Sidebar Sidebar
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

gertruded said:
This software patent stuff must stop. Software patents should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

Agreed! (And I'm a developer!)

A patent should cover the entire process, not part of it. If someone created Time Machine, CoverFlow, and Spotlight from the ground up and offered it for sale, someone stole it and then used it in their commercial product, fine. But this "Well, I made this and its similar to this so I'm suing" is ********.

If thats the case ANYONE who makes anything on a computer can be sued. I could be sued for making a game that uses a library that is similar to someone elses. Unreal.

I also don't agree with copyrighting parts of a name like that retard who copyrighted the word "Edge". That should not be allowed either, its a WORD in the english language, not a word that was created by the individual.
 
gertruded said:
This software patent stuff must stop. Software patents should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

No software patents involved.

kgallag1 said:
I still think the best solution for this issue is to take 4 steps:

2. Require an automatic, mandatory expiration of any patent where a product or service has not been developed and demonstrated to the patent office within 2 years (no exceptions)
Click to expand...
You've just bankrupted all the best institutions of higher learning. Good job.

3. Ensure that the patents are VERY narrowly construed. The person would be entitled to defend only precisely what their patent says. If any aspect is vague, it becomes automatically stricken.
Click to expand...

Gee, if only there was already 35 USC 112 which renders patent claims invalid if they are vague.. Oh, wait, there is...

4. Bar any lawsuit for patent infringement until such time as a product is on the market and being actively pursued by the marketer. If there is no product or service, the judge would be required by law to throw out the case
Click to expand...

Right, so someone throws some crap out there to beat me, the patent holder, to market, and gets first mover advantage, and I have to sit there and take it? Sounds completely fair.
 
Adokimus said:
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.
Click to expand...

You were drinking kool-aid, as you wrote that.
 
Piggie said:
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.
Click to expand...

'Obvious' devices, etc are not copyrightable by law. Some of the items that you mention have probably had attempts on them to either copyright or patent them. Since they existed for centuries, the attempts will end in failure...
 
paulypants said:
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.
Click to expand...

From what I saw on Court TV (or True TV now) they were talking about the legalities of two brothers suing Mark Zuckerburg over facebook again and how they don't think it can legally hold up in court because the law (in that state) stated that if a bunch of people work on an idea, and someone rushes off and makes something tangible with it first, then the others are not entitled to anything because someone else was "first out of the gate" with it.
 
Americans and their patents... You got what you've asked for.

Seriously? Patent for sorting something by date? Even the cave man would sort his meat supplies by date, I presume ;-) He'd eat the oldest meat first and the freshest later...

Streams of stuff sorted by date? Don't make me laugh. Patent for that?
 
Thinking the software patents just need to go... I am not very familiar with them but it sounds more like they are patenting an idea not an actual product or process... Which just sounds like a setup for failure since eventually everyone is going to have the same ideas. For the current laws in place though sorry Apple should have well umm I guess I don't really care... Thanks for the spotlight I really enjoy using it on my iPhone :)
 
barkomatic said:
Ridiculous. People work just as hard on innovative software as they do on new devices and they deserve compensation for their ideas. I'm sorry that Apple stock *might* take a hit from this but that doesn't give Apple the right to steal.

Besides, its not like Apple hasn't sued the crap out of other companies for slight or even imagined infringements.
Click to expand...

It's not ridiculous at all. The problem with software patents is that you're not patenting the solution you patent a concept. That way even if somebody came up with a way to do something by a completely different method, perhaps even better then they would have to license the patent from just because the end result was the same.

It's like instead of owning the patent for the exact mechanism for a 3 point seat-belt you simply patented the idea of some sort of safety harness regardless of that is achieved.

So i short, I agree entirely. Software patenting like this should stop.
 
Frivolous

These patent holding companies should be banned unless they actually intend to produce something tangible (vs. sitting waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting so they can sue).

This is beyond ridiculous. How about we sue the holding company for sitting on it's patents and doing nothing.
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
'Obvious' devices, etc are not copyrightable by law. Some of the items that you mention have probably had attempts on them to either copyright or patent them. Since they existed for centuries, the attempts will end in failure...
Click to expand...

You mean "patent," not "copyright." Copyright is for protection of creative works (books, movies, etc.) and is completely different than patents.


chrono1081 said:
Agreed! People should not be allowed to sue for unreasonable amounts.
Click to expand...

They aren't. They are allowed to sue for either the amount of damage actually done to them (lost profits), or a reasonable royalty - the amount of money Apple would have been reasonably willing to pay to use the invention.

A jury who actually has all the facts and is instructed in the law, unlike people posting here, makes the decision as to what's reasonable.
 
What towering ignorence

Most of you people do not have a clue. The holding company that is suing does nothing but this, they look around for morbid patents and purchase them for a contingency fee, and look around for somebody using any process which could be remotely tied to this patent. They have a pet judges in Marshall, Texas which consistently rule in their favor. When and if there is a settlement they share out the moneys to the various parties keeping a lion share for themselves. All of this is a result of the antique US Patient and Trade mark Office (USPTO) regulations. This is the reason why companies like Apple patent stuff you normally would not think would need a patent. It is a preemptive move to prevent predatory law suits. With current USPTO regulations you could patient fart sounds resulting from the consumption of turnips if you could somehow prove you could emanate such sounds in a unique way. Washington should reform the US Patent Office.:mad:
 
transmaster said:
Most of you people do not have a clue. The holding company that is suing does nothing but this, they look around for morbid patents and purchase them for a contingency fee, and look around for somebody using any process which could be remotely tied to this patent. They have a pet judges in Marshall, Texas which consistently rule in their favor. When and if there is a settlement they share out the moneys to the various parties keeping a lion share for themselves. All of this is a result of the antique US Patient Office (USPO) regulations. This is the reason why companies like Apple patent stuff you normally would not think would need a patent. It is a preemptive move to prevent predatory law suits. With current USPO regulations you could patient fart sounds resulting from the consumption of turnips if you could somehow prove you could emanate such sounds in a unique way. Washington should reform the US Patent Office.:mad:
Click to expand...

I don't think someone who thinks there is such a thing as the "USPO" should be lecturing people on ignorance.
 
Shaun said:
There should be a simple 'use it or lose it' rule on all patents. If you don't turn your patent into a real product within 2 years then you should lose the patent. This would encourage genuine inventors and discourage patent-squatters who just patent stuff hoping someone will eventually infringe it (probably inadvertently) so they get a big payout through the courts.
Click to expand...

I hope this change occurs as well. If this case makes it up the chain to the supreme court, maybe it will.
 
Adokimus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes.. I'm actually laughing at the hypocrisy. Apparently it's only "wrong" when other companies patent ideas and innovations blindly - but when Apple applies for patents for ideas and innovations that they either haven't implemented for years or won't for years it's perfectly ok.... because they're Apple.
 
Compile 'em all said:
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.
Click to expand...

The expression of idea is what you can patent or copyright. That is the basis of trademark/copyright/patent law.
 
GQB said:
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.)
Click to expand...

well good thing you are so qualified to speak on this... you are truly the iPhone master!

now if they'd just implement that DOCK thing on the DESKTOP.... oh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back