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
Patents are insanely flawed
I think if you have a patent, you should be required to at least develop or create the idea that you patented. Otherwise, you have just a bunch of people patenting anything they can think of and just wait for someone to realize the idea and then sue them for everything their worth.
I think if you have a patent, you should be required to at least develop or create the idea that you patented. Otherwise, you have just a bunch of people patenting anything they can think of and just wait for someone to realize the idea and then sue them for everything their worth.
What's disrespectful about Pastafariaism ? As a priest of the church of Pastafarians, I take great exception to your comment. We pride ourselves on our fictious, tomato sauce dripping Overlord.
Agree, this should also apply to any property. For example if you own a land but you don't build on it within 2 years then you should lose the ownership. Same if you own more than one car, and you keep one in the garage unused for more than 2 years.
When they implement a dock that can adjust for my case then I will truly think they have it down till then my case will take the abuse.
From an accounting standpoint, I believe they would have to accrue for this since there is a judgment.
yes. ideas shouldnt be patentable, only implementation -- and for code thats copyright. did company A copy-and-paste Company B's code? no? then its not the same implementation and isnt a violation.
good catch cmaier....I was looking for that....
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.....but it doesn't say it is a requirement or constitutional right but....only that the Congress shall have Power to "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for a limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Congress can choose to not use the power, or limit/extend the power in whichever way they want....its probably a political question to determine what "promote
In general I agree with you. However, I'm sure there are thousands of examples where someone comes up with a fantastic patent, but does not have the money to build/market/sell the product. And with software patents, the "product" may not be so obvious to invent. Many people get patents so they can then go and sell/lease the patent to companies...it may take years for the patent owner to find a buyer and then actually have a product on the streets.
But I do agree with the vast majority of people that believe the patent office is out of control with the stuff they approve.
-Eric
huh? what patents exist on music or movies? youre referring to COPYRIGHT -- one cant steal your manuscript's text verbatim; but they certainly can do a copy of your IDEA. they do it all the time.
ideas arent protectable, only implementations. and in software thats sourcecode. and thats copyright.
Here is the patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6006227.PN.&OS=PN/6006227&RS=PN/6006227
It is not Coverflow but as I read it, a presentation database that uses date/timestamps for documents. They patented a database.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6006227.PN.&OS=PN/6006227&RS=PN/6006227
It is not Coverflow but as I read it, a presentation database that uses date/timestamps for documents. They patented a database.
It's such a terrible situation. Patents are important for innovation, but they also can prevent a product from reaching the masses. If Apple wouldn't have used these technologies, they basically would've never reached millions of people as they have. If a patent-holder doesn't do anything with it, and seemingly waits for someone to infringe upon the patent, it sucks for consumers and only benefits the patent-holder. There's really not an easy way to resolve this because either way everyone loses something.
I am certain the grad students that wrote the code for free, will never see a penny of it.
It's not the software patents that should stop. They're necessary to protect legitimate inventors. However, it's the patent squatters that need to be stopped. Patents should become invalid if nothing is done with them within a certain amount of time.
The problem with this is that sometimes it takes years for the little guy to bring it to market, and even then it is a very hit and miss, but then you have someone like Apple or Microsoft or Google that can take an idea and put it in the face of millions of people overnight.
As a research scientist working on massively parallel software algorithms at a US national laboratory... Software patent issues directly affect me. I've developed several algorithms that were patentable in the last few years... But haven't patented them... and instead published them in journals.
Let me say a couple of things about software patents:
1. They SHOULD exist.
Not everyone has the means to develop a product based on their ideas that they can copyright. There are people out there that do research on advanced algorithms specifically so they can license those to companies (like Microsoft and Oracle for instance). This is a valid enterprise. The outcome of their work is an idea that will help these companies out... and the best way for them to protect that idea so they can get paid for it is a patent.
2. Software patents should be MUCH shorter and should depend on the idea. I think small user interface ideas should only be patentable for 6-12 months and bigger ideas for only up to 2-3 years.
The reason for this is that the digital world just moves so much faster. This is actually the reason I chose not to patent my algorithms... because I want others to use them and collaborate with me in turn. If others had to wait 20 years to use my algorithms and improve on them it would be counterproductive for the whole ecosystem.
If you've never developed novel algorithms for application to real world issues then plese don't comment with "down with software patents!". My (and others) whole careers are spent thinking about software and how to make it better... we deserve to get paid for that work just like someone who thinks of a new way to do rubber injection molding for making car parts... just because his ideas interact with physical objects and mine don't that doesn't invalidate the real work I and others do.
Let me say a couple of things about software patents:
1. They SHOULD exist.
Not everyone has the means to develop a product based on their ideas that they can copyright. There are people out there that do research on advanced algorithms specifically so they can license those to companies (like Microsoft and Oracle for instance). This is a valid enterprise. The outcome of their work is an idea that will help these companies out... and the best way for them to protect that idea so they can get paid for it is a patent.
2. Software patents should be MUCH shorter and should depend on the idea. I think small user interface ideas should only be patentable for 6-12 months and bigger ideas for only up to 2-3 years.
The reason for this is that the digital world just moves so much faster. This is actually the reason I chose not to patent my algorithms... because I want others to use them and collaborate with me in turn. If others had to wait 20 years to use my algorithms and improve on them it would be counterproductive for the whole ecosystem.
If you've never developed novel algorithms for application to real world issues then plese don't comment with "down with software patents!". My (and others) whole careers are spent thinking about software and how to make it better... we deserve to get paid for that work just like someone who thinks of a new way to do rubber injection molding for making car parts... just because his ideas interact with physical objects and mine don't that doesn't invalidate the real work I and others do.
That's ridiculous. It takes 3 years to obtain a patent. Your idea would result in the patents being expired on the day they issue.
Agreed, but I believe companies and individuals should only be granted these patents if they actually do something with the technology. It's very easy to come up with an idea, but it a whole other matter making that idea work.
These patents should be given a 5 year shelf life and then terminated if the technology hasn't been implemented by the so called inventors.
My thoughts exactly. A complete mockery of the system. It's akin to filing a suit against the Yankees in Boston for the love of Pete. There need to be special judges in these cases with specific expertise. You can't have Joe and Jane deciding a monetary award. It becomes too prejudicial.
Longing for yesterday...
...when there were only 2 web browsers to support that had any sort of market share, when the US DoJ told me that there was only one OS, and when the maker of that OS was the only perceived computing company that stole ideas.
...when there were only 2 web browsers to support that had any sort of market share, when the US DoJ told me that there was only one OS, and when the maker of that OS was the only perceived computing company that stole ideas.