Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I've come to the conclusion that I think all software patents should be treated in a similar way to FRAND patents. Nobody should be able to use their patent to deny anyone else from using the idea, they only should be able to collect royalties from it.
That's how it works in music, if I write a song I can't prevent anyone else from making a cover version of it, I can only demand my share of the royalties as copyright owner.

You can prevent anyone from using it without license or your permission. That is why you license someone to use your copyright materials...if you wish, and can sue them if they use your materials without permission.

Royalties you would collect on a contractual agreement between you and the publisher/record/label Co based on sales and use of your copyrighted materials.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps we should have a serious software patent reform.

You probably agree with the amazon one click patent too.

If Amazon spent time and money innovating to create the one-click technology by taking old ideas forward and improving them and then patented it, I'm not sure I have a problem with that.

If I ever came up with a unique selling point, I'd want to protect it and get paid for it if people wanted to use it.
 
After reading over the injunction, I'm especially appalled now. The trouble with most judges in technical cases is that they often have no personal experience in the topic, and must depend on whatever evidence is brought. Judge Koh wrote:

"The invention disclosed in the ’604 Patent overcomes two different problems in the prior art, both relating to a computer user’s need to quickly search for desired information".

"First, prior art did not provide for a single interface allowing a computer user to search for desired information across different types of information storage systems. For example, some computer operating systems provided interfaces for searching for files stored locally on a computer. Meanwhile, web browser applications enabled a user to utilize search engines provided by various websites. However, there had been no combination of desktop find routines that presented a single interface allowing a user to search simultaneously across different types of information storage systems. Thus, a user had to access a different interface to search for different types of information depending on that information’s stored location."

Hmm. I had a desktop plugin for Windows 2000 that let me type in a search string, and it looked across all my files, Outlook emails, the web, etc to present a list of matches.

Heck, quite a few websites allow you to enter a search string and it searches both local and non-local pages.

"Second, the prior art lacked sufficient search criteria to effectively filter information available, often yielding long and cumbersome keyword-based search results."

That same Windows plugin would let me filter the results and/or present them in different order.

Having used that old software, it feels like the prior art brought up by Samsung (two old search engines) were poor choices as evidence.

Judge Koh's ruling went on for two dozen pages into the details of the patent claim construction, prior art and obviousness... the pro and con of each hinging on the slightest interpretation, which should've been an indicator that the non-obviousness of the patent wasn't strong enough to warrant an injunction.

Apple has won such decisions on appeal; it'll be interesting to see if Samsung can as well.
 
None of these should be granted patents. Parsing data and having it be clickable to initiate a function goes back to the hyperlink.

Searching multiple databases for data? Im 100% sure apple did not come up with this.

Slide to unlock? Really? Thats like patenting type to unlock. And autocorrect? Whoever has the spellcheck patent should be angry.

Apple forgot how to innovate so they sue and make more pixels. So impressed.

You can't patent doing something, but you can patent a way of doing something. In other words, you can't patent the concept of a doorknob, but if you design a new mechanism, you can patent that.

Judges just don't hand out preliminary injunctions. Judge Koh originally rejected an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but was instructed by an appellate court to reconsider.

All the major players in the tech industry fight IP battles. If you don't think Google does this, too, then you are mistaken. The only good reason for buying Motorola Mobility was its patent portfolio. Motorola hasn't been requested to make a single Nexus device yet. Their only value to Google is in patents, some of which they are using to fight against Apple.
 
Any chance you might accept the fact that maybe you DON'T innovate on it? If Apple invented and patented it, maybe they should be the only ones who get to use it...

Before the iPhone, how many phones (including BB) could do this?

My old Windows Mobile device could. It's not the concept of parsing emails and such as links, it's how the iPhone does it that is patented, if Android were to design a different system that recognizes links etc they wouldn't be infringing.

uJnb1.gif
 
Last edited:
You can prevent anyone from using it without your permission. That is why you license someone to use copywriter materials...if you wish, and can sue them if they use your materials without permission.

I was about to reply to this too: interestingly, in the US it is true that you can't prevent someone from making and releasing a cover, although this is a bizarre anomaly that does not exist anywhere else in the world, where copyright in composition is just as valid as in anything else.
 
Using that logic, couldn't Apple take Google to court over Android and have all devices running any Android version be barred from sale in the US?

And while they're at it, why not bar Windows and PCs from sale in the US, too? I'd say Android resembles iOS as closely as Windows resembles OSX (in each case the former is a shoddy copy of the latter.)

I think that was the idea behind going after the Galaxy Nexus in particular. Since it is mostly stock Android, to the extent it is found in violation of Apple patents, it would give Apple more leverage in general.

This is only a preliminary injunction. All of this could be overturned at trial or by an appellate court.

It would be far more difficult and costly for Apple to get an injunction on the Galaxy SIII. First of all, it has some Samsung customization, so there could be a dispute as to whether it relies upon the same patents that (allegedly) the Galaxy Nexus does. Also, since the Galaxy SIII is a higher volume product (if Samsung's claim of 10 million shipments in July proves to be accurate), Apple would have to put up a lot higher bond in the event that they lose at trial and Samsung is able to recover damages for lost sales.
 
I was about to reply to this too: interestingly, in the US it is true that you can't prevent someone from making and releasing a cover, although this is a bizarre anomaly that does not exist anywhere else in the world, where copyright in composition is just as valid as in anything else.

You can't prevent them making it, but you sure can sue for content and copyright infringement.
Well logically writing music on sheet paper is akin to writing a mathematical formula. Which is the best way to copyright music-On sheet.
 
I couldn't agree more.

...

It's rather unfair that the consumer is the one being hurt the most out of Apple's stupid cries for injustice. I hope they lose all this bail :mad:

Lastly, I'd like rant that (and most of you probably already know this) Android is Linux. Linux is Open Source. Android is not stealing anything. There is nothing about my Android that is remotely similar to my iPod. In fact, hasn't Apple been the one to have taken ideas from Android? Notification center? Backgrounds?

Apple is a spoiled brat, and when they aren't "Hipster" anymore, they're going to pick up where they left off, in the classrooms and digital art fields.

Or Google's similar cries for justice (via HTC or otherwise) or Samsung's? Lots of spoiled brats in the world. Also, Open Source isn't the same as "Not Stealing", it's just a licensing paradigm, so you may want to rethink your logic on that one.
 
"think!"

To anyone that thinks they know what patents are being "copied", please stop thinking. To anyone that knows what patents are being "copied", please stand up.

Just because you "think" its unfair for Apple to sue over what they claim is a violation of patent use by these phone companies. Doesn't mean anything in real life. Apple spent quite some time R&D'ing and Patenting everything they could about there phone. Before the iPhone, you had nothing like you have now. People can say they are stopping innovation, and competition. What that really means is your too damn lazy to come up with another way, or better way of doing something, and just copied what you saw someone else make. That's illegal, which is why we have patent laws, which is why Apple is suing, cause that's how it works.

Now, if the Judge were to say "Apple is wrong on this". Then guess what? It's wrong for Apple to do it! Get over it! Stop comparing it to anything else other then what the Judge said it is. If he/she finds that Samsung/HTC/Google/Motorola or whatever has infringed on any of the questioned Apple patents. Then that's what it is! This business is about who gets there first, and patents it. If said company/person did so, and someone copied any part of it. They stole it, plain and simple. Now they have to go and do it another way if they want to sell it. The same protections work for them as it does against them. If you created something first, and patented it. You get to keep it and no one can just make a copy of it and sell what is your proven idea.

Now, it doesn't really matter what side anyone is on, on this. I'm an Apple Fan and I've used there products since I can remember. I personally don't think Apple will stop innovating any time soon if some how Google were to stop making Android. AND vise versa. Its a pretty simple world out there for many things. Such as a phone. You can choose to use Apples iPhone or some other phone, like Windows, or Symbian or in a few cases so far Android. So long as they all play well with each other (not coping and then getting sued over it). All is well. But, don't get mad at any of these companies if they do copy a feature or steal a patented idea from another, and get sued over it. Each company has the right to create something new, they don't have the right to steal.

Again, just because you "think" you know you have seen a feature of any phone being used way back when. Doesn't mean anything right now in this case. You can disagree on the rules that these companies have to abide by. But, those are the rules they knew about before getting into any messes they are currently in. Don't like the rules, vote for someone to change it. Simple!
I don't care one lick that any feature has been around since PONG or whatever hyperlink was in what browser or blah blah blah. Did they patent it? Does someone else currently own said patent? How do you know Apple doesn't own it? Or Google? Or AT&T or some government agency? Unless you know 100% what your talking about, your simply talking crap. :D

If Google or Samsung or whatever wants to sue Apple over the notification menu or any other feature that Apple is promoting. If they think its stolen, they have every right to sue over it. So it works both ways. Now, if they are not doing so. That certainly doesn't mean they are not doing so out of the kindness of there own corporate hearts. Or they just want everyone to get along. HECK NO! They may not have the patent you think they do on it. Apple may have some how programed it differently enough for it to be a different thing entirely from what the exact patent is. WHO KNOWS???? In either case, it has not happened yet, and maybe it will not or it will some day. But, if it does or does not. Its up to those parties involved to make that decision. Not for forum posters or anyone with just an opinion about any of this. :cool:

Now all that said "GO :apple:" :D
 
Maybe you can't steal ideas but you can copy ways of implementing those ideas without permission or recognition. In the 90s, I recall that James Dyson had a huge battle with Hoover etc who copied his bagless vacuum cleaner without permission. He eventually won and Hoover had to design their own implementation of the same idea from scratch.

----------



but not necessarily their METHOD of implementation.

What do you mean by method of implementation because this is some magic word you're trying to use to defend Apple.
 
Or Google's similar cries for justice (via HTC or otherwise) or Samsung's? Lots of spoiled brats in the world. Also, Open Source isn't the same as "Not Stealing", it's just a licensing paradigm, so you may want to rethink your logic on that one.


I think lots of people "think" they know something about anything. When they are proven wrong, they just argue and complain. Rather then learn something new, and admit they didn't know enough about it to begin with. Which basically means people don't' like to be proven wrong. They just want to believe what they "think" is right.
 
They stole iOS, how was he wrong? Look at Windows phone, it's not an iOS rip off. Its possible to do something without stealing the ideas of people who worked hard and invested huge amounts of money in it

I really have to agree with this. Saw whatever the windows mobile OS is in the wild for the first time on the bus the other day sitting behind this kid. It looked ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like iOS. It can be done, google chooses not to do it.
 
You can prevent anyone from using it without license or your permission. That is why you license someone to use your copyright materials...if you wish, and can sue them if they use your materials without permission.

Royalties you would collect on a contractual agreement between you and the publisher/record/label Co based on sales and use of your copyrighted materials.

Maybe it's different between countries but the music history is filled with examples of copyright holders being upset about a cover version of their work being made but they can't do anything about it. Also, where I live royalties are paid out based on public performances (live or playback) of the work and this has nothing to do with record company deals or sales. Those deals are a completely different matter, they involve the commercial copyright whereas what I'm talking about is the intellectual copyright which is a matter solely between the copyright holder and the authority collecting and paying the royalties.
 
What do you mean by method of implementation because this is some magic word you're trying to use to defend Apple.

Lets say one invents the pogo stick with a leaf spring and patents it. Then another makes one with a coil spring and sells it. The latter is not violating the method of construction cause the implementation of his design to achieve the same result is different. i.e.; the coil spring design he invented, vs the leaf spring design the other invented. But both look and do the same thing.
 
What do you mean by method of implementation because this is some magic word you're trying to use to defend Apple.

Again, the rules state what they state. If you can make it work by another means, your free to do so. You just can't do it exactly like the way someone else that patented it first. You have to compete by creating something "new" or better. Not by making a knock off that works the same way.

Just like cars. Yes, every car has 4 wheels. But, they buy tires from different manufactures that make there tires in different ways. The thread is different, the materials are composed differently, the conditions in which they perform are different. They are even made differently to suit the many different cars that are out there, under which they drive under different conditions. Like Snow, rain, icy, dirt, mud, sand, etc. Sporty, economy, handling, etc. Cars may have similar designs by they "look" different. Hatchback, 2 door, 4 door, 3 an a half doors. Engine in the front, in the back, in the middle, NO ENGINE, electrical, fuel cell, CNG, Diesel, gas, E85, methanol, etc. They all are different in many ways, and in others they actually BUY parts from other manufactures that make something they need, but can't make themselves due to "Patents". Why remake a radiator for your car when 10 companies make one just like what you need. Or Glass for windows. Why make that, when 30 companies make it exactly like you need. And more importantly you know if you try it would infringe on some companies patents. So you DON'T DO IT!
 
Lets say one invents the pogo stick with a leaf spring and patents it. Then another makes one with a coil spring and sells it. The latter is not violating the method of construction cause the implementation of his design to achieve the same result is different. i.e.; the coil spring design he invented, vs the leaf spring design the other invented. But both look and do the same thing.
Thanks for the clarification.

Now. Explain to me how this example can be translated in the software world, and give me an example of something that was copied by Android from iOS.
 
Using that logic, couldn't Apple take Google to court over Android and have all devices running any Android version be barred from sale in the US?

And while they're at it, why not bar Windows and PCs from sale in the US, too? I'd say Android resembles iOS as closely as Windows resembles OSX (in each case the former is a shoddy copy of the latter.)

Incorrect Android is superior to ios, and Windows 7 is light years ahead of OS X. OS X is still slow compared to Windows. Its getting better but its still slow.
 
I really have to agree with this. Saw whatever the windows mobile OS is in the wild for the first time on the bus the other day sitting behind this kid. It looked ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like iOS. It can be done, google chooses not to do it.


2 thumbs up on this!;)
 
Again, the rules state what they state. If you can make it work by another means, your free to do so. You just can't do it exactly like the way someone else that patented it first. You have to compete by creating something "new" or better. Not by making a knock off that works the same way.
Ok. Give me an example of a "complete knock off" in Android.
 
Maybe it's different between countries but the music history is filled with examples of copyright holders being upset about a cover version of their work being made but they can't do anything about it. Also, where I live royalties are paid out based on public performances (live or playback) of the work and this has nothing to do with record company deals or sales. Those deals are a completely different matter, they involve the commercial copyright whereas what I'm talking about is the intellectual copyright which is a matter solely between the copyright holder and the authority collecting and paying the royalties.

Same difference here whether music is published or performed copy versions of copyright material intellectual or commercial must be licensed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.