It actually is that simple, as long as you can prove that you were first to invent. In your scenario, Coke would have no problem invalidating the patent.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It actually is that simple, as long as you can prove that you were first to invent. In your scenario, Coke would have no problem invalidating the patent.
Misleading. Remember 35 USC 102(a). If the formula is "known" or "used" in the U.S., the person who comes along later is not entitled to the patent. If you are not first to invent, you can't get a patent, even if the first inventor did not file for a patent.
Again, misleading, though that's only because "invent" sometimes means "conception" and sometimes means "conception" plus "reduction to practice." But, in any event, all this points out is that it's not always clear when i've invented something - is it when I thought of the general idea? or when I've gotten it to the point of commercial practicality? something in between?
You just proved my point that paperwork is NOT important. Yes, I am on-sale barred, but the point is that the later person, no matter how many papers he files, can't get a patent on it either. My point was that to protect MY rights to PRACTICE MY invention, I do not have to file any papers. All that filing papers can do is prevent OTHERS from practicing the invention. This is a very important distinction when people are suggesting that they can be prevented from practicing their own invention "merely because someone else files papers first." As you know, that's untrue both because it doesn't matter in what order the papers are filed , and, more importantly, if I was doing it before you "invented" it, you can't patent it.
Exactly. If somebody got a patent on it and tried to exclude Coke by suing them from infringing, Coke would just have to show that it was publicly using the formula (by selling COke to the public) prior to the alleged conception date of the after-inventor.
Apple has had enough problems with snow leopard anyway. Guest account bug anyone? ;]
Also, as far as I know, it isn't the Microsoft's job to make sure hardware is compatible with Windows; it's the manufacturer's. They just release APIs and guidelines and all that for companies to follow.
But people will blame it on Windows anyway
*BSODs with an nvidia driver as culprit*
*goes on to blog about how terrible windblows is and never think about how it might just be nvidia who is at fault*
That's part of the problem with the Microsoft/PC market, from an end users perspective, in that it's not entirely clear whose fault it is. As a customer, you just want the stupid thing to work and when it doesn't, you don't want a bunch of different vendors pointing the finger at each other. That is a large part of the Apple story, "you have a problem, you come to us".
As for Microsoft getting the blame, well, in some ways it still is partially their fault. The architecture of Windows puts a HUGE amount of code in the video driver. While this increases performance, it also increases the odds that any particular card manufacturer can create problematic drivers that will have wide systemic effects on the OS. They may have had many valid reasons to design things this way, but the problem you mentioned with nVidia (and plenty of others) simply points out a design weakness in the OS.
You keep emphasizing YOUR rights, and as of yet, have failed to justify them. You argue as if these rights are self-evident, and are therefore defensible prima facie.
This is despite the fact that I've opened significant questions regarding your right to claim ownership over your ideas. Simply discounting dissenting opinion and re-asserting your position is nothing more than argument from repetition, and adds nothing to the debate.
You seem to believe pretty strongly in intellectual property rights, but have admitted you have no philosophical justification for those rights. You have presented conflicting views for the basis of rights, and have neglected to respond to my criticism as such.
If we wade through all the minutia, your argument really only has two points:
1. I'm right because the law says I am; and
2. I'm right because I say I am.
... which is really amongst the weakest argument structure you could throw at just about anything.
FWIW you seem to be making an argument that no one in this thread is participating in. Even the direct responses are simply historical and legal arguments, and not the philosophical justification of rights that you are looking for.
Mainly because there is no philosophical justification of any rights.
I'm not saying what's right and wrong, because unlike you, I don't believe that's my job. I'm just saying what is, and arguing that a world without IP rights is probably not a better place, anymore than a world without physical property rights is a better place. I don't agree with your characterization of my argument, and since my argument is in black and white for anyone to read, I'll let them decide. I don't care if I convince you. You seem to need to be "right."
Apple uses software to sell hardware. That's why it so cheap. If they were to sell software to run on peoples hardware, then it would become significantly more expensive to purchase.
I should have been clearer. Obtaining the patent is all I was talking about. Making it worth anything or have it hold up in court is much harder as you guys have pointed out.
In the case of a trade secret or unpatented on-sale item the PTO has no reason to know of the prior invention and should grant a patent if all the other requirements of patentability are met. Once the patent is issued, it benefits from an assumption of validity, and invalidating it can be a long expensive process, because it will usually fall to the courts and not the PTO.
The law may be on your side, but proving that can easily bankrupt a small company,
Participating in the process (i.e. doing the paperwork) helps to avoid this by putting your inventions in front of the examiners when they are looking at your competitor's inventions and thus having to invalidate issued patents in the courts.
B
All true, but in your example, suing Coke would mean asserting that the prior art is infringing. Since the allegedly infringing product pre-dates the conception date, there would be little expense involved in invalidating the patent (or at least in getting a summary judgment of non-infringement - because, of course, if Coke infringes, it also invalidates).
True, except it takes a while for the greedy idiots to stop seeing dollar signs ... they hope that "when" they win Apple will be forced to pay the legal costs.
So what?!?!?
Ford make cheaper cars then Ferrari, and Daihatsu make even cheaper cars ... nobody says you must buy the Ferrari.
Besides which, it is not "far less", and you usually get what you pay for. Pay peanuts to the elephants and you'll get dung.
True. It was just perfected here*LTD* said:
You mis-spelled "perverted", but then Americans are always mis-spelling English words.
I assume you mean attorneys's fees and not costs. And they would certainly know that there is almost no chance of that in a copyright case when they represent the defendants.
So what?!?!?
Ford make cheaper cars then Ferrari, and Daihatsu make even cheaper cars ... nobody says you must buy the Ferrari.
Besides which, it is not "far less", and you usually get what you pay for. Pay peanuts to the elephants and you'll get dung.
Plus Power computing didn't have to pay for the R&D that Apple had to pay for. Power Computing used an Apple-designed OS, and Apple-designed ROM, Apple-designed ASICs, etc. Apple didn't pass the real costs onto the clonemakers because, at the time, they wanted the clonemakers to succeed.
Thank you. Once again, someone has had to state the obvious. Glad it didn't have to be me this time.
Detailed analysis of the summary judgment against Psystar
http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/cour...case-apple-wins-summary-judgement-highlights/
Covering these issues:
- Overview: Latest Development
- Court Case History
- Background / Apple as free R&D? / Mac Costs Myth
- Case: Software owner can modify the program for LIMITED purposes
- Case: Owner of lawfully made copy can resell the copy
- Case: Right to Create Derivative Works
- Case: Anti-Trust / Copyright Misuse?
- Case: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Case: Trademark Infringement or Fair Use?
- Case: Relief & Damages / Claims Remain for Trial
http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/cour...case-apple-wins-summary-judgement-highlights/
Covering these issues:
- Overview: Latest Development
- Court Case History
- Background / Apple as free R&D? / Mac Costs Myth
- Case: Software owner can modify the program for LIMITED purposes
- Case: Owner of lawfully made copy can resell the copy
- Case: Right to Create Derivative Works
- Case: Anti-Trust / Copyright Misuse?
- Case: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Case: Trademark Infringement or Fair Use?
- Case: Relief & Damages / Claims Remain for Trial
Downward spiral
I would say Psystar had this coming they even foresaw it in the way they designed their logo.
Downward spiral literally.
I design logos and I would always want the logos to represent the best qualities of the entity adopting it.
Just a thought to break the lawyering around here.
I would say Psystar had this coming they even foresaw it in the way they designed their logo.
Downward spiral literally.
I design logos and I would always want the logos to represent the best qualities of the entity adopting it.
Just a thought to break the lawyering around here.
Seems the court took a dim view of Psystar's "lost" business records, which made them fully unable to prove they had lawfully purchased any copies.
When you cannot prove how many machines you sold, or the purchases made for those machines ... sort of makes it difficult to win a first sale doctrine case.
Seems the court took a dim view of Psystar's "lost" business records, which made them fully unable to prove they had lawfully purchased any copies.
When you cannot prove how many machines you sold, or the purchases made for those machines ... sort of makes it difficult to win a first sale doctrine case.
Yeah the court determines:
"No Evidence of Legitimately Purchased Mac OS X DVD"
It's not like they bought the "DVD" using cash from the back of a truck
(even if that's the case, i.e. speaker scam, you can still request a receipt).
Can't wait for the IRS audit. Likely they never filed, and with no records and a stupid president saying they had thousands of machines to ship out.
Yay, 100% profit based on every deposit made to your account, and you can't prove a single write-off ... here is your tax bill.
Edit: I know they used to use that tactic, but the new kinder-gentler IRS probably lets you write off the KY Jelly.
Yay, 100% profit based on every deposit made to your account, and you can't prove a single write-off ... here is your tax bill.
Edit: I know they used to use that tactic, but the new kinder-gentler IRS probably lets you write off the KY Jelly.
true
Exactly... it's quite simple really, if you don't like the pricing, go ahead and buy Apple shares B-)
J
Exactly... it's quite simple really, if you don't like the pricing, go ahead and buy Apple shares B-)
J
True. It was just perfected here
So changing the spelling so it doesn't even make logical sense to any other country is perfecting it?
Whatever makes you sleep man.
Ya agreed.
Looking at it from that perspective you have to wonder,maybe their backers {if there are any that is} created Psystar,or got on board later,in order to test Apples eula from a safe pr position.
You aren't American are you ? These rights he refers to are coded in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. He doesn't need to justify anything.
It's hugely different. Microsoft used (and may still use) monopolistic practices to extract a fee for every PC sold, whether or not it ships with Windows, and to take over the profitable productivity software market. So Microsoft can make money just selling its software and related services, since it leveraged it's monopolistic practices to own 95% of the market. It's strategy is therefore all about ubiquity, and it licenses its OS, thereby granting permission for the PC "clones."
Apple, on the other hand, couldn't make a profit just selling its OS - it makes most of its money on hardware. Therefore, it has to make a superior OS to convince people to stray from the "norm" and buy its hardware (which, arguably, is also superior on average). Since the software and hardware are sold as a bundle, the "cost" of the software to the consumer is negligible.
Imagine you ran a lemonade stand. You sell glasses of lemonade for $1.00, and refills for $0.10. The cost of the refills takes into account your knowledge of what % of people want refills, what the cost of the first glass is to make, etc. Now someone comes along and demands that you sell him refills without him buying the first glass. That's exactly what Psystar was doing. It wanted to take advantage of the low per-copy OS price that Apple can only charge because it assumes you own Apple hardware.
Apple tried to do the clone thing in the mid-1990's. I worked at Exponential, and we sold powerpc chips to Umax and Power Computing. Just when we were going to ship our first batch, Steve Jobs came back and killed the clones. And rightfully so. Apple was bankrupting itself subsidizing other companys' hardware sales in order to pursue OS market share. As it turns out, for a company to survive, it needs profit, not marketshare.
I would say Psystar had this coming they even foresaw it in the way they designed their logo.
Downward spiral literally.
I design logos and I would always want the logos to represent the best qualities of the entity adopting it.
Just a thought to break the lawyering around here.
Then you should like Telecom NZ's silly new "scribbled snowflake" ... messy and frozen just about sums up the company perfectly.
Of course, they probably paid some "marketing" company many thousands of dollars for what a four year old could have done for a lollipop.