. It wouldn't be fair to deprive the inventors.

I think paid public research is different from a contract to create something that's actually bought and used. E.g. should Humvees be a public domain design? Or shouldn't AM General own the patents on their creation?

Last edited by kdarling; Nov 7, 2012 at 01:52 PM.
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:07 PM   #77
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
This suit was filed in East Texas which is known for always siding with the plantiff even if that is clearly the wrong call.

Apple says they don't use the tech in the patent so they will appeal and get the dang thing out of East Texas where they had little to no chance of winning anyway.

And if they can show that the patent outlines very specific tech that they don't use or that it is too vague and they created a new product with their specifics then the appeal with negate this judgment and life goes on. The common user won't notice a difference because the second thing Apple will do after filing their appeal is filing a notion to stop any attempts to shut down Facetime etc until the appeal process is over.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeye206 View Post
The whole technology patent system needs an overhaul.
The whole patent system in generally likely needs an overhaul but certainly tech patents show it the most.

In particular this notion of being able to wait years after someone is clearly violating your patent to file. You do that with a trademark and you are screwed. Such a tactic is clearly a gambit to wait until there is ample profit not really to protect your IP and in trademark law it doesn't work in your favor. You don't protect your IP, clearly you don't really care about it and should lose it. Patents should be the same way. Give you a reasonable time to determine that yes there is violation but otherwise, you snooze you lose. At least in terms of making money off the other company.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
I think anyone winning from this patent is proof enough the system is in dire need of fixing. These people basically managed to patent VPNs just by wording it carefully.

Just check it out. This is the abstract to one of the patents Apple was sued over...

"A secure domain name service for a computer network is disclosed that includes a portal connected to a computer network, such as the Internet, and a domain name database connected to the computer network through the portal. The portal authenticates a query for a secure computer network address, and the domain name database stores secure computer network addresses for the computer network. Each secure computer network address is based on a non-standard top-level domain name, such as .scom, .sorg, .snet, .snet, .sedu, .smil and .sint."
If that is correct then Apple likely will win in appeal because patents are based on violation of the specifics. A secure system that lacks said DNS with custom TLDs isn't the same thing as what is in the patent. Facetime uses your Apple ID and/or standard phone number or email not some custom system. Apple has a solid argument for appeal based on that difference.
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:14 PM   #78
brdeveloper
macrumors 68000
 
brdeveloper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brasil
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbookReader View Post
the patent system is broken.
Well, Apple brought attention to it, now they're paying twice the money they earned in lawsuits.
__________________
15" rMBP Early-2013, 2.4GHz. After 3 display replacements, I'm still seeing uniformity problems.
2009 Unibody White MacBook, 250GB 840 EVO SSD, 8GB
Mid-2010 MacMini, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD, 16GB
brdeveloper is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:23 PM   #79
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Yes they do, although over [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apple-paid-only-2-percent-income-tax-on-368-billion-in-earnings-outside-us-in-fiscal-2012/2012/11/04/d45c126c-26b9-11e2-ac64-5d52a2c5953e_story.html"]

That's why it's bogus when someone says "Oh so-and-so stole code from someone else".
That's generally a copyright issue not patent one. Slightly different rules of play but yes the notion of independent invention is in there same as with patents. That's part of why the devil in is the details in both cases.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
For software we have copyright
Actually we have both.

You can create a patentable software invention for the base implementation of an idea regardless of the language used (iOS, Windows, Android, BASIC, UNIX etc) and you can have a copyright on the exact code within a language.
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:23 PM   #80
Popeye206
macrumors 68030
 
Popeye206's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NE PA USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
The whole patent system in generally likely needs an overhaul but certainly tech patents show it the most.

In particular this notion of being able to wait years after someone is clearly violating your patent to file. You do that with a trademark and you are screwed. Such a tactic is clearly a gambit to wait until there is ample profit not really to protect your IP and in trademark law it doesn't work in your favor. You don't protect your IP, clearly you don't really care about it and should lose it. Patents should be the same way. Give you a reasonable time to determine that yes there is violation but otherwise, you snooze you lose. At least in terms of making money off the other company.

----------

Totally agree. Seems many companies sit on the IP to see if any potential violators are successful and wait until the damages have rung up a huge bill and strengthen their position to negotiate a big lump of cash.

Maybe someday we'll see changes? I hope so. I'm all for IP protection, but the playing field is out of control right now.
Popeye206 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:24 PM   #81
Tech198
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia, Perth
oh well..

Apple should have the money ...

Its no surprise though... Apples got as many lawsuits than a kitchen sink....

I'm just wondering when it will all end.

Don't companies actually read and comply with patent's anymore BEFORE they go head first into stuff. ?

Obviously not... but its strange just a simple thing would solve everything.
__________________
13" MBPR, i5, 256Gig SDD, 8 Gig Ram, Apple TV, iPhone 5S 16Gig, iPad 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7, 1TB HD
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."
Tech198 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:31 PM   #82
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech198 View Post
Don't companies actually read and comply with patent's anymore BEFORE they go head first into stuff. ?
If companies had to do background on every bit of IP out there before doing anything then they wouldn't get anything done. Especially if they couldn't start until that research was over.
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:29 PM   #83
Ashin
macrumors 6502a
 
Ashin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Macrumours never ceases to amaze me

You guys think it's okay Apple can patent a rounded rectangle but this is somehow bad?
Ashin is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:38 PM   #84
leroypants
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Pay up thieves.
__________________
I am against trillion dollar deficits, a collapsing dollar, enemies list, letting terrorist in the US, prizes awarded without merit, and leaders with delusions of Godhood (Unless it is George Bush)
leroypants is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:45 PM   #85
Tech198
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia, Perth
Maybe i should patent that circle before someone steals it. *thinks*
__________________
13" MBPR, i5, 256Gig SDD, 8 Gig Ram, Apple TV, iPhone 5S 16Gig, iPad 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7, 1TB HD
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."
Tech198 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:46 PM   #86
unplugme71
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Exactly. While a third of a billion is LOT of money, Apple has lots and lots and lots more. It will be a temporary dent, or maybe closer to a little ding.

Apple has more money than almost anybody.
Selling USB to lightning connectors will more than pay for that fine.
unplugme71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:46 PM   #87
-hh
macrumors 68020
 
-hh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ Highlands, Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
The patent system is broke when you can prove you've developed the technology on your own and can still be sued when someone else comes along and said they did it first. That's just complete crap.

ALL a patent should do is make sure someone can't take your product and duplicate it. That's not what happened here. This is the Eastern District of Texas here... this isn't the first time they've refused to let companies defend themselves. It is an award happy court.
Well said, especially the East Texas observation: it is one of the favorite 'shopped jurisdictions' for litigating against companies that are perceived to have deep pockets.


In any case, what I noticed was the statement that said that their technology was developed in part from CIA funding - - that means that the IP partly belongs to the Government ... so how much of this $300-some million is going to be forwarded back to Uncle Sam?

I'm betting that the answer was $0 for the $200M from Microsoft and it is going to be $0 here - - when Apple appeals, they should point that out to those East Texans...and remind them that that's money lost to Uncle which is going to make their personal taxes go up ---- THAT will cause those Jurors to flip faster than a flapjack!


-hh
-hh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 03:50 PM   #88
unplugme71
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowy_River View Post
Needing some review and overhaul? Sure. An aberration (i.e. shouldn't exist at all)? I don't think so.



Software patents, like all patents, ARE good. If you don't provide some protection for time and money invested in research and development needed in most forms of the invention process (including software development), then there is less incentive to innovate. In some areas, that incentive might arguably drop to near zero. So, while the software patent process almost certainly needs to be revamped, software patents are, in principle, good things, just like all other patents.



Yes. Nice to see someone else gets it. I would argue that the patent duration should be related to the nature of the patent. Software, an industry that move at amazing speed when compared to other more traditional industries, should arguably be given a protection time that is notably shorter than that provided to patents in other industries. That step alone would be a good start in reforming the patent system with regards to software.

I think the last poster meant regarding software patents is that no one can patent

print("Hello World");

The protection you should get is that you can't copy the interface. Ex. QuickBooks shouldn't look like Peachtree, but both programs perform finance for a business.
unplugme71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 04:01 PM   #89
autrefois
macrumors 65816
 
autrefois's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere in the USA
So now we know the REAL reason Apple charged for FaceTime initially, it was apparently to help defray the legal costs they knew would be coming. Obviously they should have charged more!

PS Apparently it's still $0.99 on the App Store, they must be trying to scrape together the remaining money from any holdouts still on Snow Leopard.
autrefois is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 04:02 PM   #90
KdParker
macrumors 68020
 
KdParker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moof1904 View Post
I hope face time doesn't go away. I use it all the time.
it will not .. Apple will just have to pay.
__________________
16g iPhone5s Space Grey; 16g iPhone5 White;
15" retina - MBP 2.6 GHZ 16 RAM;
iPad4 retina
KdParker is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 06:15 PM   #91
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
My opinion: lay juries shouldn't decide technical questions. It's like having a dozen random people off the street make medical decisions for you.

Anyway, there's a couple of side effects that are up in the air:
  • VirnetX has a request before the ITC to ban the importation into the U.S. of Apple products that use their patents. This could bolster their case.

  • Apple will probably have to rewrite Facetime to avoid VirnetX's patents, since the latter seems to want to ban use of its patents by Apple. (This is just like how Android had to avoid Apple's bounceback patent, which Apple likewise didn't want to license.)
kdarling is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 06:47 PM   #92
jw2002
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Why the F was such a patent ever awarded? The concept behind secure, encrypted conversations has existed for decades. Are the patent examiners so wowed by technical jargon that they simply stamp Approved on any old thing? This is a total joke. So Facetime passes DNS traffic over a VPN. Big deal. VPNs are intended for passing traffic over them. Duh.
jw2002 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 06:51 PM   #93
haruhiko
macrumors 68030
 
haruhiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
At least Samsung, HTC, Apple, Google, Motorola etc. etc. is making products that use the patents they have. When they sue each other, we can just take it as a soap opera. But a patent troll suing companies that produces real products that enrich our lives, that's not good!
__________________
Mac: rMBP'12, iMac'08/24", Mini'09, MBP'10/15", MBA'11/13". iPhone: 5s/64S 5/64B, 4S/64W, 4/32B, 3GS/16. iPT: 3G,1G. iPad: Air,Mini2,4,3/LTE/64 2/3G/32, 1/WiFi/16. ATV'12,'11, AEBS'09, TC'13/2TB
haruhiko is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 07:09 PM   #94
alexgowers
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
VPN? what the hell. This makes no sense. I mean fine pay if apple used their 'code' or used something that the own but the idea of a vpn is a little flimsy.

I really don't think apple is above patent law and should pay but I don't get it. I'm sure if I saw more facts that I would agree with the ruling.

The patent system is broken for sure and needs an overhaul, the only reason there is no change in these ridiculous rulings is the lawyers gets mega money so for them to be put into action to change the system would undermine their industry.

As far as I see, they won't shut down apples facetime due to the fact they have taken the settlement. You can't have it both ways surely.
alexgowers is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 07:16 PM   #95
MacTaranis
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
So...

is VirnetX going to sue ALL the Companies that offer ANY form of VPN software? I reread the Summery a dozen times... IT's a VPN patent.. SO who's next on their hit list?
MacTaranis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 07:31 PM   #96
Kanunu
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vietnam
Maybe not much to you

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg View Post
not much of a 'Hit' from the 100+ billion...

I imagine they'll pool their pocket-change for this one!
Serious enough to make AAPL drop $22.20 or 3.83%.
__________________
27" iMac (late 2010),3.2GHz,12GB RAM, Lion 10.7.5; iPad 2,GSM-WiFi,32GB,iOS 6; iPod nano 7; Nokia "stupidphone"
Kanunu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 07:42 PM   #97
Kanunu
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vietnam
Troll?

Quote:
Originally Posted by haruhiko View Post
At least Samsung, HTC, Apple, Google, Motorola etc. etc. is making products that use the patents they have. When they sue each other, we can just take it as a soap opera. But a patent troll suing companies that produces real products that enrich our lives, that's not good!
So when Apple buys a company so that they can own that company's patents that's OK, but if a company set up to own and control patents does so that makes them a troll. They purchased those patents. They didn't just get them for Christmas. It's called free enterprise my friend. I think the chickens are just coming home to roost on the patents that Apple has violated or not offered royalties for. Even their prior ruling against Samsung is starting to unravel. It could be that Apple is the biggest violator of all of them. Ever seen this.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.html

Apple is lucky this guy is an academic and perhaps his ideas belong to his institutions and not him or he would own half the company.
__________________
27" iMac (late 2010),3.2GHz,12GB RAM, Lion 10.7.5; iPad 2,GSM-WiFi,32GB,iOS 6; iPod nano 7; Nokia "stupidphone"
Kanunu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 07:46 PM   #98
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexgowers View Post
As far as I see, they won't shut down apples facetime due to the fact they have taken the settlement. You can't have it both ways surely.
Apple won $1 billion from Samsung partly for patent infringement... but it doesn't mean Apple's going to let Samsung use their patents.

Likewise, VirnetX doesn't have to let Apple use theirs. The $368 million is damages for past infringement, not a license fee.

(Perhaps VirnetX has an exclusivity agreement with someone else, and can't license to others. Who knows.)
kdarling is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 08:08 PM   #99
Radiating
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
The patent system in the world is simply broken.

Right now you can come up with a random idea without a working prototype submit a patent application for a couple of dollars, and then 10 years later sue a major company for a billion dollars without doing anything.

New patent rule: You can only recover up to 50 times your development costs on a patent, after that it's free.

Invest $100k, you can expect 5 million. Invest $0.50 you can expect $25.
Radiating is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 10:43 PM   #100
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanunu View Post
... Ever seen this.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_de...uchscreen.html

Apple is lucky this guy is an academic and perhaps his ideas belong to his institutions and not him or he would own half the company.
Actually, Jeff Han formed a company called Perceptive Pixel, selling multi-touch hardware (workstations, walls, etc) for civilian and military use.

When Apple tried to file a trademark on the phrase "Multi-Touch" in 2007, they almost got it... but then Jeff Han wrote an 80 page letter to the USPTO explaining why it was already a generic term in the touch field, and got Apple's request denied.
kdarling is offline   2 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
Apple and Samsung File List of Patent Claims and Accused Products Ahead of Second U.S. Patent Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 41 Feb 6, 2014 04:58 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
Apple Ordered to Pay $3.3 Million in Japanese Lawsuit Over iPod Click Wheel Patent MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 34 Oct 26, 2013 09:16 AM
Apple to Alter VPN On Demand Behavior in iOS 6.1 and Later Due to VirnetX Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 108 Apr 8, 2013 06:19 PM
VirnetX Files Follow-Up Patent Lawsuit Targeting Apple's Latest Products MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 36 Nov 14, 2012 02:21 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.

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

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