Support NeoGAF

[Alcibiades]

I'm sure if you look at any number of Apple or Samsung products, there would be some basis to consider them copying or "stealing" something from a previous creation or design by someone. Whatever the merits of the case, it looks like sour grapes from a corporation that prefers to sue competitors out of a market rather than compete with products.

Although it may be a win for shareholders, it makes Apple and the U.S. look pretty bad from a consumer point of view.

 

[CharminUltra]

Sadsung epicly owned. Good job Apple, let the thieves have it.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Can I see a source please?

All I've seen is Apple having 16 M sales per quarter while Samsung had like 40k.

No love for the xoom or touchpad?!

 

[Elfforkusu]

Software R&D is so cheap? Really? I assume you don't work at a company that does software development. Software R&D and "ground up" development / innovation can be extremely expensive. The main reason it's so expensive is, unlike hardware R&D which the engineers can go on to the next project as soon as they complete R&D on the previous project, software development requires investment into maintenance cycle after R&D, so it always requires diverted resources or additional staffing for the next R&D project as the previous developers are at least in part invested into the maintenance cycle.

1) You can't do software R&D if software patents are in the way. The best you can do is ignore them, do work as usual, and hope you don't get sued. They stifle innovation.

2) Software is defined by programming. It is the translation of an idea (process) into instructions to reliably (hopefully) accomplish that process. Patents should not apply -- copyright does. Should mathematical formulae be patentable as well? How about book and movie tropes?

3) All design, UI and otherwise, is inherently iterative. It's ludicrous that any of these patents were rewarded, much less enforced.

4) The hard part, given that design is iterative, is not the design but rather deciding what design to use -- and the implementation of said design. Software requires maintenance not because the design stage is so hard, but because implementation is hard.

End software patents. </software engineer>

 

[googleplex]

i am under the impression that you can't take the same thing done on a touch sensitive surface, slap "screen" on it, and patent it again.

Exactly. It's called Prior Art. Apple's patent is bullshit, and this ruling was horrible for the consumer.

 

[Jadedx]

Quick iPhone 5 question. Will the iPhone 5 really have hologram capabilities?

 

[Sir Abacus]

i am under the impression that you can't take the same thing done on a touch sensitive surface, slap "screen" on it, and patent it again.

Yes. You can. It's up to a patent examiner to determine if it's "novel" enough to qualify for a new invention and up to a re-examination or trial to invalidate it if they get it wrong.

There's no magic force in the universe that automatically decides if something can't be patented or not in an absolute way. All this shit is done by humans and worked out by due process.

 

[Cheebo]

Quick iPhone 5 question. Will the iPhone 5 really have hologram capabilities?

Yes. and more

 

[Elfforkusu]

Yes. You can. It's up to a patent examiner to determine if it's "novel" enough to qualify for a new invention and up to a re-examination or trial to invalidate it if they get it wrong.

So, between the patent examiner and the judge/jury in the re-examination or trial... which one of those is an expert in the field the patent is granted in?

 

[iamblades]

Software R&D is so cheap? Really? I assume you don't work at a company that does software development. Software R&D and "ground up" development / innovation can be extremely expensive. The main reason it's so expensive is, unlike hardware R&D which the engineers can go on to the next project as soon as they complete R&D on the previous project, software development requires investment into maintenance cycle after R&D, so it always requires diverted resources or additional staffing for the next R&D project as the previous developers are at least in part invested into the maintenance cycle.

It is cheap relatively speaking (which doesn't mean that some software companies aren't terribly run and inefficient). Trying to add maintenance(or Q&A or a whole bunch of other things that go into making software) into the software R&D budget is kind of silly as well, as it isn't as if copying someones software design means you don't have to maintain and test your code..

The expense is really not even that important though. What is important is that when you sit a programmer down with a certain piece of hardware and a certain set of input devices, there are a limited subset of ways for them to answer any given problem. I think the test for obviousness should negate basically 95% of software patents on it's own.

 

[Technosteve]

I'm not a software engineer, but here is a question how do you keep your software product unique if your competitors can replicate the feature? (in a world with out software patents)

 

[Sir Abacus]

So, between the patent examiner and the judge/jury in the re-examination or trial... which one of those is an expert in the field the patent is granted in?

None of them. Patent examiners are researchers that look for uniqueness, novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness. You don't need to be an expert in the field to make sure patents aren't 1:1 copies of each other.

The United States is an adversarial civil system. Do a better job of explaining your case to the judge/jury than the other guy.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

 

[Elfforkusu]

None of them. Patent examiners are researchers that look for uniqueness, novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness. You don't need to be an expert in the field to make sure patents aren't 1:1 copies of each other.

The United States is an adversarial civil system. Do a better job of explaining your case to the judge/jury than the other guy.

For procedural patents (software, business method, etc), apparently you do. A double tap is not different from a double click if you're a programmer. The only difference between a mouse and a finger as an input device is that a finger can't move on the x,y plane without clicking. Apparently this isn't so obvious to a layman.

At the very least, software patents don't work within the current system, and that alone justifies abolishing them.

 

[iamblades]

I'm not a software engineer, but here is a question how do you keep your software product unique if your competitors can replicate the feature? (in a world with out software patents)

Make things that are hard to replicate and do a better job on implementation. That is where 95% of the budget in software development goes anyway, which is why software patents make no sense.

Also there is plenty of protection available within trademark and copyright law, just not for trivial nonsense that is easily implemented like bounceback and pinch to zoom

 

[Elfforkusu]

I'm not a software engineer, but here is a question how do you keep your software product unique if your competitors can replicate the feature? (in a world with out software patents)

Innovate.

Even if they figure out how you did it, they won't be able to duplicate it themselves. This isn't a machine that you can take apart and reassemble, it's a magical black box.

 

[Sir Abacus]

At the very least, software patents don't work within the current system, and that alone justifies abolishing them.

I agree wholeheartedly. But sadly that's not the situation we're in. What people think should happen, what could happen and what does happen are completely different things.

 

[Technosteve]

lets talk about superficial things like look and feel, is that hard to replicate from one vendor to another?

 

[iamblades]

lets talk about superficial things like look and feel, is that hard to replicate from one vendor to another?

Look and feel can already be protected via design patents and trademarks. That is a totally separate issue from software patents.

 

[Technosteve]

then was apple's bounce patent not a software patent?

 

[Elfforkusu]

Yeah, look and feel restrictions I take less issue with. It's not hard to change a freaking icon if it looks the same.

then was apple's bounce patent not a software patent?

Forgot about this one, though. Good god that is a stupid patent. Prior art: a basketball!

 

[jett]

this is crazy

 

[mugurumakensei]

I'm not a software engineer, but here is a question how do you keep your software product unique if your competitors can replicate the feature? (in a world with out software patents)

Making a smoother, stable, and more efficient implementation. Provide better support. Have a unique skin. Brand marketing. All can give you an edge.

 

[Technosteve]

so you think it's obvious that when you scroll to the end of an item it should bounce back to where you where?

 

[iamblades]

then was apple's bounce patent not a software patent?

Yes it was, but that is separate from look and feel issues. Look and feel are covered by design patents and trademarks, functionality is covered by software patents.

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah, look and feel restrictions I take less issue with. It's not hard to change a freaking icon if it looks the same.


Forgot about this one, though. Good god that is a stupid patent. Prior art: a basketball!

You fail and understanding what a patent is.

 

[LCfiner]

Yeah, look and feel restrictions I take less issue with. It's not hard to change a freaking icon if it looks the same.


Forgot about this one, though. Good god that is a stupid patent. Prior art: a basketball!

that's being disingenuous. if there's real prior art in software, then post it. then it becomes a bullshit patent.

the bounce back scrolling really does add value to iOS - from the perspective of how it feels to use. whether you want to believe it or not.

 

[mugurumakensei]

so you think it's obvious that when you scroll to the end of an item it should bounce back to where you where?

If you scroll past the end of a document, it's very obvious it should clamp and bounce back.

 

[iamblades]

so you think it's obvious that when you scroll to the end of an item it should bounce back to where you where?

That's not what the patent claims, and that's not what samsung's implementation did, IIRC.

It's pretty trivial and obvious either way though, and that's before all the prior art that has been shown.

 

[PSGames]

So glad Apple won this. It took what 5(?) years to design the iphone and then someone comes and copies it after a few months and that's supposed to be ok?

 

[Elfforkusu]

so you think it's obvious that when you scroll to the end of an item it should bounce back to where you where?

I'm thinking of a different one, I think.

In regards to the one you're referencing, I'd comment that there are only a few obvious choices:

1) scroll off the item into the abyss (bad)
2) slide up to the bottom of the item
3) slide to the top of the item???? (no)
4) slide to the last known position
5) do something random. (no)

So, is it novel? I'd say no.

that's being disingenuous. if there's real prior art in software, then post it. then it becomes a bullshit patent.

the bounce back scrolling really does add value to iOS - from the perspective of how it feels to use. whether you want to believe it or not.

Why does it have to be in software to be "prior art"? Software is pulling inspiration from the real world, so why is that translation now patentable?

"Copyrightable" I have no problem with.

 

[Sir Abacus]

If you scroll past the end of a document, it's very obvious it should clamp and bounce back.

That's why everyone had already implemented it... Oh wait...

 

[Talon]

Can I see a source please?

All I've seen is Apple having 16 M sales per quarter while Samsung had like 40k.

Profit, profit

 

[LCfiner]

If you scroll past the end of a document, it's very obvious it should clamp and bounce back.

then why was it never seen in major OSes before the iPhone? and, maybe more importantly, why do the hacked bounce back effects seen in some fancy new web page skins feel so utterly shitty? shouldn't it be obvious to do it right and make it feel right?

Why does it have to be in software to be "prior art"? Software is pulling inspiration from the real world, so why is that translation now patentable?

"Copyrightable" I have no problem with.

Um... but aren't patents about describing a particular execution of an idea? you can't patent gravity. it doesn't matter what the real world equivalent is. in fact, the basketball analogy doesn't even work since there's no "ball" in the scrolling of a virtual page. if there's any kind of real world analog, it's a piece of paper and that doesn't bounce when you interact with it. what if Apple had come up with some kind of goofy effect of a page fluttering down to the ground when you hi the top of a page? Is that "obvious" it would probably feel like shit to use.

 

[Cheebo]

i am under the impression that you can't take the same thing done on a touch sensitive surface, slap "screen" on it, and patent it again.

Apple won though. The court ruled their patent is 100% valid. Jury based trials are very very rarely ever over-turned. Apple has control of the tap/pinch to zoom patent and anyone who uses it (other than Microsoft) will have to pay up.

 

[PSGames]

If you scroll past the end of a document, it's very obvious it should clamp and bounce back.

Previously lists/documents didn't allow you to scroll past the end of the list/document. They abruptly stopped at the top or the bottom with no further interaction at that point. Apple's solution is far more fluid and natural for the user.

 

[mugurumakensei]

then why was it never seen in major OSes before the iPhone? and, maybe more importantly, why do the hacked bounce back effects seen in some fancy new web page skins feel so utterly shitty? shouldn't it be obvious to do it right and make it feel right?

the implementation being shitty means its hard to implement. Samsung implemented it independently of apple.

By that logic, oracle should have won its case against google.

 

[Talon]

Apple won though. The court ruled their patent is 100% valid. Jury based trials are very very rarely ever over-turned. Apple has control of the tap/pinch to zoom patent and anyone who uses it (other than Microsoft) will have to pay up starting today.

Their suit with HTC starts in 2 months. Motorola next year.

You'd have to think they're far more likely to settle now.

 

[Technosteve]

I think you have to break down what a software patent is to me, I'm used to reading regular patents where you take common item a, b, c and use a non obvious technique or item to form new widget.

From what i read of the bounce patent it describes output of the software in exact detail.

 

[Elfforkusu]

then why was it never seen in major OSes before the iPhone? and, maybe more importantly, why do the hacked bounce back effects seen in some fancy new web page skins feel so utterly shitty? shouldn't it be obvious to do it right and make it feel right?

We can agree that Mario was a pretty revolutionary game, right? Scrolling backgrounds on a home console and whatnot?

Now imagine Nintendo was the only one allowed to make the background scroll! Does the innovation entitle them to be the only one to use the idea?

 

[Talon]

I think you have to break down what a software patent is to me, I'm used to reading regular patents where you take common item a, b, c and use a non obvious technique or item to form new widget.

From what i read of the bounce patent it describes output of the software in exact detail.

It was also about the application with two planes that act dynamically. The application that Samsung described did not work in the same way.

 

[Tabris]

You have to look at the entire software development lifecycle to determine the cost of innovating a new software product or feature to get part of the picture for your ROI. All of those costs, design, implementation and maintenance are included.

So the point remains the same, why invest the costs when someone else will just copy the idea, whether it's iterative or not. Removing software patents takes away any push to innovative. Where is the benefit to invest?

Now someone else here made a better compromise, change the exclusivity length. That would actually push for more innovation as you invest for being ahead of your competition and you always have a countdown before your competition will be able to level the playing field or stop paying you to license the patent.

EDIT - Elfforkusu, I would be curious at what kind of company you are a software developer at.

 

[Technosteve]

Second question Why did Twitter patent the pull to refresh or was that tweetie? (then let everyone use it for free)

 

[LCfiner]

We can agree that Mario was a pretty revolutionary game, right? Scrolling backgrounds on a home console and whatnot?

Now imagine Nintendo was the only one allowed to make the background scroll! Does the innovation entitle them to be the only one to use the idea?

other games had different art, differences in programming, different objectives, characters, etc, etc.

nintendo did patent the D-pad, though. and, hey, surprise, other people had to come up with different variations of the d-pad. and we all survived.

scrolling isn't a problem for new phones. they all scroll. they all scrolled before and they'll continue to scroll. but the bounce back feature was Apple's contribution. they can license it if they want.

I have a vita and I noticed right away that Sony came up with a different kind of bounce feature. they stretch the text at the end. it's very cool. I may even like it more than the iOS bounce back. the point is that they did something different, though. they innovated and came up with something cool on their own.

edit. and one could also argue that perhaps stretching text is more obvious than creating a fake page with background and bouncing that up. it's not so obvious that bouncing is more natural than stretching.

 

[Tabris]

Now imagine Nintendo was the only one allowed to make the background scroll! Does the innovation entitle them to be the only one to use the idea?

Now this is the key. This is the key of this whole argument. It doesn't entitle them to be the only one to use the idea, but it entitles the inventor to receive an appropriate licensing fee.

This is only becoming a noticeable issue due to the nature of the open source Android platform and OEMs. Look to SCO - Linux for an idea of that happening in software history, except SCO wasn't a large enough company to have a foundation for the suit and they were already defeated in the OS space.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Um... but aren't patents about describing a particular execution of an idea? you can't patent gravity. it doesn't matter what the real world equivalent is. in fact, the basketball analogy doesn't even work since there's no "ball" in the scrolling of a virtual page. if there's any kind of real world analog, it's a piece of paper and that doesn't bounce when you interact with it. what if Apple had come up with some kind of goofy effect of a page fluttering down to the ground when you hi the top of a page? Is that "obvious" it would probably feel like shit to use.

As I said, I was thinking of a different stupid patent when I made the basketball reference.

As I also said, there are a finite number of sensible positions the scrollbar could take when in no mans land: closest edge (top or bottom, depending) and the previous position. Apple implemented the "cooler" one, kudos. Shouldn't entitle them to be the only ones who get to decide where stuff scrolls.

Re: the execution of an idea, for software patents that would be the implementation... which would be the code... which would be covered by copyright... "Sorry, you can't have a short person carry a ring to a volcano in your book. I have that patent."

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

So samsung is done with android phones?

 

[sleeping_dragon]

What do you guys expect the verdict to be? Isn't it obvious Apple is going to win in the USA since its an American company vs a South Korean company with the Juror and Judge being American? I just felt bad for the US consumer who has no says in the matter but who choices are negatively affected.

 

[iamblades]

You have to look at the entire software development lifecycle to determine the cost of innovating a new software product or feature to get part of the picture for your ROI. All of those costs, design, implementation and maintenance are included.

So the point remains the same, why invest the costs when someone else will just copy the idea, whether it's iterative or not. Removing software patents takes away any push to innovative. Where is the benefit to invest?

Now someone else here made a better compromise, change the exclusivity length. That would actually push for more innovation as you invest for being ahead of your competition and you always have a countdown before your competition will be able to level the playing field.

EDIT - Elfforkusu, I would be curious at what kind of company you are a software developer at.

Nonsense, it's not as if manufacturing costs are included when figuring values for hardware patents. Implementation costs are not supposed to be rewarded with patents. Invention costs are.

There was plenty of software development in the 30+ years before the software patent wars started, I see no reason why it won't continue if we stop rewarding trivial bullshit like double tap to zoom.

How would things have gone if the people who invented the spreadsheet and modern word processing software had Apple's attitude?

 

[Elfforkusu]

other games had different art, differences in programming, different objectives, characters, etc, etc.

nintendo did patent the D-pad, though. and, hey, surprise, other people had to come up with different variations of the d-pad. and we all survived.

scrolling isn't a problem for new phones. they all scroll. they all scrolled before and they'll continue to scroll. but the bounce back feature was Apple's contribution. they can license it if they want.

I have a vita and I noticed right away that Sony came up with a different kind of bounce feature. they stretch the text at the end. it's very cool. I may even like it more than the iOS bounce back. the point is that they did something different, though. they innovated and came up with something cool on their own.

edit. and one could also argue that perhaps stretching text is more obvious than creating a fake page with background and bouncing that up. it's not so obvious that bouncing is more natural than stretching.

Hardware.

You have to look at the entire software development lifecycle to determine the cost of innovating a new software product or feature to get part of the picture for your ROI. All of those costs, design, implementation and maintenance are included.

So the point remains the same, why invest the costs when someone else will just copy the idea, whether it's iterative or not. Removing software patents takes away any push to innovative. Where is the benefit to invest?

Now someone else here made a better compromise, change the exclusivity length. That would actually push for more innovation as you invest for being ahead of your competition and you always have a countdown before your competition will be able to level the playing field or stop paying you to license the patent.

EDIT - Elfforkusu, I would be curious at what kind of company you are a software developer at.

Innovation is its own reward. If you do things better than everyone else, people use/buy your stuff.

Changing exclusivity length would work, but for software I'd want it to be 3-5 years. It takes 3-5 years to get a patent through the system. Hence: end software patents.

As for where I work: a small company that has juuuust enough early "cloud computing" patents that bigger companies leave us alone. Gotta play the game to survive, it seems. We'd probably have a 0% chance of survival if we spun up the same technology now (or didn't have our patents).