Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The issue with the patient system today is, that it doesn’t allow for two or more people/groups to come up with the same answer for same question/problem. We have millions of hardware and software engineers, you can’t tell me that everyone of them is going to solve a similar problem a different way.

It does. 35 USC 103. If the solution would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, the patentee is not entitled to the patent. This is a very common defense to allegations of patent infringement.
 
During the ten years Apple has spent fighting over $1 billion, Apple made about $1,700 billion. (Or 1.7 trillion)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
I have some novel ideas for how fridges should work. I don't build fridges though. I have no intent to ever build a fridge. I don't want to build a multinational fridge-empire that takes on Samsung and LG and the rest.

I should be able to sell my ideas to those companies. Patents are how I can do it.

If I patent the idea and nobody does it for a few years, but then somebody picks it up, am I not entitled to something? You'd label me a patent troll, but it was my idea that I worked on for a few weeks. I'm the engineer who thought of it - I just didn't have the resources* at my disposal to bring it to market and distribute it worldwide at a cost customers would accept.

In software, this does seem a tad stupid, though. Scaling software is so trivial - who is capable of building worthwhile software but then finds that distributing it to customers is too daunting? Hardware is a totally different beast.
your example with the fridge is only half of the issue.

In software, you can patent very broad concepts.
Whereas in hardware you can mostly patent function.

For example, you can patent a new compressor design, that runs on unicorn farts, for your fridge and sell it.
But you cannot create a patent in a way that prohibits other inventers from also developing a UF-compresser for fridges, as long as it differs substatially from yours.

In software, you can patent whatever you want.
Example Amazon has a 1 click payment patent - and the patent doesn't cover the software and hardware required to pay with one click (as the Unicorn fridge did) - nope, it is a patent describing the concept of using an UI element to make an instantanious checkout

Below i've attached a patent that's describes a person using a "communication media" to connect a database of merchants.
- this is basically online sales, online ads and online phonebooks, all in one patent.

2021-01-18 02_08_16-Window.png


So yeah, in a perfect world, people would only sell ideas and licences to ideas.
In the real world, apple managed to patent a rectangle with rounded edges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArtOfWarfare
your example with the fridge is only half of the issue.

In software, you can patent very broad concepts.
Whereas in hardware you can mostly patent function.

For example, you can patent a new compressor design, that runs on unicorn farts, for your fridge and sell it.
But you cannot create a patent in a way that prohibits other inventers from also developing a UF-compresser for fridges, as long as it differs substatially from yours.

In software, you can patent whatever you want.
Example Amazon has a 1 click payment patent - and the patent doesn't cover the software and hardware required to pay with one click (as the Unicorn fridge did) - nope, it is a patent describing the concept of using an UI element to make an instantanious checkout

Below i've attached a patent that's describes a person using a "communication media" to connect a database of merchants.
- this is basically online sales, online ads and online phonebooks, all in one patent.

View attachment 1714889

So yeah, in a perfect world, people would only sell ideas and licences to ideas.
In the real world, apple managed to patent a rectangle with rounded edges.

The patent claims determine what is patented, not some random figure from the patent. What patent number is this?
 
You keep calling things illegal. What law did virnetx break?
You are right they didnt break any law they just used a loop hole, the responsibility of judiciary is not to just follow rote law but also apply their experience and wisdom, otherwise why do we need a judge? We can write a program that serves justice, following and enforcing the rote law through a machine is quite simple. We need human judges to use their experience and wisdom.
 
You are right they didnt break any law they just used a loop hole, the responsibility of judiciary is not to just follow rote law but also apply their experience and wisdom, otherwise why do we need a judge? We can write a program that serves justice, following and enforcing the rote law through a machine is quite simple. We need human judges to use their experience and wisdom.

Judges don’t decide the winners of patent cases.

It’s easy to say that a subject you don’t know anything about is broken.
 
There is a difference between waiting for the right time to make something of your patented idea and just buying vague patents to slap others with a lawsuit around when an actual idea comes along that generates money.

These guys are that. They just hold (or rather buy) patents for royalties without ever putting a product. Their sole business model revolves around making money from royalties or screwing anyone.

This is why patent law needs to be amended. These types of companies hamper innovation. FaceTime used to be great by doing peer-to-peer. Now with a server connection, it’s not as good. Thanks patent trolls.
They're just middlemen though. I, the inventor, wanted cash for the patent now, and so they bought it off me. They're also taking on the risk that maybe the patent never actually gets implemented and so is actually worthless.

"Patent trolls" feel wrong, but I'm not sure that they are... as far as FaceTime previously being great, it seems like Apple had numerous choices for how to acquire the rights to the way they were doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoodafoo
How is that a “patent troll?” By definition a patent troll does not practice its own invention.
Calling a company for patenting communication technologies essential for FaceTime while patenting something so obvious as a slide to unlock and suing others is ironic.
 
  • Love
Reactions: PC_tech
They're just middlemen though. I, the inventor, wanted cash for the patent now, and so they bought it off me. They're also taking on the risk that maybe the patent never actually gets implemented and so is actually worthless.

"Patent trolls" feel wrong, but I'm not sure that they are... as far as FaceTime previously being great, it seems like Apple had numerous choices for how to acquire the rights to the way they were doing it.

They are because their sole purpose is to just sit on vague patents for milk companies for cash. Instead of investing in R&D to drive innovation forward, they stifle it.
 
Calling a company for patenting communication technologies essential for FaceTime while patenting something so obvious as a slide to unlock and suing others is ironic.

If it was so obvious, then how come nobody ever did it before?

Everything looks obvious once it’s been done. It’s called “hindsight bias.”
 
They are because their sole purpose is to just sit on vague patents for milk companies for cash. Instead of investing in R&D to drive innovation forward, they stifle it.

So the issue isn't that they "sit" on the patents, but that the patents are vague.

Maybe.

What is the difference between a software patent and a hardware patent?

Also... if this is a real problem, why aren't companies trying to get this changed? I'd think it'd be a matter for the legislative or executive branch to fix, if such "vague" patents are permitted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
So the issue isn't that they "sit" on the patents, but that the patents are vague.

Maybe.

What is the difference between a software patent and a hardware patent?

Also... if this is a real problem, why aren't companies trying to get this changed? I'd think it'd be a matter for the legislative or executive branch to fix, if such "vague" patents are permitted.
Yup, they're basically digital squatters
 
So the issue isn't that they "sit" on the patents, but that the patents are vague.

Maybe.

What is the difference between a software patent and a hardware patent?

Also... if this is a real problem, why aren't companies trying to get this changed? I'd think it'd be a matter for the legislative or executive branch to fix, if such "vague" patents are permitted.

There‘s no such thing as a “software patent,” but people have to complain about things they don’t understand, so...
 
Last edited:
Lol so a court full of lawyers and other experts across several fields spend over a decade going over the meticulous details of the infringements and ultimately decide twice that Apple is in the wrong, but a bunch of macrumors armchair experts think they know better

tell me more about how this is for justice and not just your insane brand loyalty... never change, macrumors
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Lol so a court full of lawyers and other experts across several fields spend over a decade going over the meticulous details of the infringements and ultimately decide twice that Apple is in the wrong, but a bunch of macrumors armchair experts think they know better

tell me more about how this is for justice and not just your insane brand loyalty... never change
Isn’t it cute how certain people here just know everything? o_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_O
 
Lol so a court full of lawyers and other experts across several fields spend over a decade going over the meticulous details of the infringements and ultimately decide twice that Apple is in the wrong, but a bunch of macrumors armchair experts think they know better

tell me more about how this is for justice and not just your insane brand loyalty... never change, macrumors
Lawyers don't defend what's right, they just defend whoever pays them
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Suckfest 9001
Sideshow Bob was saying the same thing, that Apple's open source stuff isn't worthy of consideration.
re-read the initial question from sideshow:
“Yeah right, because Apple are normally into open sourcing stuff huh?”

he’s questioning the occurrence of open source projects by Apple. not the quality or the importance of open source.
 
Lawyers don't defend what's right, they just defend whoever pays them
Or just maybe Apple used this tech without permission. Apple is far from perfect with “borrowing” tech. They just have the bankroll to bankrupt these companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Or just maybe Apple used this tech without permission. Apple is far from perfect with “borrowing” tech. They just have the bankroll to bankrupt these companies.

To be fair, they almost certainly had no idea that the patent even existed at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Td1970
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.