Apple-Motorola Judge Questions Need for Software Patents

[berenpx]

Patent troll

I despise Apple!

When developing the iPhone, Apple deliberately chose to ignore a bunch of standards essential patents held by Nokia. And they blatantly refused to pay royalties for licensing these patents under Frand (fair reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms - instead choosing to fight Nokia in the courts - until they of course lost spectacularly.

And yes, I fully support Judge Posner.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

Sure it would, we'd finally be rid of tons of lawsuits and licensing/cross-licensing deals that end up costing a lot of money for not much value in the end.

Patents do not help promote the arts in the field of software, they help companies get richer on the back of consumers.

 

[genovelle]

Many food companies have spent billions on their recipes, but guess what

You cannot patent a food recipe.

Amazingly... These food companies still do amazingly well.

Software patents need to go, pure and simple. Frankly, many of these software patents are so broad, it would be like Nestlé patenting chocolate chip cookie recipes. That's how ludicrous software patents are. They need to go.

w00master

You could not be more wrong. Recipes are protected. That's why Burger King and jack in the box had to wait 20 years to come out with a sandwich similar to the Big Mac. The same goes for the egg mcmuffin. Cookie companies have recipes and procedures that make their cookies taste different. They are protected for 20 years before copy cats come. These companies search the patent listings to get a head start on any leaked information to use their own tech against them. I still think it is sad that the real AT&T no longer exists because they were run out of business with their own product. One that no one would have otherwise. The creates so many advances over the years and know that will be silent. The current AT&T is really MCI they just own the name.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

This judge has it totally bassackawrds.
If you get rid of patent protections in software, every time a small shop innovates, a behemoth corporation will swoop in, steal it, and market it to death: BAM! There goes the innovator's first mover advantage.

On the other hand, pharmaceutical patents are one of the reasons our healthcare system is bankrupt. There are other ways to spur innovation in this field (grants).

 

[MacMantra]

Thievery!

You know, when it really comes down to it, you have to admit it is just thievery. I don't care if people think it is ultimately better for the consumer or not. People don't care about integrity or hard work any more, just the I'm OK, your OK mentality that breeds complacency. Apple works hard and spends allot of money for development on their product line to create something unique, cool, and technologically superior, just to have another company like Motorola, or Google or Microsoft who lack the vision wait in the wings to rip them off. I have no respect whatsoever for these companies. So yes the patent laws need work, but how can you breed innovation when you know that your patents wont protect you. Anymore, all you have to do is wait for a great product, rip it off and then just turn it another color and there you have it, another great product by Motorola. It is not like every company was racing to put out a phone or a tablet like Apple did hoping they would be the first. Apple changed the phone industry overnight and then came out with the iPad and now every Tom, Dick and Harry puts out a similar device and you thing it is just co-incidence, or just normal evolution of the a device or industry. Apple has every right to keep everyone else from developing and marketing devices that uses their technology. It is just common sense.

 

[schmidm77]

But the bottom line here is he is a federal judge, not a member of congress. It's not his job to determine the need for s/w patents. He should run for House or Senate if he feels passionate about reforming IP laws. I have tremendous respect for him as a jurist but his policy opinion gives the feeling he is prepared to legislate from the bench, which is a grosser offense, and more damaging to the country, than any abuse of current IP laws.

You don't understand how our common law legal system works, do you? Judges create new law through precedent all the time. "Fair use" is itself a common law construction.

As it is, he is merely giving an opinion based on a pure economic analysis point of view: do the costs of software patent monopoly outweigh the benefits.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple has every right to keep everyone else from developing and marketing devices that uses their technology. It is just common sense.

That's called copyright, not patents. We're discussing patents here.

And it's not thievery, it's infringement.

 

[Renzatic]

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.

You can still get pretty close without infringing directly. A fat guy with a moustache wearing a hat, red shirt, and overalls is pretty generic. Whereas Mario himself is pretty specific.

...like this:

That's probably a little too close, but it might be just enough for the guy on the left to get away with it.

----------

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.

Actually, the slide to unlock thing might be one of the few valid patents to be upheld. Like I said in a previous post no one saw because it landed at the bottom of the page, you can patent the process, but not the end result. In this case, sliding an onscreen representation of a tab to unlock the phone via touch can be patentable, but the concept of locking and unlocking a phone isn't.

So Apple has a patent on the bar, but Google can use their circle within a circle thing because it's a different process.

 

[kiljoy616]

He needs to read: Are software patents evil?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patents-evil/

Read it not impressed and yes software patents are evil.

 

[w00master]

You could not be more wrong. Recipes are protected. That's why Burger King and jack in the box had to wait 20 years to come out with a sandwich similar to the Big Mac. The same goes for the egg mcmuffin. Cookie companies have recipes and procedures that make their cookies taste different. They are protected for 20 years before copy cats come. These companies search the patent listings to get a head start on any leaked information to use their own tech against them. I still think it is sad that the real AT&T no longer exists because they were run out of business with their own product. One that no one would have otherwise. The creates so many advances over the years and know that will be silent. The current AT&T is really MCI they just own the name.

The method of manufacturing is patentable but recipes are not patentable. They've never been.

w00master

 

[Oletros]

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

And the dutch judges

 

[kiljoy616]

Me too

I feel like Apple is just trolling. Not a fan

Because this has not been done to them either.

Personally I love for bull patents of software, but then I would also like to see no patents on food that been around for ever (almost) which are even more asinine.

 

[kdarling]

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.

Look and feel is protectable by copyright, although it apparently requires a court to figure out each case. The USPTO generally requires that code and look are submitted separately, btw.

As for video games, one of the first cases was Atari v. Philips Electronics, over PacMan v. K. C. Munchkin.

"While noting that there was not identical copying, the Court found that defendant's game had captured the "total concept and feel" of Atari's game."- Look and Feel in Computer Software

Look and feel is also sometimes protected by trade dress these days. Trade dress is about trying to deceive the consumer as to the product source, though, and I don't think applies that much here. ( I don't think anyone thinks Android is trying to pretend that Apple makes it. )

 

[Oletros]

He needs to read: Are software patents evil?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patents-evil/

Daniel Eran Dilger? Really?

 

[w00master]

You could not be more wrong. Recipes are protected. That's why Burger King and jack in the box had to wait 20 years to come out with a sandwich similar to the Big Mac. The same goes for the egg mcmuffin. Cookie companies have recipes and procedures that make their cookies taste different. They are protected for 20 years before copy cats come. These companies search the patent listings to get a head start on any leaked information to use their own tech against them. I still think it is sad that the real AT&T no longer exists because they were run out of business with their own product. One that no one would have otherwise. The creates so many advances over the years and know that will be silent. The current AT&T is really MCI they just own the name.

Sorry to continue. It's the trademark and copyright that is protecting them. Again a recipe CANNOT be patented. They have never been.

Period.

w00master

 

[dannsh]

Gee Whiz

I wish I had patent the bubble sort. Patents on software code is crazy. Hardware Yes!

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.


They are not used for good in the software industry they are only used to harm.

 

[FakeWozniak]

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.

You didn't understand. Unlocking the phone by sliding your finger over a picture of a slider is look and feel. Flipping through photos and expanding fingers to zoom is look and feel. You are saying the same thing.

Shouldn't Apple be able to protect this look and feel? I think so. Apple thinks so. This is what software patents protect, no? Have you read the below link?

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patents-evil/

 

[KnightWRX]

You can still get pretty close without infringing directly. A fat guy with a moustache wearing a hat, red shirt, and overalls is pretty generic. Whereas Mario himself is pretty specific.

...like this:

Image

That's probably a little too close, but it might be just enough for the guy on the left to get away with it.

We have some pretty blatant trademark infringement right here in Quebec like that one. The thing is, will Disney really sue a restaurant called "Goofy", using Goofy as their mascot, when it's in a village with less than 2000 inhabitants (yes, really life example, they make awesome poutine too) ?

Same for your pizza example, that doesn't seem to be a mass-market game. Nintendo would probably still win a trademark infringement lawsuit if they became aware of the infringement.

 

[kiljoy616]

So yes the patent laws need work, but how can you breed innovation when you know that your patents wont protect you..

By brining it out to market and making something that people want to buy. A few lines of code should not a patent make.

 

[FakeWozniak]

Not sure I understand. In both cases, the user had to slide a finger across the screen, just like using a physical slide switch.

The neonode was a slide over touch sensitive sensors that were offscreen. Am I wrong about this? All I saw was the youtube video from about 2007 (2 years after the debut of the neonode).

 

[Oletros]

You didn't understand. Unlocking the phone by sliding your finger over a picture of a slider is look and feel. Flipping through photos and expanding fingers to zoom is look and feel. You are saying the same thing.

No, this is not look and feel

This is what software patents protect, no? Have you read the below link?

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/09/are-software-patents-evil/

Daniel Eran Dilger is not worth a bit

 

[EnergonCube]

Many food companies have spent billions on their recipes, but guess what, You cannot patent a food recipe.

Amazingly... These food companies still do amazingly well.

Software patents need to go, pure and simple. Frankly, many of these software patents are so broad, it would be like Nestlé patenting chocolate chip cookie recipes. That's how ludicrous software patents are. They need to go.

This is a misguided comparison. True, one cannot patent a recipe, but one CAN protect and keep that recipe a secret. It's why we see a generic "spices" on ingredient lists (because courts allow that secrecy) and it's why Coke's original recipe has never been accurately reproduced. Code on the other hand, cannot be kept secret. Software can be opened, decompiled, analyzed, and copied, etc.

 

[KnightWRX]

You didn't understand. Unlocking the phone by sliding your finger over a picture of a slider is look and feel. Flipping through photos and expanding fingers to zoom is look and feel. You are saying the same thing.

Shouldn't Apple be able to protect this look and feel? I think so. Apple thinks so. This is what software patents protect, no? Have you read the below link?

Apple neither came up with slide-to-unlock or pinch-to-zoom, so no, Apple should be able to protect those ideas and take them for themselves. They should be able to protect their implementation of the technology and the images they use to represent the various required graphical widgets through copyright and trademarks, but not the actual idea.

 

[Oletros]

Apple neither came up with slide-to-unlock or pinch-to-zoom, so no, Apple should be able to protect those ideas and take them for themselves. They should be able to protect their implementation of the technology and the images they use to represent the various required graphical widgets through copyright and trademarks, but not the actual idea.

Exactly

 

[KnightWRX]

This is a misguided comparison. True, one cannot patent a recipe, but one CAN protect and keep that recipe a secret. It's why we see a generic "spices" on ingredient lists (because courts allow that secrecy) and it's why Coke's original recipe has never been accurately reproduced. Code on the other hand, cannot be kept secret. Software can be opened, decompiled, analyzed, and copied, etc.

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.