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
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...
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...
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 should have patented stupidity. I'd be the richest person on the planet by now
One could argue that is was 'preexisting' due to Adam and Eve's like of the apple... (How ironic, ehh)
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.
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.
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.
Use it or lose it, this should be the software patent laws. Not invent it and store it for potential value.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Hmm, I wonder how this affects Apple's patent on Cover Flow?
http://patentlyapple.typepad.com/patently-apple/2009/08/apple-wins-cover-flow-safari-snapback-universal-dock-patents.html
http://patentlyapple.typepad.com/patently-apple/2009/08/apple-wins-cover-flow-safari-snapback-universal-dock-patents.html
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.
It's a crucial, yet flawed system that cuts both ways. People need to stop drinking that Kool-aid.
Please don't bring your religion which is the equivalent of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, which does not exists as fact, into these threads.
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!
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!
Fair enough but apparently the original 1999 Time Machine interface drawings are uncannily close to Apple's final implementation.
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.