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.
Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think we have way too many researchers nowadays, so we don't get any more lightbulbs, because we get a lightbulb every day now. Together with the internet, all research is becoming more and more "obvious" to more people. We know what everyone else is working on 24/7 and we know what is possible and what isn't. So whenever someone comes up with an idea, it's not that surprising to a lot of people.
Infringing on a patent is not necessarily copying. If its an essential patent, the patent holder must allow others to use the technology and they pay a license fee. This is only one example.
What types of works are typically protected by copyright?
Literature, music, art, etc. In source form they may appear similar. You see structure and you can follow the applications flow from start to finish. Now take that application, port it to another language, change all the methods names and reorder the logic. Compare texts, unless you are an expert in both languages they would appear unique. In any of the usual examples you'd end up with a mess, with source code it will still function perfectly once compiled and you'd never know the difference looking at it in that state.
How would that protect anyone? I could reverse engineer your algorithm, obfuscate the logic and you'd never be the wiser. All I'd have to say is "I did it differently". And technically I'd be right I did do it differently, but I still used your algorithm to perform the task.
Last edited:
So apple infringing on a previous essential patent refusing to pay for it and getting away with it by getting the president to veto the ban is like robbing at knife point and then blame the victim for not wanting to license the patent for something like 1 cents a device.
Last edited:
My mistake, I misinterpreted your first statement as they patented the whole concept of an API. Clearly I've been reading Engadget comments too much lately. Yes I always meant their patent was for an API with a specific use/function.
Nice what languages do you focus on? I've written pretty much everything at one point or another, lately it's all HTML5 apps. The web is shaping up to be my dream platform. In another few years when all the latest spec's are implemented it will be a really exciting place to be.
My comment about regex was related to Linkify's source. Their API is basically a bunch of regex with constants that do the heavy work internally. You should check it out, it's Java though so it's pretty ugly stuff.
Perhaps you don't know that Edison did in fact patent his lightbulb and sued people who tried to copy it. He was also sued for patent infringement by Swan, and Englishman, who held a patent of the concept of the light bulb and Edison wound up having to make a deal with him. (to put it all very loosely)
Are you really trying to suggest that Apple and Samsung infringed on each others patents but Apple did it in a good way?
Do you think Apple should own the concept of universal searches? Do you think they should own autocorrect? Do they own voice search? When you allow companies to own concepts, you create a monopoly around ideas, and that will kill and any all innovation. The patent office, back before the days of software patents, protected specific implementations, but allowed alternate means to achieve the same thing. That fosters innovation.
We'll use a steam engine as an example. No one owns the idea of pumping hot air from a boiler through pipes into a piston chamber to create a mechanical action, but someone can create an engine that does that well, and own that design. But if someone else can improve upon that design (in a non-obvious way), then they've advanced technology. They've innovated.
But here, companies are patenting end results. It doesn't matter how many ways you can program an autocorrect algorithm, the end result is now owned. Apple's patent is too broad because it details the obvious steps a programmer would take when making a similar algorithm (computer heuristically identifies misspelled word, applies potential corrections from database, outputs suggestions). I mean how else is a computer supposed to identify misspelled words? They don't detail the method or programming the computer uses to identify the misspelled word, only that it does. And that makes it impossible to improve upon or invent around.
The result of all this will be that no one will be able to make their own program without having to spend months hacking through the software patent thicket, and paying 500 separate companies a license to do what's ultimately a bunch of very vague things. And then, only the largest companies will be able to afford risking a new program. Innovation dies.
Essential patents are different. Even the Federal Trade Commission disapproves of import bans based on FRAND patents. As long as Samsung is still compensated by the appropriate licensing fees thats all that is needed.
Didn't you read what you just quoted?...In other words NO.
Last edited:
Not really. People use the patent and pay a small fine, problem solved. Did this stop Samsung from making and selling phones? No. So innovation continues.
If a specific concept is novel at the time the patent is submitted yes. A lot of things seem obvious once you see them, but until you do they are anything but. At some point everyone should be allowed to use that patent, but the original author should get a head start for developing it first.
Say I buy one of your steam engine's. After using it, I copy your design and add a few parts. Are you saying that I should be allowed to sell my modification without your permission or paying you a royalty or licensing fee?
If that's the case, no startup will receive investor funding as anyone can steal their IP, change it slightly and beat you to market. Most of the time the only backing you have is your patents.
Apple does not have a patent on any form of auto-correct, they have a patent on their implementation of auto-correct. MS Word has done this for years, they do it differently than Apple does. Having that patent does not prevent anyone else from doing auto-correct, it should in theory force others to innovate to continue competing.
This is expected of hardware, why shouldn't it be expected of software? If you're working on the bleeding edge of technology you should due proper due diligence before launching a paid IP.
Last edited:
Seriously? There are other companies that make Android phones and tablets so why aren't they being sued? Oh wait..... Wrong forum to ask on especially with you "defend your beloved product stealing, money grabber company" "fans".
This is highly deceptive, or a sign that you simply do not understand what a patent is. Apple doesn't own the "concept" of a universal search, or autocorrect, or voice search... They own a very specific way of accomplishing it. A -> B -> C -> D -> E, without going through F, G, or H. A patent still requires a specific embodiment or else it is not a patent and thereby invalid should it have gotten through examination in the first place.
Should someone, like Samsung in this case instead create a version of Voice Search that is A -> B -> D -> E, not requiring C, then they did something unique and innovative, thereby separate from the patent in question.
Lets do a car analogy... Let's say that Chevy really, really likes the new Mustang. What if they went in and bought a ton of Mustangs at a volume discount, just put their logo on it, and then undercut Ford by $1000? Where does a line get crossed? What if they instead just buy one, create a mold of each part and instead paint it Orange... Should that be "appropriate"? What if instead they went in and sourced the same engine, transmission, and gear box but made the rest themselves?
I find Apple statement complete BS and quite frankly - they shouldn't be allowed to put it in print. The damages awarded wasn't about copying devices or stealing ideas. That's smoke and mirrors.
----------
Let's not because they always fail.
----------
Let's not because they always fail.
It's really not that simple, the US has a different system to most of the world and patents claims can be updated after the fact granting greater rights to the holder even if other companies have already worked around the implementation specified, for example...
Summarised...
Link: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/10/3479550/apple-expands-patent-coverage-on-slide-to-unlock-feature
So in effect here Apple has patented something {and that's great} and then seen how companies worked around their patent and updated their patent to block others from implementing work arounds.
This is hardly unique to Apple either, one of the reasons that the rest of the world has generic Viagra these days and the US doesn't is that Pfizer updated their claims and won in court.
Right, and, once again, what's not obvious about the patents in question? For a piece of software to be granted a patent, it needs to be something truly new, or a substantial improvement on what's come before. Most importantly, they need to be specific in what they do and how they do it, which is the one biggest problem I have with the current software patent situation. Right now, they're so vague they could be applied to anything remotely similar.
I have no problem with someone getting a patent if they deserve it. But right now, the patent office has set the bar too low, and hands them to out to seemingly anyone who bothers filling out the paperwork.
If it's a substantial improvement upon the original idea, then yeah. You earned it. If it's just you slapping a few superfluous parts on top of the base design in a transparent attempt to get around a patent, then no.
This is true. IP does need protecting, but I don't think the software patent setup as it currently exists is the way to go about it. In the end, a large company with a bevy of vaguely defined patents can be just as damaging to any small startup company as a free-for-all IP environment. They can throw a few infringement lawsuits your way, bog you down in court, drain your wallet in legal fees, and even if you are able to prove their patents invalid, they have more money than you. You're now broke, and they buy you up.
...which is exactly what happened with Nuance and Vlingo. A smaller company with a good idea got sued by a larger company working in the same space. Even though they were found Vlingo to be non-infringing, the larger company still won the war simply because they had a much larger warchest to fall back on.
Read the patent, and tell me this: does it explain a method, or does it just telling you step by step what autocorrect does on a smartphone.
A patent for hardware has a much higher burden of proof than a patent on software. Hardware has to describe every moving part and provide diagrams showing exactly what does what. Software only has to provide the means but not the method to gain a patent.
It's less "I used this algorithm (diagram A) that tells the computer how to identify misspelled words in a document, and this algorithm (diagram B) to sort through potential corrections from a database, and this algorithm (diagram C) coupled with this UI (diagram D) to present the information to the end user.
...and more "I tell the computer to look up a misspelled word, which then searches for a replacement in a database, which pops up like this onscreen".
The former describes the method. The latter simply describes the process. And the process, at least in this situation, will always be about the same no matter how different the method. It's very well described, but ultimately vague. And allowing vagueness into the patent system ultimate hurts everyone, helps no one.
Nike had a touchscreen fitness band in 2006? If Apple/Nike come up with a new band that has a touchscreen, will they be copying Samsung?
Let companies fight in the marketplace.
