There are two elements with any software: the idea behind it and the code. The idea part of the software should not really be patentable or copyrightable.
The code itself can be and should be, since it prevents others from copy+paste
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hit With $625 Million Judgment in Patent Suit Over Cover Flow, Spotlight, Time Machine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are two elements with any software: the idea behind it and the code. The idea part of the software should not really be patentable or copyrightable.
The code itself can be and should be, since it prevents others from copy+paste
What a refreshing attitude!
Will you be forwarding your next paycheck directly to me, or should I stop by and pick it up myself?
Good ideas
These are all good ideas, but may be hard to implement. I have an easier solution - limit software patents to 3 years. Maybe 5. Solves many of the problems. Patents will become less sought after except for real innovations with products.
These are all good ideas, but may be hard to implement. I have an easier solution - limit software patents to 3 years. Maybe 5. Solves many of the problems. Patents will become less sought after except for real innovations with products.
"The '227 Patent issued on December 21, 1999, the '313 Patent on October 28, 2003, and the '427 Patent on April 20, 2004, all to Eric Freeman and Davis Gelernter. The '227, '313, and '427 Patents disclose a document stream operating system and method where: (1) documents are stored in one or more chronologically ordered streams; (2) the location and nature of file storage is transparent to the user; (3) information is organized as needed instead of at the time the document is created; (4) sophisticated logic is provided for summarizing a large group of related documents at the time a user wants a concise overview; and (5) archiving is automatic. '227, '313, & '427 Patents, at [57]. The documents can include text, pictures, animations, software programs, or any other type of data. Id.
The '999 Patent issued on July 27, 2004 to Randy Prager and Peter Sparago. The '999 Patent discloses a computer program product and method that operate an enterprise information system comprising at least one server and multiple personal computers communicating with each other and the server. '999 Patent, at [57]. The program product and method create object models that have [*4] a consistent structure regarding diverse types of information assets that come from diverse software and display browse cards about the information assets in a time-ordered stream, together with glance views related to the document object models. Id. The glance views are displayed essentially in real time in response to passing a cursor over respective browse cards on the display. Id.
The '101 Patent issued on September 2, 2003 to Richard Mander, Daniel Rose, Gitta Salomon, Yin Yin Wong, Timothy Oren, Susan Booker, and Stephanie Houde. The '101 Patent discloses a method and apparatus for organizing information in a computer filing system. '101 Patent, at [57]. The method and apparatus include creating of a pile comprising a collection of documents, displaying a graphical representation of the pile, and browsing the pile by pointing a cursor at a particular item to reveal an indicia for the particular item. Id. The filing system can automatically divide a pile into subpiles based on the content of each document in the pile and, at the user's request, can automatically file away documents into existing piles in the computer system based on of a similarity match between the content of [*5] the document and the content of existing piles. Id. The filing system can also create a pile from a sample document by using the internal representation of the document as the internal representation of the new pile. Id. The computer filing system provides various interfaces in connection with piles to the user of the system to provide feedback and other information to the user. Id.
Mirror Worlds, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") alleges that Apple, Inc. ("Apple") infringes Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-13, 15, 20, 25-27, and 29 of the '227 Patent, Claims 1-3 of the '313 Patent, Claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 25, 32, and 34 of the '427 Patent, and Claim 1 of the '999 Patent. Apple alleges that Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. ("MWT") infringes Claims 1-12 of the '101 Patent.1"
The '999 Patent issued on July 27, 2004 to Randy Prager and Peter Sparago. The '999 Patent discloses a computer program product and method that operate an enterprise information system comprising at least one server and multiple personal computers communicating with each other and the server. '999 Patent, at [57]. The program product and method create object models that have [*4] a consistent structure regarding diverse types of information assets that come from diverse software and display browse cards about the information assets in a time-ordered stream, together with glance views related to the document object models. Id. The glance views are displayed essentially in real time in response to passing a cursor over respective browse cards on the display. Id.
The '101 Patent issued on September 2, 2003 to Richard Mander, Daniel Rose, Gitta Salomon, Yin Yin Wong, Timothy Oren, Susan Booker, and Stephanie Houde. The '101 Patent discloses a method and apparatus for organizing information in a computer filing system. '101 Patent, at [57]. The method and apparatus include creating of a pile comprising a collection of documents, displaying a graphical representation of the pile, and browsing the pile by pointing a cursor at a particular item to reveal an indicia for the particular item. Id. The filing system can automatically divide a pile into subpiles based on the content of each document in the pile and, at the user's request, can automatically file away documents into existing piles in the computer system based on of a similarity match between the content of [*5] the document and the content of existing piles. Id. The filing system can also create a pile from a sample document by using the internal representation of the document as the internal representation of the new pile. Id. The computer filing system provides various interfaces in connection with piles to the user of the system to provide feedback and other information to the user. Id.
Mirror Worlds, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") alleges that Apple, Inc. ("Apple") infringes Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-13, 15, 20, 25-27, and 29 of the '227 Patent, Claims 1-3 of the '313 Patent, Claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 25, 32, and 34 of the '427 Patent, and Claim 1 of the '999 Patent. Apple alleges that Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. ("MWT") infringes Claims 1-12 of the '101 Patent.1"
This is the way to do it
Indeed - the ability to patent an 'idea' and then park that patent on the off chance, that in later years as technology advances, someone develops it should be stopped and stopped now.
If you have not created the solution but have a vision for that solution you should never be able to patent this - surely this is common-sense???
All these patent cases should be thrown away if the originator cannot demonstrate the patent in use.
Otherwise I am off to patent time-travel, holographic 3D TV, space travel using an as yet undiscovered magical particle theory and any other futuristic impossibility that I can think of.
Indeed - the ability to patent an 'idea' and then park that patent on the off chance, that in later years as technology advances, someone develops it should be stopped and stopped now.
If you have not created the solution but have a vision for that solution you should never be able to patent this - surely this is common-sense???
All these patent cases should be thrown away if the originator cannot demonstrate the patent in use.
Otherwise I am off to patent time-travel, holographic 3D TV, space travel using an as yet undiscovered magical particle theory and any other futuristic impossibility that I can think of.
Well, no. What has to happen is: In order for a software patent to remain in effect, a working model of the technology must be built by the patent holder within a certain period of time. (Perhaps a year.)
Therefore, a holder of the technology without the means (technical, monetary, time, etc) to build it would approach someone who did have the means (Microsoft, Apple, etc) and offer to partner at a reasonable fee (i.e., not $600 million).
The way things stand today, some people file for 'roadblock' patents and hope for a jackpot wherein some company with deep pockets inevitably implements their idea. However, it is an onerous process suing a company like Apple, and many inventors get buried along the way. (See the movie "Flash of Genius".) Under the plan I described, many patents would get shopped around, because otherwise they would cease to exist. The reality of losing the patent keeps prices reasonable. And a company like Apple would have to consider these proposals seriously, because otherwise a company like Microsoft might wind up specializing in buying patents, building prototypes, and suing Apple. In such a case, Apple would wind up paying out $600 million on a regular basis, and even for Apple, that starts to add up.
The other leg of this plan is for patents (software patents in particular) to expire after a certain period of time, along the lines of drug patents. They simply cannot be renewed forever.
The patent system needs to be changed - not disbanded. You ideally want a system where small innovators are quickly and reliably rewarded for their work, where companies benefit ONLY if they can actualize the ideas (encouraging R&D if not actual products), and no one can monopolize an idea forever.
The real issue with these patents is how difficult it is to determine if what you are creating has already been created and patented.
It's not as easy as just typing "search on computer" and finding 3 companies that own the patent... Given the number of patents issued every year, it is a growing problem.
It is even more difficult if there is no current company using the technology in a product. (Which seems to be the case here.)
The law should give preference to those who both imagine AND produce something, not just those who imagine it.
What's sad is that this should happen over features that are the most trivial for Apple. I don't know anyone who uses cover flow (although it could be useful on the one place they haven't implemented it... on the touch devices.)
All this over a pointless animation.
I bet that Yale professor is jumping for joy right now. That is a lot of money even after taxes and lawyer fees. Mac Pro fully loaded would be pocket change.
Maybe patent laws will change in the future to make it more fair. For now it is what it is for now.
Maybe patent laws will change in the future to make it more fair. For now it is what it is for now.
Wow
I thought Apple innovates and the rest can only copy?
And poaching off a small company as well for shame
Those are 3 big features of osx as well. I know cover flow and spotlight is everywhere.
And teh fanboys should forever hold their peace
I thought Apple innovates and the rest can only copy?
And poaching off a small company as well for shame
Those are 3 big features of osx as well. I know cover flow and spotlight is everywhere.
And teh fanboys should forever hold their peace
Also Hardware patents put forward by people for things they can't and have no idea how to make should stop.
It's stupid that you can think of an idea, it not be able to be made and yet patent it.
If you MAKE something and want to stop others copying it, well then everyone would agree to that (as long as it's not something stupid like THE WHEEL)
But Not on things that are just ideas, to stop others who in the future work out a way to make something from being able to make it.
Stop me if I am wrong, but algorithms can 99% of time be entirely rewritten or even be developed on a entirely different platform. And in terms doesn't even resemble anything close to what the original patent was filed on. Hell the technology might be even better than the one that was patented.
Let's assume for a second that apple built this technology themselves. How is it possible for a company to patent what apple build entirely themselves? If 2 developers build 2 applications based on the exact same idea and one of them patents whatever the hell his application does, would this mean that the other developer is suddenly infringing or stealing the other developers work? How ridiculous lol.
I thought Apple innovates and the rest can only copy?
And poaching off a small company as well for shame
Those are 3 big features of osx as well. I know cover flow and spotlight is everywhere.
And teh fanboys should forever hold their peace
Steve Jobs boasted in the past how he steals good ideas from others.
There's a YouTube video of him saying it around somewhere.
The code itself can be and should be, since it prevents others from copy+paste
Code is already protected under copyright, just like movies and music (you can't patent a movie or a music piece afterall).
Copyrights are not patents. Although patents maybe be related to movies (Lucas invented a bunch of stuff for Star Wars, the movie Avatar had the same thing going) the movies themselves were never patented.
And the big companies would LOVE this. Because then if John Smith goes and patents, say, practical anti-gravity AND happens to have no ability produce it due to costs, they win!
This would punish small inventors.
It seems most people in this thread have no idea what they are talking about. The user you are quoting was talking about software "ideas". In europe, acquiring a software patent is extremely difficult (especially in countries like Germany). I know because I have filed for patents in my previous job when I was working in R&D. You can patent a particular implementation of an idea related to software but you can't patent a software idea.
A colleague of mine had a pretty badass idea related to email and the German patent office won't grant him the patent unless he had an actual working implementation. He wrote a plugin for thunderbird and he got the patent.
All those people going "how am I supposed to protect my work" have no idea how messed up the patent office in the states is.
If they end up having to pay it it'll obviously knock $625 Million off that quarter's profits.
not necessarily. expected losses like this often are already budgeted for and the costs could be spread out over several quarters. if that is the case the impact on apples quartely profits is almost negligible.