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
The things you mentioned - music and movies, are covered by copyright, not patents. Most people like myself who believe in abolishing software patents believe that software copyrights should be kept.
Software is a series of algorithms, which is math. Math should not be patentable.
Since software is copyrighted, that prevents another person from copying your code line by line and using it. However you are free to write your own code that does the same thing. With patents, you can't even have different code that does the same thing.
Probably because that was not the point I was responding to. The point I was responding to was your whining about "fan boys" and their annoying ability to recognize the difference between legitimate IP and patent trolling.
Gearing in a wristwatch is math. The way the parts of a carburetor fit together is math. Should I not be able to patent wristwatches and carburetors?
I stand by my point.
Fanboys: Apple sues someone - yay apple for protecting IP. Apple is sued - $%^ patent trolls.
You'll find that most people who write software for a living are against software patents. Music, movies, etc, are copyrightable, as should software be copy-writable. But software, and especially algorithms, should not be patentable. The effects of software patents actually stilt the industry rather than protect investment.
+1 "hey I got an idea what if I have a variable that I increment until a certain point and it loops, doing stuff, until it's incremented to that point."
man I'm sure glad the first programmer didn't patent that...
Most businesses don't care about stilting the industry, in fact many companies would be happy to see this, so they'll have less competition.
Algorithms are not patentable.
Why should software be special? If I make a machine with cogs and sprockets to perform an action, you will let me patent it, but if I make a machine do the same thing with software I can't patent the machine?
Well, the problem is your use of the word "invent" - bogus software patents are typically obvious and not inventions. See Amazon's "1-click" shopping method. A system where they store you account info so you don't have to enter it each time you make a purchase? Pretty obvious.
People can get software patents for the obvious things and those in the patent office are not trained enough to recognize software ideas that are obvious or have merit.
As for this particular patent? Well, it's a bit more unique, but $208-million per infraction unique? No freakin' way, especially since it is seldom used.
First, how does one example show "typically?" Second, obvious patent claims are not entitled to validity, so if the law is enforced we're fine.
Of course they are. What training do you have in analyzing patent applications for obviousness?
Algorithms are patentable under current law. Here is one such example, and it's a serious pain for people who work in the field of graphics. The laws need to be changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching_cubes#Patent_issues
It was $150million and Apple had a few billion in cash reserves at the time - they weren't cash-strapped.
That whole deal was a PR stunt.
No, I assure you algorithms are NOT patentable under U.S. law. Your example proves my point - the algorithm is NOT claimed in the patent. The patent covers a SYSTEM, not an algorithm. For example:
Moreover, this is a 35 USC 112(6) claim, meaning that wherever you see the word "means" you have to substitute in the corresponding structure from the patent application. These claims cover HARDWARE, and a very specific implementation, at that.
You are perfectly allowed to use different "means" to perform the algorithm - a trivial example of which would be using a pencil and paper. If the algorithm were patented, you couldn't do that.
Shhh, you're throwing cold water on the Apple haters' favorite flamebait talking point...
Imagine the rejoicing on this forum if the headline read "MS hit with $625 million ........."
The inability of some to understand the basis for pro-Apple bias on an Apple users forum will forever confound the rational thinker.
Actually its 208 million and apple was found in violation of 3 patents.
Of course which goes back to my main point how fanboys are all up in arms because of this since apple can do no wrong, but just like patent trolls they're using the courts to their own advantage by suing companies/people. Just look at apple's sad attempt to sue anyone who uses the word pod in their product
Not really, its still shocks me that fanboys throw out common sense and logic when it comes to appleThe inability of some to understand the basis for pro-Apple bias on an Apple users forum will forever confound the rational thinker.
You make the fatal flaw in thinking the people up in arms about all this stuff know what "obviousness" means regarding patent law
No, he/she was not referring to this lawsuit, he/she was referring to the Apple/Microsoft settlement/cross-licensing agreement in which MS invested $150 million (aka "that time Microsoft saved Apple from certain doom" in the misguided eyes of the Apple haters brigade).