Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

[KnightWRX]

deregulate software sure...

No one is talking about deregulating software. Software already benefits from protection through Copyright. No one can copy your software. Patents don't cover your actual software, but the ideas and methods behind it. That is what is hurting the consumer and the industry in general. Software patents shouldn't be granted, software should be protected by copyright only.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

China is a good reason.

 

[leman]

Fixed. You welcome.

You are so funny. Are you a patent lawyer by any chance?

 

[I Am Designer™]

Disagree Completely

I disagree with the judge wholeheartedly.

Protection of works should be allowed.

The judge has only shown he has probably never created anything new, interesting and highly original in his life.

Big Pharma might take years to develop a drug etc and then want to reap the rewards of it - but just because a good idea can come a long in a heartbeat - it doesn't mean that the person with the idea should have any less chance to reap the same awards.

These last few weeks of patent news have been incredible to watch - as a creative across range of media and industries I can tell you that when someone copies your ideas, steals your original work or tries to piggy back off things you have created - it only serves to devalue your original work, to water it down - you have less and less chance of reaping any sort of reward because you have nothing to be unique about and there is always someone willing to rip you off and do it virtually for free.

Protection of original work and ideas is necessary.

 

[BaldiMac]

While I don't think we should do away with IPP, I DO think rules need to be put in place to prevent suits like the Apple vs Samsung case.

So, you think IPP should be allowed, but you don't think a company should be able to sue if they think their IPP has been violated. What's the point?

If google were to take Apple to court over the Notification pulldown, they would likely win (or at least cause a stir) but I doubt they will because it's pointless. At some point, Apple, and others alike, need to stop litigating and start innovating.

Did Google patent the notification pulldown?

 

[TsunamiTheClown]

Absolutely right, tsunamiTC, NEVER question the system, just be a happy cog in the machine! Judges are not there to think, just to use the laws which our friendly corporations have already purchased.

Alas...

Systems are begging us to question them. But lets see some real changes to legislation and not merely a (apparently brilliant man) judge who expresses his informed opinions. Unless this is addressed in the market and in the legislation of the market, then it will go on no matter how much we dislike it.

 

[Over The Hill]

You are so funny. Are you a patent lawyer by any chance?

Graphics designer by day, superhero by night.

 

[NAG]

I notice how all the software patent talk is about big companies like Apple and Samsung. Anyone notice the complete lack of talk about small startups? Where are the patents from these small app companies that make some truly original apps?

They don't exist because the patent system as currently setup is a big company only club.

How does that protect innovation? If you have to be this tall to even play the game most software companies will not be protected (e.g. Lodsys going after small app devs). If the system protects and encourages innovation at all it only happens for a select few companies and in the current market they are not producing all the innovation (not by a long shot). Apple themselves trumpet this at WWDC. Apple provides the platform, the devs provide the innovation.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

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.

Do you really feel that innovation has been helped by having every tiny little thing patented and everyone and their mom being sued - often times unjustly?

In the software industry, the patent system has become a nothing more than a weapon for the wealthy and powerful to threaten and obliterate smaller, more innovative, and more nimble up and coming competitors.

It's no longer about protecting innovation. It's about stifling competition.

 

[rendevouspoo]

So, you think IPP should be allowed, but you don't think a company should be able to sue if they think their IPP has been violated. What's the point?

Apple tries to get lucky when they sue. Something has a hint of looking like something they've done? Screw it, SUE! To an extent, IPP should be allowed. Apple sues like it's nothing praying they luck up. How pissed would you be if Google were to sue Apple for everything that resembles something they came up with?

 

[Over The Hill]

Software patents in general have proven to be bad for innovation and advancement in recent years. They've become a force for stagnation as players constantly face hurdles in bringing new innovations where some small detail infringes existing patents outside of the "big picture" and in bettering existing solutions because they aren't the primary patent holder over them.

It’s very easy to see it from the other side. It can be just as hard to invovate without software patents.

The problem is not the patent system, but some patents that are granted can be thought of as common sense, logical thing to do.

If patent office start doing a better job when issueing patents i don’t see a problem with having software patents, because some things are actually worth a patent. Not the „i did it first“ patent where almost anyone can come up with the same idea in the logical thought process.

 

[BaldiMac]

I notice how all the software patent talk is about big companies like Apple and Samsung. Anyone notice the complete lack of talk about small startups? Where are the patents from these small app companies that make some truly original apps?

They don't exist because the patent system as currently setup is a big company only club.

How does that protect innovation? If you have to be this tall to even play the game most software companies will not be protected (e.g. Lodsys going after small app devs). If the system protects and encourages innovation at all it only happens for a select few companies and in the current market they are not producing all the innovation (not by a long shot). Apple themselves trumpet this at WWDC. Apple provides the platform, the devs provide the innovation.

That's just silly. Of course small companies hold patents.

I did read an interesting article the other day about that investor-backed startups are moving away from filing for patents because the investors are abusing them. The investors push for the inventor to file for patents. If the company fails, the investors can sell off the patents to a patent troll. Now, if the inventor wants to get back in the same field, he no longer has control of his own ideas!

 

[djphat2000]

I disagree with the judge wholeheartedly.

Protection of works should be allowed.

The judge has only shown he has probably never created anything new, interesting and highly original in his life.

Big Pharma might take years to develop a drug etc and then want to reap the rewards of it - but just because a good idea can come a long in a heartbeat - it doesn't mean that the person with the idea should have any less chance to reap the same awards.

These last few weeks of patent news have been incredible to watch - as a creative across range of media and industries I can tell you that when someone copies your ideas, steals your original work or tries to piggy back off things you have created - it only serves to devalue your original work, to water it down - you have less and less chance of reaping any sort of reward because you have nothing to be unique about and there is always someone willing to rip you off and do it virtually for free.

Protection of original work and ideas is necessary.

I agree with you.

 

[hobo.hopkins]

Apple tries to get lucky when they sue. Something has a hint of looking like something they've done? Screw it, SUE! To an extent, IPP should be allowed. Apple sues like it's nothing praying they luck up. How pissed would you be if Google were to sue Apple for everything that resembles something they came up with?

I think the (correct) point he's making is to change the laws. No one can be (or perhaps rather shouldn't be) unhappy when a company is exercising their legal right to dispute patent infringements. The problem isn't the company, it's the law.

 

[rmwebs]

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.

Whilst in a way I do agree in the sense that there does need to be something to protect intulectual property.

That said, the current system quite simply sucks big time. There are certain things that should not be granted a patent as in some cases having the patent hinders innovation from other parties.

Take something as pathetic as 'slide to unlock'. This is a pathetic excuse for a patent. You know it, I know it and Apple knows it. There is no technical insight or function behind it, its purely aesthetics.

In my personal opinion patents should not be allowed on individual design elements, but on a design or UI as a whole. For example, stop someone being able to rip the iPhone's UI (the button styles, shapes, and general layout of everything) but not the concept at which it is presented (e.g a set number of icons on a screen with a horizontal scroll).

The whole system is flawed and needs to be tossed out. Not that it'll happen however as those running this part of the US legal system are apparently morons.

 

[NAG]

It’s very easy to see it from the other side. It can be just as hard to invovate without software patents.

The problem is not the patent system, but some patents that are granted can be thought of as common sense, logical thing to do.

If patent office start doing a better job when issueing patents i don’t see a problem with having software patents, because some things are actually worth a patent. Not the „i did it first“ patent where almost anyone can come up with the same idea in the logical thought process.

Isn't there the problem where they are flooded with patents? How do they thoughtfully review a large amount of patents? Do they raise the bar for submitting patents for review even higher at the expense of individuals or small companies being able to successfully patent?

You can't just blame the number of patents being issued as the problem while saying there is nothing wrong with the system. The two are connected.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple tries to get lucky when they sue. Something has a hint of looking like something they've done? Screw it, SUE! To an extent, IPP should be allowed. Apple sues like it's nothing praying they luck up. How pissed would you be if Google were to sue Apple for everything that resembles something they came up with?

I'd personally be ok with it.

 

[FakeWozniak]

Posner seems to be suggesting that patents be used as a means to protect huge development investments. This is not the same reason they were created. IIRC, patents were invented to protect the individual/smaller corporations from the larger corporations. To me this sounds the opposite from Posner.

Besides, it is not up to one Judge to change the rules mid-game. If there is to be a patent system cleanup, it has to be phased over a long period of time (life of a patent) with all the players knowing the rules ahead of time.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

While I don't think we should do away with IPP, I DO think rules need to be put in place to prevent suits like the Apple vs Samsung case. If google were to take Apple to court over the Notification pulldown, they would likely win (or at least cause a stir) but I doubt they will because it's pointless. At some point, Apple, and others alike, need to stop litigating and start innovating.

Pretty sure everyone is copying Palm on that at this point. Hell....Apple hired the guy that helped develop the notification module in WebOS prior to iOS 5.

 

[Bezetos]

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

Stupid, ludicrous patents are already hindering motivation for innovation. How can you work on innovative, new sofwtare while there are so many pitfalls on the way? It's all about improving the patent system so that ludicrous software patents don't go through.

I'm personally against all software patents.

 

[devilstrider]

Apple lost a patent battle with HTC in london yesterday, this is to quote from what the judge said........

"It would of been an "obvious" improvement for the developers to have offered users visual feedback in the form of a "slider" in the way that apple later used.

The concept of a slider was not new since it had already appeared in microsoft's CE system."

All 4 patent disputes were rejected, now if only all judges had knowledge like this the nexus would not be banned.

 

[Over The Hill]

Isn't there the problem where they are flooded with patents? How do they thoughtfully review a large amount of patents? Do they raise the bar for submitting patents for review even higher at the expense of individuals or small companies being able to successfully patent?

You can't just blame the number of patents being issued as the problem while saying there is nothing wrong with the system. The two are connected.

Solve one problem (stop issuing funny patents, like "slide to unlock“ or anything based on common sense) and the second problem will go away on its own.

 

[NAG]

That's just silly. Of course small companies hold patents.

I did read an interesting article the other day about that investor-backed startups are moving away from filing for patents because the investors are abusing them. The investors push for the inventor to file for patents. If the company fails, the investors can sell off the patents to a patent troll. Now, if the inventor wants to get back in the same field, he no longer has control of his own ideas!

Yet the small companies are not submitting anywhere close to the number of patents a few big ones are. Yes, some small companies are patenting but most aren't (if you run the costs, patenting does not come out winning in a cost benefit analysis for small, couple people shops...which is what a lot of app devs are).

And the article further illustrates this. Those small companies probably never used those patents. Yet, the instant they fail and have their assets sold the patents are suddenly found to have many people infringing on them.

The system is broken. I'm not saying we should completely get rid of them but as it stands I believe leaving the current system will only hurt us.

 

[TsunamiTheClown]

It’s very easy to see it from the other side. It can be just as hard to invovate without software patents.

The problem is not the patent system, but some patents that are granted can be thought of as common sense, logical thing to do.

If patent office start doing a better job when issueing patents i don’t see a problem with having software patents, because some things are actually worth a patent. Not the „i did it first“ patent where almost anyone can come up with the same idea in the logical thought process.

Yeah, lets not toss out one of the biggest reasons that innovation has continued to thrive while trying to reform it. I totally agree.

Reform patent process and grounds? Absolutely. Carte Blanc declare the fact that some high tech device have loads of patents is indicative of evil protectionism. Gimme a break.

 

[leman]

I disagree with the judge wholeheartedly.

Protection of works should be allowed.

The judge has only shown he has probably never created anything new, interesting and highly original in his life.

Big Pharma might take years to develop a drug etc and then want to reap the rewards of it - but just because a good idea can come a long in a heartbeat - it doesn't mean that the person with the idea should have any less chance to reap the same awards.

These last few weeks of patent news have been incredible to watch - as a creative across range of media and industries I can tell you that when someone copies your ideas, steals your original work or tries to piggy back off things you have created - it only serves to devalue your original work, to water it down - you have less and less chance of reaping any sort of reward because you have nothing to be unique about and there is always someone willing to rip you off and do it virtually for free.

Protection of original work and ideas is necessary.

Very good post.

Unfortunately, this is where the confusion lies. I think we all agree that protection of original work is important (and this is what the copyright does). Imagine that you have invented a new, very confortable chair. This is your original work and its only fair that you profit from it. This is why the patent system was created in the first place.

But software patents and ideas are of a different kind. Software ideas are not products, they are highly abstract *methods* which can be used to create new products. Here, it is again important to differentiate. Some of these methods are highly specialized, say, speech recognition. If you write a software based on this method, you don't have to disclose the method itself. Also, one could argue that this specialized algorithm is your software/product and should be protected. But if your idea is very generic (say, a sorting algorithm or a patent like 'drawing an image on a screen'), its a whole different thing. You can't make a product solely out of this idea. You can use this idea to make new products or improve existing products, anyways - this is an idea everybody could profit from. Do you know how often I have been reinventing some sort of algorithms while programming? So its a bit absurd to say that someone 'owns' an idea like that.


That is my proposal, more or less: make products (or algorithm which define the products) protectable. But more general ideas, which can be applied in a whole range of products of different kinds, should not be patentable.