Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

[Unggoy Murderer]

I'm not sure how much I fully understand how patents work, but... if there was no patents on Software at all, wouldn't it be the case where "everyone copies the best (or one that works)"? In such a world, I can see lots of iOS copies, consumer confusion and only one party actually innovating.

I wouldn't want to work in such a world.

 

[NAG]

I'm not sure how much I fully understand how patents work, but... if there was no patents on Software at all, wouldn't it be the case where "everyone copies the best (or one that works)"? In such a world, I can see lots of iOS copies, consumer confusion and only one party actually innovating.

I wouldn't want to work in such a world.

Honestly, I'd read up more on this issue outside of this forum if I were you. Wikipedia would be a good place to start. Any information you'd get from here is going to be partisan and probably not the best place to learn about the issue.

 

[Unggoy Murderer]

Honestly, I'd read up more on this issue outside of this forum if I were you. Wikipedia would be a good place to start. Any information you'd get from here is going to be partisan and probably not the best place to learn about the issue.

Will do, thanks =]

 

[BaldiMac]

The problem is, the patents are so vague that you can't do some things differently. The swipe to unlock patent? Covers every gesture you make on the phone's screen. So it doesn't matter what genius idea you come up with, if it involves moving a finger on the screen Apple will hit you with their patent hammer.

Again, discussing the validity of a patent based on its summary or title isn't very productive. You have to read the specific patent claims. Apple didn't patent simply using a gesture to unlock a mobile device.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8046721

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Again, discussing the validity of a patent based on its summary or title isn't very productive. You have to read the specific patent claims. Apple didn't patent simply using a gesture to unlock a mobile device.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8046721

But it has been declared to be invalid in a few courts and it is a great example of the many crapents Apple is using and why Apple is now the worlds largest patent troll.

 

[BaldiMac]

But it has been declared to be invalid in a few courts and it is a great example of the many crapents Apple is using and why Apple is now the worlds largest patent troll.

I'm shocked to find out your opinion of Apple with respect to this topic.

I'm aware of most of the decisions around this patent. I don't care if it's invalid or not. I just think its more productive to discuss the actual patent claims instead of made up ones.

 

[manu chao]

They are killing progression in most software markets. The worst part is most people don't even know a patent exists until after they spend millions on development only to have it blocked in the end.

I can understand broad software ideas, but to put a patent on a sliding button, multi-touch etc.. is just too far reaching and only large companies can afford the patent attorneys.

Given how fast innovation is in the computing industry (compared to develop and bringing a new drug to market), maybe software patents should just come with a much shorter protection period. Give that slide to unlock a two-year protection. But give something like a new video-encoding algorithm a five-year protection.

 

[The Man]

This is not for one judge to call, if software patents are necessary or not.

His judgement causes unfair competition. Why? Because Apple pays many patent trolls money for use of certain software patents. Apple also probably pays big companies like Nokia, IBM, etc. for software patents. It would be all good if everybody doesn't have to pay for software patents. But that's not the case. It's made all very selective if a judge isn't looking to see if a patent is valid under the laws, but just dismisses a whole case because he feels these are not necessary.

Also, patent law is different in many countries. Some countries don't have software patents. But the US does. And until the law changes, judges have to look at things fairly under the law.

There is also a fine line where software and hardware interconnect to do certain functionality. Gestures etc. are nothing without the underlying hardware and sensor designs. But gestures also carry very specific algorithms, ways, of detection. What is patentable in this whole system and what not?

 

[wallysb01]

Yes, I was being loose with what exactly was patented and assumed that we would all understand what exactly was patented (i.e. they don't own the gene and can extract payments from everyone who has the gene as that would be absurd).

I was not referencing the slide to unlock patent with the BRCA one. I was merely addressing the statement with respect to cancer and how yes, we can have patents with broad scope in any field.

Sure, sure, I just wanted to make the clarification because it is a common misconception that because some company finds something or other out about a gene that they can patent it.

 

[manu chao]

Code can very much be kept secret. You don't quite understand how optimizing compilers work if you think you can "decompile" a binary and obtain the source code from it.

Even with symbols intact in the code, you'll hardly get what the programmer was actually working on from a decompiler.

Trying to "copy" by decompiling a binary and going from there for a programmer is a ludicrous endeavour. It's usually just easier to analyse the initial problem and implement a solution from scratch.

Software patents span a very wide range. Keeping that slide-to-unlock feature secret is obviously impossible. Keeping a video-compressing algorithm secret if it is distributed to hundreds of licensees is also difficult. And deducting the general principles of the compression from binary code (and its output) is likely also possible (but then one might ask whether the general principles should patentable).

If you look at communication protocols between lenses and cameras, reverse-engineering them is not too difficult (though one will not be able see unactivated features which require adaption when they do get activated, one reason why Sigma lenses occasionally need firmware updates to keep up with newest cameras).

 

[wallysb01]

Again, discussing the validity of a patent based on its summary or title isn't very productive. You have to read the specific patent claims. Apple didn't patent simply using a gesture to unlock a mobile device.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8046721

So, touching a touch screen in a way to move an on-screen graphic to unlock it? Maybe I should patent the shape of my hair style....honestly....This could be applied to any method to unlock a touch screen devise using the touch screen.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Software patents span a very wide range. Keeping that slide-to-unlock feature secret is obviously impossible. Keeping a video-compressing algorithm secret if it is distributed to hundreds of licensees is also difficult. And deducting the general principles of the compression from binary code (and its output) is likely also possible (but then one might ask whether the general principles should patentable).

If you look at communication protocols between lenses and cameras, reverse-engineering them is not too difficult (though one will not be able see unactivated features which require adaption when they do get activated, one reason why Sigma lenses occasionally need firmware updates to keep up with newest cameras).

That is not figuring out and getting the code.
Btw Reverse engineering is legal and done all the time.

I suggest you go look up how engineering is and the standard set of rules engineers play by.

Give an engineer a problem the first thing he will ask himself in trying to solve the problem is "Is there anything out there that already does something like this and if so can that solution be adapted to solve the current problem?" Which means do not go and reinvent the wheel every time. A good engineer is going to look at what is out there and see if how they can improve on it or adjust it to work with their current problem.

Also in your cast all they can grab is the infomatino sent in between. That do not get the guts of the code or how it works. Plus you have to look at it in time and money.

By your logic I should be able to figure out ColaCola formula. I have the product and I can figure out its chemical break down.

 

[manu chao]

This is ONE judge with an opinion. In a patent free tech world what would you say to Samsung if they produced an exact copy of the iPhone right down to a slightly modified Apple logo? Apple did not invent but ceratinly perfected the mobile OS touch UI and made it popular. And you say it's perfectly okay for other companies to simply sit back, wait for Apple to make something popular, and then rip it off totally? Really?

The reason why some people would be fine with that is because they would prefer that outcome (despite all its obvious drawbacks) to the current situation with huge legal costs (and the potential crushing of small companies who cannot afford legal protection against a big company).

It is called radical thinking or throwing out the baby with the bathwater, depending on which side you stand. I mostly think it is capitulating in the face of a highly complex problem. Or as others have said: "Every complex problem has a simple, wrong solution."

 

[fpsBeaTt]

To people supporting the judge's opinion on this matter, think of what this means if you take it to its logical conclusion.

 

[Oletros]

To people supporting the judge's opinion on this matter, think of what this means if you take it to its logical conclusion.

That software has to be protected via copyright, design patents and trade secret?

 

[BaldiMac]

So, touching a touch screen in a way to move an on-screen graphic to unlock it?

That's part of claim 1!

Maybe I should patent the shape of my hair style....honestly....This could be applied to any method to unlock a touch screen devise using the touch screen.

And then we are back to nonsense.

Android's Gesture Unlock or a passcode unlock would be obvious counterexamples.

 

[manu chao]

That is not figuring out and getting the code.
Btw Reverse engineering is legal and done all the time.

By your logic I should be able to figure out ColaCola formula. I have the product and I can figure out its chemical break down.

My point was that software patents can be about other things than the actual code implemented. And reverse engineering is not legal in all circumstances, reverse-engineering digital copyright protection code is illegal.

 

[rendevouspoo]

In such a world, I can see lots of iOS copies

JellyBean would like to have a talk with you.

 

[gnasher729]

I'm not sure how much I fully understand how patents work, but... if there was no patents on Software at all, wouldn't it be the case where "everyone copies the best (or one that works)"? In such a world, I can see lots of iOS copies, consumer confusion and only one party actually innovating.

I wouldn't want to work in such a world.

You actually do completely and fully _not_ understand how patents work. There is copyright protection, which protects among other things books, music, videos, and software, from unauthorized copying. Harry Potter isn't patented, right? Copyright prevents you from copying what I do. Patents prevent you from doing the same things that I have patented, even if you never heard of that patent. It's like me planting a plum tree in my garden and harvesting plums - copyright prevents you from harvesting _my_ plums from _my_ plum tree. Patents prevent you from planting your own plum tree in your own garden.

By your logic I should be able to figure out ColaCola formula. I have the product and I can figure out its chemical break down.

1. The Coca Cola formula is a trade secret. You are not allowed to reverse engineer trade secrets.

2. I would be 100% sure that Pepsi can create a drink that tastes 100% identical to Coca Cola, without having the Coca Cola formula. However, people who prefer the Pepsi taste would be very annoyed if Pepsi changed their recipe, and people who prefer the Coca Cola taste wouldn't buy it from Pepsi.

Thing is that if you have a general concept that you have implemented, copy-writing only your specific code isn't enough...people could take your idea and make their own code. So for a truly novel concept, you need patents. The other thing is that while the front of a patent might seem obvious (virtual keyboard, etc), there might be something underneath that describes HOW it is done which is considered novel.

And what you want to be patented is not supposed to be patentable. Ideas cannot be patented. Your particular method to achieve the idea is patentable (if it is novel and non-obvious), but anybody is free to take your idea, and achieve it in a different way. Anyway, ideas are ten a penny. Everyone has ideas. Taking an idea and turning it into a a working product, that is the hard part.

 

[kdarling]

Again, discussing the validity of a patent based on its summary or title isn't very productive. You have to read the specific patent claims. Apple didn't patent simply using a gesture to unlock a mobile device.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8046721

First off, Apple patented something that we longtime touch developers considered obvious: adding a visual cue to slide-to-unlock. Several judges worldwide have since agreed on the obviousness.

Second, they didn't reference a lot of prior patents that they could've.

Third, they kept adding ONTO the original patent using a practice called "double patenting", where the patent applicant continues a previous patent in order to take advantage of the earlier priority date so they can sue others.

Read this patent analysis by M-CAM, which goes into details on the rejections that Apple kept trying to overcome, and how they eventually wore down the examiner.

Here's the original application.

Here's the first Patent: 7,657,849, which is still only about using a predefined path.

Here's the double dipping continuation filed in 2009: 8,046,721 which adds on less strict ways of unlocking that might be familiar to Android users.

 

[wallysb01]

And then we are back to nonsense.

Android's Gesture Unlock or a passcode unlock would be obvious counterexamples.

Unfortunately not. You're still manipulating an on screen element. Apple's patent doesn't limit the feature to actually moving some on-screen element. I'm wondering if you read your own link...

 

[KnightWRX]

Once a patent is actually issued, the courts HAVE to respect it, even if it seems like a silly patent which is way too broad and obvious...

Hum... and I guess we've just been imagining all the patents getting invalidated by courts over obviousness and prior art ?

Mind explaning what you mean here in the context that the courts HAVE invalidated patents, so in no way does it seem they HAVE to respect them as you put it ?

----------

I can't defend all software patents, but they should be available. Sorry. How much innovation comes from freeware?

Wait, where do you get that software that isn't patented must be freeware ?

----------

1. The Coca Cola formula is a trade secret. You are not allowed to reverse engineer trade secrets.

Uh ? Sure you are. There's actually no formal protection for trade secrets, they are protected by the fact that they are secret. Once the secret is out, the only thing you can do as a company is sue whoever was under NDA or contract to not disclose the secret and did, and you can only sue them for Breach of Contract.

Once the secret is out, either through reverse engineering or information leaks, it's out, it's not a secret anymore.

 

[cliffbdf]

Not judicial activism

Is it just me or is this judge straying into Judicial Activism with this kind of pontificating?

I mean the question at hand was not "Are intellectual patents a good idea in this industry or not?", but more like "Is this particular patent being infringed upon?".

If we do away with Intellectual Property Patents i think we can agree that the motivation for innovation will be greatly hindered.

It is only judicial activism if the judge acts on his personal feelings. He was giving his opinion in an interview. That is allowed. Judges can have personal opinions.

But more importantly, it is possible that it is not Constitutionally permissible for companies to own patents. The Constitution provides protections for _people_ (as in "We the People..."), and specifically with regard to patents, it says,

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

Note that it says "Authors and Inventors". It does _not_ say "companies that employ authors and inventors". To assume that companies can own patents is an extrapolation, and a big one in my opinion: if the authors of the Constitution had intended for these rights to apply to companies, they would have said so.

Based on the wording of the Constitution, I do not believe that they intended for anyone/anything other than individuals to own patents or copyrights; and patents and copyrights should not be transferable either, because the Constitution does not say that they are. They are not "property". The term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, and it is not what was intended by the authors of the Constitution.

 

[NAG]

Well the whole companies are people thing started a long time ago, unfortunately. Doubt that will be reversed any time soon.

What will be hysterical is if when we finally create an artificial intelligence if we decide to deny it rights as it isn't organic or a company.

 

[JohnDoe98]

The term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, and it is not what was intended by the authors of the Constitution.

No only that, their conception of "limited terms" was incredibly different than ours. Take a look at the history of the terms of copyrights in the US, it'll blow your mind. At this rate the limited terms will end up extended into perpetuity virtually making them unlimited. So much for the health of the public domain and the progress and innovations of the arts and science.

Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal

Copyright Act of 1831 - extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal

Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal

Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years

Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years