Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Something really has to be done about these software patents.

The idea that a routine or concept in a software product can be copyrighted or patented is ridiculous!

Yes, the 'design' of the interface should have protection, but nothing else...

This, in some cases, would be like patenting/copyrighting the way that a lowercase 'a' is written.

At some point, someone somewhere will find a patent or copyright that will be so basic to computer operation that enforcing it will end major parts of the industry. It's absurd to think that it would have to come to that to end this charade, but it seems destiny...
 
So, you are saying that we should go against the constitution of the united sates that protects people who invent things, such as software and not allow them to protect it by having a patent for a limited time?

No smarty, what he's saying in regard to this is simple: IF you don't have a working model, as in designed, executed, and implemented...than you don't have a patent. Just drawing some pictures with a theoretical idea as in "software delivery of music through a web-based interface" is not remotely sufficient for a patent. But that's exactly what many of these patents are, it's akin to name squatting. The owners of these patents create them to be purposely vague in hopes of getting rich quick off of a company that creates something similar. Stop patenting ideas, and actually patent tangible things.
 
I bet that Yale professor is jumping for joy right now.

Probably not. From the article "The patents at the heart of the dispute are the work of Yale professor David Gerlenter, who spun off Mirror Worlds Technologies from the university in 1996 and filed the patents in 1999. The current Mirror Worlds LLC entity involved in the lawsuit is a patent holding company based in Tyler, Texas, the location where the federal lawsuit is filed."

Chances are the professor sold all rights to Mirror Worlds LLC. He won't get a penny from the judgement.
 
It is crazy out there. But if people can't patent their work, what's the motivation to do it if others can just wait for you to innovate, then copy your whole process?

That is one side of it. The other is that someone patents something obvious like a timeline. We should all hope that the judge is competent enough to realize the patent test criteria and throw this out. I don't know much about the unibomber, but if he did go after professors and judges like these guys, then maybe he is a little less despicable to me.

VMS did this long before jerk-bag patented it. What a lame judge.
 
This is getting to be beyond ridiculous with all these idea lawsuits, especially for crap patented 10 years ago when the technology wasn't there to accomplish what was being patented.

Guide to being a total idiot and patent troll.

1. Patent an idea.

OR

1a. Just submit your idea to Apple.com Feedback.

ex. "Apple, why don't you upgrade your existing lineup with faster graphics, faster CPUs, more RAM and HDD space - all at the same or slightly lower prices."

2. Wait for Apple to do so.

3. Sue for millions.

Rinse. Repeat. Ridiculous.
 
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.
This is what I was wondering, and I was considerably correct.
 
I have not read the patent, but I'm assuming it probably has more to do with the indexing and algorithms that go in to Spotlight's ability to produce results so quickly.
I think you're absolutely wrong. I don't think it's anything nearly so specific. It's the idea of spotlight not exactly how it's accomplished. Did you read the lead story? The years 1996 and 1999 came up. Apple did not steal algorithms from 15 years ago to put in their state-of-the-art operating system.
 
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 :)

I agree - patenting ideas completely ignores the fact that multiple people can come up with the same idea without any exchange of information. Only specific implementations should be allowed to be patented.
 
Steve Jobs boasted in the past how he steals good ideas from others.

There's a YouTube video of him saying it around somewhere.

In the case of coverflow, he bought it from its developer. Used to be a free, separate app for viewing your albums.
 
Gelenter desiigned a document and indexing program that was called Vision. It didn't go ver well, and won't run on windoze7 machine, but it really arrranged chronilogically all the images and documents you had by day or use, or modification on cascading index cards on your desktop. Took up very little overhead and was, and to me is still a very useful pgm, if you are a windozer.

He is also very right wing, and seems to have very defined ideas about things...ie unable to compromise.

He was also a Unabomber victim.

I'm all for patent protection. I'm just sorry I don't have any
G
 
Didn't Microsoft also rip off Cover Flow for Xbox Live?

xbox360top.jpg
 
This software patent stuff must stop. Software patents should not be allowed.

No, software patents are fine. It's vague patents or ones that patent a concept instead of an implementation that should be destroyed. We need a judge that understands the issues and will take a stand and set some precedent for throwing out patents that are too vague or don't describe the exact process by which something is done (which allows someone else to do the same thing in a different way without getting sued).

Then we need to fire the staff at the patent office and get some people in there that can read and actually know what's in these patents they are apparently just rubber-stamping and passing through.

jW
 
Can you imagine what a mess the world would be in if Companies like Apple were able to copyright every day items years ago.

A round wheel that you rotate left and right to guide you car.

A metal key that when rotated in a lock makes a bold move to unlock a door.

What a joke it would be.

Things that are Obvious and a basic requirement of an object should not be able to be copyrighted.
 
Does anyone else notice all of the "negatives" on a story where Apple is being sued for patent infringement, and yet when Apple sues HTC or anyone else for the same thing, it's overwhelmingly "positives"?

It's a crucial, yet flawed system that cuts both ways. People need to stop drinking that Kool-aid.
 
Ridiculous

Hello! This is my first forum post. I've been coming here for years, but I finally decided to make a post, yay!

So, anyway... I'm so sick of these ridiculous law suits. I TOTALLY get protecting something that you own the IP to, but this? People go after those with deep pockets because they were too inept to do it the first go round. Besides, how long ago was this patent filed and had it even been in use? I mean come on!

People need to have the decency as a jury to not award such high amounts in cases like these. I realize that this is another subject all together, but I had to mention it. I'm just sick of hearing about everyone suing each other. Competition man. If you can prove that someone is illegally using your technology to benefit financially, then fine, sue them. But, this is a stretch. Or at least you could approach apple and say, "Hey, this is my technology, would you like to license it from me? Or, you can just pay me a portion of your profits." Who knows? Apple might have agreed to something before dragging them to court. Blah!
 
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.)

Fair enough but apparently the original 1999 Time Machine interface drawings are uncannily close to Apple's final implementation.
 
No smarty, what he's saying in regard to this is simple: IF you don't have a working model, as in designed, executed, and implemented...than you don't have a patent. Just drawing some pictures with a theoretical idea as in "software delivery of music through a web-based interface" is not remotely sufficient for a patent. But that's exactly what many of these patents are, it's akin to name squatting. The owners of these patents create them to be purposely vague in hopes of getting rich quick off of a company that creates something similar. Stop patenting ideas, and actually patent tangible things.
The man speaks truth.
 
The owners of these patents create them to be purposely vague in hopes of getting rich quick off of a company that creates something similar. Stop patenting ideas, and actually patent tangible things.

Exactly!

What is perhaps little know as well are the patent trolls that descend on bankrupt companies and buy the patents and then sit on them and wait for something to come out that is similar and then they spring their trap hoping for an out-of-court quick settlement so they don't actually have to prove the validity of their claim.

But this whole thing is not going to go away very quickly because of the fact that the instigators of this whole mess, the lawyers, win no matter which side of the fight they are on.

The two sides both spend an awful lot of money to investigate the claims and on the part of the defendant, they generally have to expend a lot of money to try to find a product, idea, or service that existed before the approval of the patent/copyright. If something can be found, the reward is that the case is dismissed. If nothing can be found, then the award to the plaintiff is added to the already likely huge attorney bill that the defendant has to pay. The plaintiff has to keep investigating and watching for things that might infringe on their protection.

There was an article years ago on this subject. generally the plaintiff will try to hit the defendant with a very high demand to 'shock and awe' them into possibly settling out of court. If it goes to court then the money plaintiff spends comes out of the award...

Either way, the sharks (or insects, vermin) are able to feed off the two (or more) parties of the suit.

It should end but likely won't...

On copyrights: When congress extended the copyright time limits to cover Disney, etc, they did a disservice to the entire country IMO.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.