Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

[kdarling]

Funny how Coca-cola cannot patent it's recipe for Coca-cola. Funny.

Oh that's right, it's because you cannot patent a food recipe.

Actually, you can patent a recipe. See here and here. The second link gives examples, although some seem to be more about the process than the ingredients. But then, we don't know what's important about the Coke recipe either.

Amazing how Coca-cola is able to survive without food recipe patents.

Coca-Cola doesn't WANT to patent their recipe, because then it would become public.

That's why they rely on it being a trade secret instead, locked in a vault.

 

[Oletros]

I completely disagree with this. I find it offensive that someone who has never created a single thing in his life can decide that your work does not deserve protection. If I can be thrown out of school because I had the same idea as someone else then software patents are needed. There are a number of companies who no longer exists because people stole their ideas and ran them out of business by copying them. Apple was almost one of them. They got lucky. This makes me so angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a creator not a thief!!!!!!

Perhaps before spitting such a shameless crap you have to inform better

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-A.-Posner/e/B000APOCZ4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1341509075&sr=8-1

 

[KnightWRX]

THIS is a threat to innovation. Without startups, we are stuck in a monopoly.

Even with startups, big companies just end up buying the interesting ones. Look at all of Apple's acquisitions over the years. A bunch were small startups with interesting ideas that Apple wanted for themselves. Same for Google, Microsoft and tons of other big industry players.

 

[realeric]

Yeeeeee........ Now, can I copy Windows 8, MS Office, OS X Mountain Lion, Photoshop, songs for free? I mean pirating using torrent. I like judge Posner......... What a wonderful world !!!

 

[FakeWozniak]

The Neonode N1m says you lie btw (that's what the Judge based his decision on in the UK, a 2005 touchscreen phone using Slide-to-Unlock, as patented by Neonode).

Neonode isn't saying I am a liar, you are. But I think you are mistaken.

The difference between the patents is:
Neonode has an offscreen slide to unlock, and
Apple has an onscreen motion to unlock.

 

[TsunamiTheClown]

Here in the UK at least, it is up to the judge and jury to decide whether a law is fair. If they believe it is not then they can find the defendant not-guilty, even if 'according to the book' the defendant has 'crossed the line'.

This I hope is true for the US too.

It's worth noting however that even in UK many judges will insist to the jury that their 'oath' means they must rule in accordance with 'the law / the book'. However this is not true.

Great point. So perhaps thats where we are at. If the "legally obtained patent" is invalidated because the Judge thinks that patents are unnecessary, i think that becomes a _big_ deal.

As for Judges sitting in judgment of the law and not in enforcement of it. This is hopefully the way it works.

 

[KnightWRX]

Neonode isn't saying I am a liar, you are. But I think you are mistaken.

The difference between the patents is:
Neonode has an offscreen slide to unlock, and
Apple has an onscreen motion to unlock.

Tell that to the UK judge then, because again, that's what he based his decision to invalidate Apple's patent on.

 

[brdeveloper]

Even with startups, big companies just end up buying the interesting ones. Look at all of Apple's acquisitions over the years. A bunch were small startups with interesting ideas that Apple wanted for themselves. Same for Google, Microsoft and tons of other big industry players.

So you agree that all the interesting startups are bought by the big players? We are stuck in a monopoly anyway.

 

[KnightWRX]

Great point. So perhaps thats where we are at. If the "legally obtained patent" is invalidated because the Judge thinks that patents are unnecessary, i think that becomes a _big_ deal.

Patents are usually invalidated based on prior art or obviousness.

----------

So you agree that all the interesting startups are bought by the big players? We are stuck in a monopoly anyway.

Oligopolies is more akin to what we're stuck with in technology these days (and other industries like food, hygiene and health products are the same).

 

[brdeveloper]

Yeeeeee........ Now, can I copy Windows 8, MS Office, OS X Mountain Lion, Photoshop, songs for free? I mean pirating using torrent. I like judge Posner......... What a wonderful world !!!

It's clear that you don't know the difference between coding and making a carbon-copy of binary data.

 

[Renzatic]

Try to use Mario or Luigi in a video game you wrote with 0 Nintendo code and comeback to tell me how it went.

You could probably get away with making a game that uses a fat Italian plumber in a red short and overalls and not be guilty of trademark infringement. At least as long as you don't call him Mario, and make him go "woo-hoo" everytime he jumps.

You can get as far as suspiciously similar without having to worry about a lawsuit. Just look at movies for an example. When you've got some movie that's a big hit, you get tons of B-grade ripoffs come out right after it. Movies you know are trying to ride the coattails of the original success, that are blatant about it, but are just different enough to slide past scot free.

Though to lend credence to Posner's claim about being first being enough, most people see the ripoffs as just that, and only the original gets the attention. That is, unless the copy improves greatly upon the original.

 

[BaldiMac]

Tell that to the UK judge then, because again, that's what he based his decision to invalidate Apple's patent on.

Sure, but disagreeing with a judge doesn't make you a liar.

 

[FakeWozniak]

Remember apple suing Samsung over the look of their icons based on trademarks ?

Try to use Mario or Luigi in a video game you wrote with 0 Nintendo code and comeback to tell me how it went.

How the hell am I wrong ? video games don't use patents for protection and are doing just fine. You're the one who brought up the analogy. Microsoft didn't not take any trademarked/copyrighted elements from Apple and you can't exactly patent "Look and feel", only specific designs.

Pacman or Mario are trademarks, no disagreement there. Now bring the thoughts back to iOS or Macintosh. How do you protect look and feel? Unlock the phone, slide through a few photos, type an email. We're talking look and feel.

Apple can't trademark look and feel.
Apple can't copyright look and feel. (They can copyright the source code)
Apple can't trade dress the look and feel.

Look and feel is not protectable. You seemed to suggest it was. That is what I was saying you were wrong about.

Violent agreement?

I think Apple should be able to protect look and feel. Just missing a legal tool to do it. It's a lot like trade dress IMO.

 

[brdeveloper]

Patents are usually invalidated based on prior art or obviousness.

----------



Oligopolies is more akin to what we're stuck with in technology these days (and other industries like food, hygiene and health products are the same).

Ok, oligopoly, cartel (although a complex cartel involving politic and public agents), whatever. I said monopoly in a lato-sensu meaning.

 

[tdmac]

Exactly.

Let's translate what happens in the area of software patents to more conventional patents.

Let's say I come up with an idea of a flying car powered by water - quite a generic idea. I can patent that idea. Now, I don't even have to construct that car, I just own the (software) patent. But let's say I build the flying car, it's quite slow, only hovers 2 feet above the ground, but kinda works. Then company X builds another car that floats 2.3 feet above the ground. It doesn't matter how they've done it, but I can sue them because they have infringed my patent (idea). Should I be allowed to sue them? Isn't this stopping innovation?

Lets go with your idea. Now you spent $500,000 of your own money constructing, designing, engineering to actually build that car that hovers 2 feet above the ground. Now someone else wants to be in the flying car business and takes all of your designs, hardwork and just tosses out some weight or makes a slight modification so it now can hover 2.3'. He spent nothing on R&D and now can trump your idea and rode off your $500,000 coat tails. You are now broke since no one will buy your flying car that looks the same and hovers only 2'. That's acceptable?

Under the patent system, the idea could be advanced by that second party if party #1 licenses the product to that other party. Or if the original owner wants to sit on it, a new company can come up with another concept/design that is uniquely different or go about it in a different way to be patented.

I agree that in many instances there are patents given for silly things. However, I don't blame Apple. I blame the system as a whole. Many of these silly things came out at the time of the internet. i.e. Amazon is probably the most notable. This then set the stage for other software companies to protect similar things. What is a company like Apple to do? Not patent these ideas and let others do it and lock them out or give the ideas away?

The other side is looking at many of these patent cases with hindsight 20/20 vision. In todays landscape these things seem highly obvious. However, if you look back at when some of these patent applications were granted the ability to fathom the concepts for allot of these things were unheard of. Look at some of Apple recent ideas that have been recently or applied for. I don't see the same calling for end of the patent process when those ideas are posted. Why? No one thought of them before and we deem the concept cool and novel.

To me this issue is that when one company comes out with something cool the consumer wants that same idea avail on a different product that they use. Thus, they get angry at the initial company for stifling innovation for a product they like better but wished it had the other products features.

 

[Renzatic]

Neonode isn't saying I am a liar, you are. But I think you are mistaken.

The difference between the patents is:
Neonode has an offscreen slide to unlock, and
Apple has an onscreen motion to unlock.

In practical usage, what's the difference between the two?

Now bring the thoughts back to iOS or Macintosh. How do you protect look and feel? Unlock the phone, slide through a few photos, type an email. We're talking look and feel.

...I think Apple should be able to protect look and feel.

That's not look and feel, that's you using your computer. Unlocking the phone, typing an email, looking at photos. Computers and cell phones have done these tasks long before Macs and iOS were on the scene.

Look and feel would be the rounded corners on a window, the grey border, the icons, the way the screen on the iPhone bounces when you drag beyond the borders of the app. And so on and so on.

 

[kdarling]

Yeeeeee........ Now, can I copy Windows 8, MS Office, OS X Mountain Lion, Photoshop, songs for free? I mean pirating using torrent. I like judge Posner......... What a wonderful world !!!

You're totally confusing patents and copyrights.

Patents give you the right to prevent others from using your invention.

Copyrights give you the sole rights to reproduce and distribute your creation.

 

[FakeWozniak]

Tell that to the UK judge then, because again, that's what he based his decision to invalidate Apple's patent on.

Like I said, the judge is a liberal tool or possibly illiterate...

 

[KnightWRX]

You could probably get away with making a game that uses a fat Italian plumber in a red short and overalls and not be guilty of trademark infringement. At least as long as you don't call him Mario, and make him go "woo-hoo" everytime he jumps.

I'd really like to see that. The likeness of Mario/Luigi are protected. Your drawings would have to be sufficiently different from the originals and as such, you wouldn't have a fat italian plumber anymore, you'd probably have a thin chinese brick layer, or a muscular american factory worker.

 

[FakeWozniak]

In practical usage, what's the difference between the two?

If you're suggesting there is no difference, some would disagree. If you're just asking, the Apple patent has onscreen path indication (i.e. picture). Apple apparently convinced the USPTO it was different enough.

 

[KnightWRX]

Like I said, the judge is a liberal tool or possibly illiterate...

Or maybe there's just something you don't understand about patent law and the 2 patents in question that he got to review for quite a few hours, not to mention basing his decision on his knowledge of the laws of the land and his experience ?

Funny how some people without even so close as to an understanding of the difference between the different types of IP (copyright vs trademark vs patents) can say a judge was "wrong".

 

[FakeWozniak]

you'd probably have a thin chinese brick layer, or a muscular american factory worker.

Or a friendly Canadian curling champion.

 

[TsunamiTheClown]

Patents are usually invalidated based on prior art or obviousness.

True, however i am responding to the OP where the Judge tosses this around:

"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," he said.

It appears that he has a much broader reformation in mind. One which i don't argue may be over due, but would have a major impact to the market as it exists today.

 

[KnightWRX]

Now bring the thoughts back to iOS or Macintosh. How do you protect look and feel? Unlock the phone, slide through a few photos, type an email. We're talking look and feel.

Hum, why do you feel those should be protected ? I could unlock my phone, slide through photos and type an e-mail before the iPhone, I sure hope I'll still be able to do it after the iPhone.

No company should have a monopoly over basic functions like that.

 

[Navdakilla]

Agree 100%

Me too

I feel like Apple is just trolling. Not a fan