What happens if Google gets notification pulldown patent?

[BaldiMac]

I'm a bit tired now to write a lengthy repost, but from what I read from the patent (admittedly I just skimmed it), it doesn't seem specific enough.

It seems to describe having a client and a server and the client being already logged in and clicking once to buy something, while some client info is being displayed (obviously I'm oversimplifying things).

Barnes and Noble couldn't design around that in any other way than adding a second click to purchase.

That for me seems like the patent of an "idea".

Specific enough for what? Based on what standard?

From your other post, it looks like you are confusing copyright and patents. Both protect different things.

And I don't understand the rest of your argument in that post. You ignored the primary claim and then seemed to argue that if you can't design around a patent, the patent isn't specific enough. You seem to be missing the point of a patent.

How is drawing a figure 8 along a path fundamentally different than what was described in the patent claims?

 

[Purant]

Specific enough for what? Based on what standard?

From your other post, it looks like you are confusing copyright and patents. Both protect different things.

And I don't understand the rest of your argument in that post. You ignored the primary claim and then seemed to argue that if you can't design around a patent, the patent isn't specific enough. You seem to be missing the point of a patent.

How is drawing a figure 8 along a path fundamentally different than what was described in the patent claims?

Again, I'm tired, this will probably my last post for today, so I'll try to be brief.

(Disclaimer: I enjoyed the discussion).

I'm not confusing patents and values. It's that (and I'm exaggerating here) I believe that while copyright has value, software (not patents in general) patens do not.

The standard is... my own standard (I don't claim that, that counts for anything, obviously). I believe that a patent where "draw an 8 to unlock" "draw a tree to unlock" "slide to unlock" and slide your finger in whatever shape to unlock, is too broad. I also believe the 1-click buying patent is something that shouldn't be patentable.

I think originally the point of a patent was to make something public, so other people know what you did, learn from it, study it and eventually improve it. To entice you to make something public, it gave you some rights to the patent.

Now it's being used to stop everyone else from doing something similar to what you are doing. And that, I believe, is hindering general progress and not helping it. It stops people from copying ideas, but it also stops them from tinkering with them and improving them. What if "draw an 8 to unlock" was so much better than apple's current implementation (obviously it's not), but Apple isn't willing to do it, and no-one else is able to because Apple holds the patent?

Have a nice day!

 

[BaldiMac]

Again, I'm tired, this will probably my last post for today, so I'll try to be brief.

(Disclaimer: I enjoyed the discussion).

I'm not confusing patents and values. It's that (and I'm exaggerating here) I believe that while copyright has value, software (not patents in general) patens do not.

The standard is... my own standard (I don't claim that, that counts for anything, obviously). I believe that a patent where "draw an 8 to unlock" "draw a tree to unlock" "slide to unlock" and slide your finger in whatever shape to unlock, is too broad. I also believe the 1-click buying patent is something that shouldn't be patentable.

I think originally the point of a patent was to make something public, so other people know what you did, learn from it, study it and eventually improve it. To entice you to make something public, it gave you some rights to the patent.

Now it's being used to stop everyone else from doing something similar to what you are doing. And that, I believe, is hindering general progress and not helping it. It stops people from copying ideas, but it also stops them from tinkering with them and improving them. What if "draw an 8 to unlock" was so much better than apple's current implementation (obviously it's not), but Apple isn't willing to do it, and no-one else is able to because Apple holds the patent?

Have a nice day!

And yet technology and general progress are advancing faster than ever before.

Luckily, if we connect back to the original post, Google's notification center patent is not something that Apple infringes, so all is well!

 

[golf1410]

And you continue to spout nonsense without bothering to check your facts.

Webkit is a fork of KHTML. KHTML wasn't made by apple, it was developed by KDE, for a long time before Apple took an interest in it. Apple wanted to do some changes, so they made a fork. The fork called WebKit was eventually opensourced and has since been developed by KDE, Google, Apple, Nokia, Rim, Samsung and a ton of other people.

So.... Whatever.

Apple has not really invented things that much for world. Apple is recipes company which took stuffs from other and mix them up and claim that Apple owns it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

i hate wireless patents. companies use them just to make money, not to defend something they uniquely invented. tim said they never sued anyone over device essential patents like radios and the like. Why do these android company feel the need to do so. its just mean. and theres no real justification of it.

because Apple is refusing to pay the rates on them.

 

[Aidan5806]

because Apple is refusing to pay the rates on them.

They're refusing because its subjectively unjust.

 

[blackhand1001]

They're refusing because its subjectively unjust.

What they are suing HTC and Samsung for is much worse. HTC was sued and had their product banned for a time because you could click a text message with a phone number and it would bring the dialer up. Apple knows they didn't invent that functionality? They know that it hasn't affected their sales by having that functionality. Yet they pursued the suit anyway. Its anti-competitive. The Nexus was banned on an equally unjustifiable claim regarding universal search.

 

[Aidan5806]

What they are suing HTC and Samsung for is much worse. HTC was sued and had their product banned for a time because you could click a text message with a phone number and it would bring the dialer up. Apple knows they didn't invent that functionality? They know that it hasn't affected their sales by having that functionality. Yet they pursued the suit anyway. Its anti-competitive. The Nexus was banned on an equally unjustifiable claim regarding universal search.

But those are different in the sense that they are not essential for the competition to exist. They could be solved by simple fixes with no cost to them.

 

[Drunken Master]

It's not a big loss in practice, notification center is kind of unnecessary in iOS and just mucks things up.

 

[blackhand1001]

But those are different in the sense that they are not essential for the competition to exist. They could be solved by simple fixes with no cost to them.

Apple still should not have sued over it. That's where its wrong. They know they were being anticompetitive when they did that. The galaxy nexus and the HTC phones are not copies of the iPhone.

 

[jaysen]

In the words of the late Rodney King; "Can't we all just get along"

 

[Aidan5806]

Apple still should not have sued over it. That's where its wrong. They know they were being anticompetitive when they did that. The galaxy nexus and the HTC phones are not copies of the iPhone.

Yet you don't think other companies suing apple over things that are absolutely necessary for phones is anticompetitive?

 

[blackhand1001]

Yet you don't think other companies suing apple over things that are absolutely necessary for phones is anticompetitive?

They are only suing to get apple to backdown on the android lawsuits. If apple hadn't gone a lawsuit binge it never would have happened. And at least Motorola's patents are things they actually invented.

 

[Oletros]

Yet you don't think other companies suing apple over things that are absolutely necessary for phones is anticompetitive?

Nokia suing Apple was anticompetitive?

 

[LaGeek]

But those are different in the sense that they are not essential for the competition to exist. They could be solved by simple fixes with no cost to them.

Wait, what?

A patent to call "detect" a telephone number in a text message and send it the dialer to call if you click on it. We call that a patent and "innovative"? How about common sense? In web terms, its called a hyperlink that launches the appropriate app to handle the link. Been done for years.

And the universal search? Anyone used Google Desktop Search before? And yes, before the iphone? It did that, searched everything, documents, emails web pages, apps, music etc etc. Google probably just didnt file for the universal search patent, because as software engineers know, software patents are 95% ********. I HATE filing patents, even though I get money for it. Its a waste of my time when I could be doing something a lot more productive.

A lot of these patents are lame, and really, judges and juries who gave Apple victories on these patents need to go to engineering school for a year, thats all it should take.

The bounceback patent, I can see that as a valid patent regarding user experience that required thought. But the default Android does not use that if you guys didnt know.

Notification center, another patent that is valid and requires thought, and is far bigger than even the bounceback IMHO. Google should sue. I have always agreed, everyone copies everyone. Now its time for Apple to face some of the same music, unless, Google screwed up in writing the patent and making it generic enough.

And here is something from the foreman of the trial:

"He realised, he says, that Apple and Samsung's implementations were not interchangeable, meaning Apple had not infringed (The jury eventually determined that Apple had not infringed any of the five patents asserted by Samsung in the trial). When he explained that to the jury at the start of the second day, it led to a breakthrough in their understanding, Hogan said."

Its a shame. Patent is not about implementation(code) but the concept. Its shameful that this happened and that a juror was allowed to do this. Not that I disagree Samsung should pay, I think they should, but

a) The amount should be a lot smaller, a lot lot smaller.
b) Apple copied too, maybe not to the same extent.

How did this start? A patent troll called NTP bought patents, sued and won 600 million bucks.

I am a senior distinguished engineer, and now, because of all this patent bu** sh**, part of my job is to file patents, takes up time, breaks my rythm at work. All because of these stupid software patents giving hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[BaldiMac]

Wait, what?

A patent to call "detect" a telephone number in a text message and send it the dialer to call if you click on it. We call that a patent and "innovative"? How about common sense? In web terms, its called a hyperlink that launches the appropriate app to handle the link. Been done for years.

And the universal search? Anyone used Google Desktop Search before? And yes, before the iphone? It did that, searched everything, documents, emails web pages, apps, music etc etc. Google probably just didnt file for the universal search patent, because as software engineers know, software patents are 95% ********. I HATE filing patents, even though I get money for it. Its a waste of my time when I could be doing something a lot more productive.

A lot of these patents are lame, and really, judges and juries who gave Apple victories on these patents need to go to engineering school for a year, thats all it should take.

The bounceback patent, I can see that as a valid patent regarding user experience that required thought. But the default Android does not use that if you guys didnt know.

Notification center, another patent that is valid and requires thought, and is far bigger than even the bounceback IMHO. Google should sue. I have always agreed, everyone copies everyone. Now its time for Apple to face some of the same music, unless, Google screwed up in writing the patent and making it generic enough.

And here is something from the foreman of the trial:

"He realised, he says, that Apple and Samsung's implementations were not interchangeable, meaning Apple had not infringed (The jury eventually determined that Apple had not infringed any of the five patents asserted by Samsung in the trial). When he explained that to the jury at the start of the second day, it led to a breakthrough in their understanding, Hogan said."

Its a shame. Patent is not about implementation(code) but the concept. Its shameful that this happened and that a juror was allowed to do this. Not that I disagree Samsung should pay, I think they should, but

a) The amount should be a lot smaller, a lot lot smaller.
b) Apple copied too, maybe not to the same extent.

How did this start? A patent troll called NTP bought patents, sued and won 600 million bucks.

I am a senior distinguished engineer, and now, because of all this patent bu** sh**, part of my job is to file patents, takes up time, breaks my rythm at work. All because of these stupid software patents giving hundreds of millions of dollars.

As a senior distinguished engineer who works with patents, you should know better than to argue the validity of patents based on the title or summary and not the actual claims.

And if you read the claims of Google's notification center related patent, you would realize that Apple's implementation does not infringe upon Google's patent. And yet, you think they should sue Apple because Apple sued someone else. Strange.

 

[cynics]

I hope Google does get the patent and wins a court case. That way apple would need to redesign it from scratch. I'm not a fan of the way it is now at all.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Software technology patents should have a timeout like prescription medication. After the company has sole rights to an invention for a fixed period of time to recoup development cost and have a temporary sole industry advantage, they're fair game for copycats.

 

[Zerozal]

Software technology patents should have a timeout like prescription medication. After the company has sole rights to an invention for a fixed period of time to recoup development cost and have a temporary sole industry advantage, they're fair game for copycats.

They do, and that's how it works now. The time period is 20 years (at least in the US, AFAIK), just like all other patents. After 20 years, the patent is expired and anyone can then make use of it.

 

[LaGeek]

As a senior distinguished engineer who works with patents, you should know better than to argue the validity of patents based on the title or summary and not the actual claims.

And if you read the claims of Google's notification center related patent, you would realize that Apple's implementation does not infringe upon Google's patent. And yet, you think they should sue Apple because Apple sued someone else. Strange.

I didnt read the patent, personally. And implementation? Thats one of the cases where I think the system is broken. So if some other company can implemement bounceback in a different way, say, in hardware(no one will do this by an extreme stretch of imagination), does that make it OK? In my opinion, it shouldnt make it OK because its a usability patent. At the same time, in this tech world, having patents for 25(was it 25) years is ridiculous. 5 is the worst case, in the mobile world, I would say some of them should be even less, or be licensable on FRAND terms.

And yes, I think Google should sue Apple, only because I want this bull to stop. Once Apple is sued and loses, it might just be the time where the companies sit down and work it out, and so will others. Apple was greatly innovative when it introduced the iphone, ever since, innovation has been at a premium and suing each other has taken up everyones time, energy and focus.

If it was my world, I would disband the USPTA, and figure out some new ways to protect IP. All my other examples went unanswered. I want my 8 hours of a week back and not do patents

 

[Wicked1]

http://androidandme.com/2012/02/news/googles-notification-bar-patent-could-spell-trouble-for-apple/

Although hopefully this : http://www.phonearena.com/news/Goog...-be-holding-nuclear-disarmament-talks_id33908 means we will stop seeing more patent wars.

Don't count a cease fire, listen I am neutral but they all steal from each other and change things a little, time for these big corporations to stop pissing $ away and use it for other purposes, this whole thing is out of control now and I am sick of it all.

 

[Wicked1]

http://androidandme.com/2012/02/news/googles-notification-bar-patent-could-spell-trouble-for-apple/mnmm

Although hopefully this : http://www.phonearena.com/news/Goog...-be-holding-nuclear-disarmament-talks_id33908 means we will stop seeing more patent wars.

Don't count a cease fire, listen I am neutral but they all steal from each other and change things a little, time for these big corporations to stop pissing $ away and use it for other purposes, this whole thing is out of control now and I am sick of it all.

 

[BaldiMac]

I didnt read the patent, personally.

Then why are you arguing their validity?

And implementation? Thats one of the cases where I think the system is broken. So if some other company can implemement bounceback in a different way, say, in hardware(no one will do this by an extreme stretch of imagination), does that make it OK? In my opinion, it shouldnt make it OK because its a usability patent.

Again, read the claims of the patent to answer your question.

If you implement a feature in a different way than described in the patent, it doesn't violate the patent. Patents are all about the implementation. You can't just patent the concept of time travel and wait for somebody else to invent the actual implementation!

At the same time, in this tech world, having patents for 25(was it 25) years is ridiculous. 5 is the worst case, in the mobile world, I would say some of them should be even less,

In the US and Europe, the standard term is 20 years. I absolutely agree that this term is way to long to recover investments in software innovations.

or be licensable on FRAND terms.

Licensing patents under FRAND term is a voluntary obligation most commonly related to the formation of standards.

And yes, I think Google should sue Apple, only because I want this bull to stop. Once Apple is sued and loses, it might just be the time where the companies sit down and work it out, and so will others. Apple was greatly innovative when it introduced the iphone, ever since, innovation has been at a premium and suing each other has taken up everyones time, energy and focus.

So, you want Google to sue Apple and win, even though Apple doesn't infringe on the patent in question. And that's supposed to encourage innovation. Huh. I don't follow.

 

[joesegh]

I hate how the patent world works. Patenting "pull down notification system" is like patenting "knob device oven temperature configuration system". It's so obvious and widespread. These are the patents that harm consumers.

 

[Mrg02d]

I hate how the patent world works. Patenting "pull down notification system" is like patenting "knob device oven temperature configuration system". It's so obvious and widespread. These are the patents that harm consumers.

Like apple suing samsung? Only an idiot would mistake GS3 or GS2 for an iPhone.