Support NeoGAF

[nhlducks35]

Hmmm...

Apple gets hit with a legitimate patent lawsuit and pays a reasonable amount of money, Jobs decides to troll/abuse/break the system in response.

I think this goes well beyond blaming the system.

There is no modern figure I have more moxed feelings about than Jobs. He does amazing things, and then he does shit like this.

If you were in charge of a multi-billion dollar company, wouldn't you do the same? He isn't breaking the system, he is just using it to his advantage (doesn't mean I don't think the patent system is flawed).

 

[BocoDragon]

If you were in charge of a multi-billion dollar company, wouldn't you do the same? He isn't breaking the system, he is just using it to his advantage (doesn't mean I don't think the patent system is flawed).

I agree with you.

You get bit in the ass, you build a defense.

I think it's pretty relatable. I would have done the same as Jobs.

 

[metalslimer]

Of course I would have done the same as Jobs, but in the end Apple is taking this shit way too far, and their current objecive right now is completely destroying their competitors through the courts.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If you were in charge of a multi-billion dollar company, wouldn't you do the same? He isn't breaking the system, he is just using it to his advantage (doesn't mean I don't think the patent system is flawed).

"We're going to patent everything" is not a reasonable response to being hit by a patent lawsuit form somebody who had a product on the market well before you did.

It's not defensive patents, it's offensive patents.

So... no.

Of course I would have done the same as Jobs, but in the end Apple is taking this shit way too far, and their current objecive right now is completely destroying their competitors through the courts.

That's exactly my issue.

 

[lunarworks]

So basically, blame Creative?

 

[dyls]

Hmmm...

Apple gets hit with a legitimate patent lawsuit and pays a reasonable amount of money, Jobs decides to troll/abuse/break the system in response.

So it's fair for Apple to be sued for a general concept (that they were almost certainly working on for years prior), but unreasonable for them to sue Samsung for explicitly copying every aspect of the iPhone that they could. Makes sense to me.

edit: Just looked at the Creative interface and it is pretty much identical. I now think it's an entirely fair lawsuit. As is suing for the blatant ripoff Galaxy S. The system works!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So basically, blame Creative?

No, the USPTO for forcing all tech firms to protect themselves like this.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So it's fair for Apple to be sued for a general concept (that they were almost certainly working on for years prior), but unreasonable for them to sue Samsung for explicitly copying every aspect of the iPhone that they could. Makes sense to me.

Wow, spin much?

First, that article says they were sued over the interface not a general concept. So, depends on what it was.

However, Creative was also certainly working on it for years prior, especially given that they *got to market* apparently before Apple started designing the iPod (according to wiki's iPod page). In fact, the iPod was a response to the bulky mp3 players on the market already.

Also, I never said it was unreasonable of them to sue Samsung at all, just they they took the patent thing to extremes after one really justifiable suit against them. Some things they sued over are reasonable-- others really are not. Rounded corners and slide-to-unlock?

Edit: I see your edit.
Summary: I think Samsung deserved a suit. I think some of the particulars of the suit are extreme and a result of Jobs going overboard in reaction.

 

[megashock5]

You have to thank the broken ass US patent system for that. It's a running joke at this point, unfortunately this joke is hurting hundreds if not thousands of people, stiffling innovation and making patent trolls rich.

This. I blame the system and the way the rules are written much more than I do Apple or Samsung. It's messed up.

 

[dyls]

Wow, spin much?

First, that article says they were sued over the interface not a general concept. So, depends on what it was.

However, Creative was also certainly working on it for years prior, especially given that they *got to market* apparently before Apple started designing the iPod (according to wiki's iPod page). In fact, the iPod was a response to the bulky mp3 players on the market already.

Also, I never said it was unreasonable of them to sue Samsung at all, just they they took the patent thing to extremes after one really justifiable suit against them. Some things they sued over are reasonable-- others really are not. Rounded corners and slide-to-unlock?

Edit: I see your edit.
Summary: I think Samsung deserved a suit. I think some of the particulars of the suit are extreme and a result of Jobs going overboard in reaction.

I agree, but I think the particulars were the only way to get it done, most likely. Not to mention, once one starts a lawsuit, the lawyers are going to look for as many specifics as they possibly can to strengthen the case.

 

[Nemo]

Holy shit this got me in stitches :lol

 

[Zeppu]

Stop allowing vague and broad 'software' patents. As simple as that. Enforce patents to have specific details mapped directly to an example of the implementation.

Also, software has many definitions, diagrams and ways to describe action flow. A use-case diagram defines an interaction between an 'actor' (user) and the system to achieve a particular task. That shit shouldn't be patentable. An interaction method should never be patentable. The algorithm or implementation behind it, as well as the hardware to achieve it, sure, but not the user-machine interaction itself. That's just silly.

 

[Tacitus_]

I don't see your point, the federal circuit courts has appealed and given more power to patent it. Your argument isn't an argument because no one is enforcing that view.

The circuit court has the power to veto the Supreme court now? The circuit court thinks that strategies are patentable.

No, the USPTO for forcing all tech firms to protect themselves like this.

Nah, the federal circuit court of appeals is mostly to blame. Look what its formation did to infringement judgements:

 

[Deleted member 17706]

"We're going to patent everything" is not a reasonable response to being hit by a patent lawsuit form somebody who had a product on the market well before you did.

It's not defensive patents, it's offensive patents.

So... no.

How is it not a reasonable response? They got bit in the ass by the patent system and wanted to avoid having it happen to them ever again. Patenting everything is defense by offense.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Is there no kind of limitation to patent applications submitted per party? Does a patent application cost anything? Sounds like you can just submit as many applications as you can. If it costs something, it obviously doesn't cost a lot if big companies can patent every single thing.

No limitation. You just should be able to prove you can actually make it. So a perpetual motion machine is a no go. Weapons cannot be patented either, i believe.

Yes, patent apps cost money, but they're chump change with how much apple makes.

You can submit as many as you want. There's no rule that I know of that holds you back. Whether the examiner agrees with your invention is another issue, which brings me to your last statement.

Yes. They can patent every single thing. Blame that on the examiners who don't know what they're doing, an appeals process that lawyers can keep going through, companies with money and fear, and you got a system that should work, but people keep taking advantage of it.

 

[tokkun]

I think you have to explain why software methods and ideas are different from physical goods and methods that preclude them from being able to be patented. And what method to enforce the openness of these "fundamental software"

There are two purposes of the patent system:
1. To encourage entities to innovate by making sure that inventors are able to get enough profit from their inventions to make the R&D costs worthwhile.
2. To encourage entities to disclose inventions rather than keeping them secret, thereby furthering the general advancement of society.

I am convinced that software patents in the mobile space (you might make a more general argument about software patents in all areas, but I'm not going that far yet) do not serve either of these goals.

Innovation:
The mobile market moves so quickly that the first-to-market advantage with a significant feature is valuable enough to encourage innovation on its own. Using Apple as the example, I think it's pretty clear that even if they had lost all their patent suits, that it would still have been worthwhile for them to invest the money in the creation of the iPhone.

Disclosure:
Again, because of the speed of the market, a 20-year period on patent expiration makes disclosure largely valueless. With reasonable enforcement of the 'non-obvious' requirement for patents, companies are unlikely to be going back to a 20-year-old technology once its exclusivity expires. Furthermore, the largest criticism of these software patents is that they can be easily reverse engineered by people with reasonable expertise, thereby making disclosure unnecessary.

Based on these observations, I would argue either for a complete elimination of patents in this space or else a much shorter patent duration - say 3 years, maybe.

 

[Technosteve]

That's a good response, i think from the point of view of my friends is that the USPTO should

A) Hire more examiners qualified in this field

B) Have more patent challenges for the patent office to reexamine the application

C) More law suits that either validate or invalidate these type of patents

 

[FyreWulff]

Software doesn't meet the bar for patent protection since numbers and math equations shouldn't be patentable. An illegal prime number has already been discovered that is the same as the compressed version of a program that breaks encryption. A thousand monkeys will eventually type out a string of text that resolves to being the same code as something patented, like Microsoft Office. A thousand monkeys can bang hammers against nails, but they're not going to end up with a machine that automatically mixes, makes, and bakes cinnamon rolls.

Apple and other companies can already protect their works under copyright and trademark law. I could write a program tomorrow, clean room, that does basic obvious work and there's probably at least 3 patents it violates. Apple can patent the machines that make the phone, they can patent the packaging machine that packs the boxes.

It's like being able to take a stove, make it electric, then patent it as "heating food on electricity" much like the other ones where they took a mechanical patent then just slapped "on the internet".

This is especially prevalent now that the US is First to File instead of First to Invent, so it's now an arms race that only benefits those who have the money and lawyers to spam the patent office.

 

[teh_pwn]

Good programming is all about code reuse, and building on ideas. Patents are in direct conflict with software progression, which is damned essential considering how software is going to dominate hardware with Moore's law ending.

 

[GhostWriter24]

Patents, lol

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

How is it not a reasonable response? They got bit in the ass by the patent system and wanted to avoid having it happen to them ever again. Patenting everything is defense by offense.

Patenting everything is defense. Suing with it is douchey.

 

[buhdeh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/t...ts-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all

Almost every major technology company is involved in ongoing patent battles, but the most significant player is Apple, industry executives say, because of its influence and the size of its claims: in August in California, the company won a $1 billion patent infringement judgment against Samsung. Former Apple employees say senior executives made a deliberate decision over the last decade, after Apple was a victim of patent attacks, to use patents as leverage against competitors to the iPhone, the company’s biggest source of profits.

In March 2010, Apple sued HTC, a Taiwanese smartphone manufacturer that had partnered with Google. Apple did not talk to HTC before suing. Negotiations were not part of the strategy, according to a former executive. “Google was the enemy, the real target,” the executive said.

Another sign of fatigue is the frequency with which executives and lawyers from Apple and Google speak to one another about patent disputes. Earlier this year, Google proposed a cease-fire, according to people familiar with the conversations. And when Google withdrew its Motorola suit last week, it was widely seen as a peace gesture.

But Apple has been hard to pin down, said one person from Google who was not authorized to speak publicly. “Sometimes they’re asking for money. Then they say we have to promise to not copy aspects of the iPhone. And whenever we get close to an agreement, it all changes again.

“Our feeling is they don’t really want this to end. As long as everyone is distracted by these trials, the iPhone continues to sell.”

In the next two years, a small cast of officials spent about 23 hours — the time generally allotted for reviewing a new application — examining the three dozen pages before recommending rejection. The application, for a voice- and text-based search engine, was “an obvious variation” on existing ideas, a patent examiner named Raheem Hoffler wrote. Over the next five years, Apple modified and resubmitted the application eight times — and each time it was rejected by the patent office.

Until last year.

On its 10th attempt, Apple got patent 8,086,604 approved. Today, though the patent was not among those Vlingo and Nuance fought over, it is known as the Siri patent because it is widely viewed as one of the linchpins of Apple’s strategy to protect its smartphone technologies.

In February, the company deployed this new patent in a continuing lawsuit against Samsung that could radically reorder the $200 billion smartphone business by giving Apple effective ownership of now-commonplace technologies, software experts say.

Patent 8,086,604’s path to approval “shows there’s a lot wrong with the process,” said Arti K. Rai, an intellectual property expert at Duke University School of Law who reviewed the patent application for The Times. That patent, like numerous others, is an example of how companies can file an application again and again until they win approval, Ms. Rai said.

After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach.

These changes had little substantial impact, said experts who reviewed the application for The Times. But the patent office slowly began to come around to Apple’s point of view.

Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners.

“It’s called the patent office,” he said, noting that issuing patents is the agency’s job. In a statement, the agency said it had spent the last three years strengthening policies to improve patent quality. Besides, Mr. Kappos said, “we realize that only a handful of these patents will be really important.”

However, patent 8,086,604 has proved very important. In February, Apple sued Samsung in a California court, arguing that 17 of Samsung’s smartphones and tablets violated 8,086,604. In June, a judge banned sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus phone, validating 8,086,604 and ruling that the phone infringed on Apple’s patent because it featured a “Google quick search box” that allowed users to enter one search term, either typed or spoken, that returned results simultaneously from the Internet, contacts stored on the phone and recently visited Web sites. (The ban has been stayed while under appeal.)

Cleaning up the patent mess, Judge Posner said in an interview, might also require reducing the duration of patents on digital technologies, which can be as long as 20 years. “That would make a big difference,” he said. “After five years, these patents are mainly traps for the unwary.”

Some choice quotes from the full article at the Times. Doesn't sound like Apple has any interest in using these patents defensively to me.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Patenting everything is defense. Suing with it is douchey.

You can't keep a patent if you don't defend it in court. It's pretty cut and dry, you don't have a choice.

 

[buhdeh]

You can't keep a patent if you don't defend it in court. It's pretty cut and dry, you don't have a choice.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that's not the case with patents.

 

[Eusis]

Some choice quotes from the full article at the Times. Doesn't sound like Apple has any interest in using these patents defensively to me.

Well, "the best defense is a good offense," not only are they protecting their current business but they prevent these companies from getting the foothold to sue THEM, and that's already been happening.

I think limiting software patents to something more specific would help. Forget all these "slide to unlock" or "one click purchase" bullshit patents, save it for something more akin to... well, game engines, or compression algorithms. Something that really requires creativity on how to manipulate data, I suppose, something that really requires cleverness to create a better result and that you can more reasonably work around to create your own better alternative (.rar versus .7z, both them versus .zip I'd think). Some serious programmers or actual software engineers would probably be better able to speak on the subject however.

 

[buhdeh]

Well, "the best defense is a good offense," not only are they protecting their current business but they prevent these companies from getting the foothold to sue THEM, and that's already been happening.

But THEY are the one's pre-emptively suing companies. The article says they sued HTC without even holding negotiations...?

(I'm just taking the article at face value here since we have no idea what actually happened)

 

[numble]

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that's not the case with patents.

Laches almost always apply in common law systems.
http://www.milbank.com/images/conte...-2011-06-06-Prosecuttion-laches-Bloomberg.pdf

 

[Cipherr]

But THEY are the one's pre-emptively suing companies. The article says they sued HTC without even holding negotiations...?

(I'm just taking the article at face value here since we have no idea what actually happened)

At that time I'm pretty sure HTC was the #1 Android manufacturer. Samsung hadn't surpassed them yet, since Samsung has taken that top spot, their crosshairs have..... 'adjusted' somewhat. Anyone who isn't blind knows that they could give a fuck about a 'defense'. They want Android as a competitor over and done with, or knocked down to a position where it doesn't 'matter'. Samsung wants the same for Apple, there are no Angels here, and noone is in this for any noble reasons.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I remember my patent/property professor going nuts about how you shouldn't actually be able to patent any of this stuff and blaming the low quality of patent examiners.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah.. software shouldn't be patentable. It's just going to get more and more absurd.

Software should be patentable. However software patents shouldn't nessecarily be held to the current functionality standards that they are.

I've never understood the argument that software shouldn't be patentable because its just instructions. Well, yes, and a microwave is just an arrangement of various metals. The patent is on arranging that metal in a certain pattern and selling it.

 

[buhdeh]

Laches almost always apply in common law systems.
http://www.quora.com/Patent-Law/How...ed-infringement-but-did-nothing-for-some-time

Interesting. I'm no lawyer but what are the implications for something like Twitter having that pull to refresh patent? Do they just license it out for free or what?

 

[Dead Man]

Software should be patentable. However software patents shouldn't nessecarily be held to the current functionality standards that they are.

I've never understood the argument that software shouldn't be patentable because its just instructions. Well, yes, and a microwave is just an arrangement of various metals.

It's more like patenting a cookbook.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's more like patenting a cookbook.

Patenting food recipes is totally a thing, and understandably so IMO. There are problems with the patents being granted, and problems with patents being interpreted, but the idea of patenting a series of instructions (a process) to keep other people from profiting from them makes sense to me.

 

[numble]

Interesting. I'm no lawyer but what are the implications for something like Twitter having that pull to refresh patent? Do they just license it out for free or what?

I'm no patent lawyer, so I don't know. A lot of these big law firms seem to think that there is a risk of losing enforceability if you don't use them in court:
http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=2359
http://www.milbank.com/images/conte...-2011-06-06-Prosecuttion-laches-Bloomberg.pdf
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecution-laches-doctrine/

I guess Twitter might make the claim that their patent policy is not inactivity, its announced to the world that they have a claim and possibly are giving permissive licenses to those that do not sue them. There definitely is a reason, as compared to an "unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecuting the patent claim." And their patent policy has a loophole anyway--the way I read it, they will use the patents defensively without employee permission, and will only use them offensively if the employee grants permission.

 

[FyreWulff]

Patenting food recipes is totally a thing, and understandably so IMO. There are problems with the patents being granted, and problems with patents being interpreted, but the idea of patenting a series of instructions (a process) to keep other people from profiting from them makes sense to me.

Except the most "important" recipes out there aren't patented because

a) it puts the recipe into public record

b) starts the clock on when it becomes public domain

Notably, Coca Cola's recipe is not patented.


In software, people attempt to patent math algorithms, not an actual function. The original code is protected under copyright, and the graphics it bears are protected under copyright and/or trademark law.

In the real world, an example is that people want to be able to patent the formula to make a straight road. And not the machine that actually lays down the road itself. This patent is then extended and used in court to own the concept of a road, so that nobody else can make roads.

 

[Eusis]

But THEY are the one's pre-emptively suing companies. The article says they sued HTC without even holding negotiations...?

If you kill everyone who owns sharp utensil they can't stab you to death! Yeah, this isn't exactly a SANE offensive defense.

In the real world, an example is that people want to be able to patent the formula to make a straight road. And not the machine that actually lays down the road itself. This patent is then extended and used in court to own the concept of a road, so that nobody else can make roads.

And that's what makes people wish software patents (if not all patents period) get abolished. But it does sound like a combination of needing good, clear lines and reform of the actual process of getting patented, namely by getting people worth a damn to go over them. Or keeping idiots from interfering with their job, whatever is causing the waves of bullshit patents to keep going through needs to stop, and preferably with some harsh reviewing and retroactive pulling of granted patents.

 

[bill0527]

Apple: Patent every little thing and sue the shit out of anyone who has something remotely similar.

Its either sue, or be sued.

 

[Technosteve]

Hey some one explained why software patents are dumb, I like the road analogy.

 

[-COOLIO-]

The best defence is a good offense.

 

[-COOLIO-]

The general meaning of defensive use of patents is to countersue, and you can't do that with trolls, because they have nothing to be sued about.

If youre denied a patent but someone else gets it later they probably cant sue you with it. You can also get the patents before the trolls do. So theyre defensive in those ways.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Thought this was an interesting read



Fuck it, I gave up bolding, the whole damn thing is bold-worthy.

I'd say Apple got off lightly with $100 million to CREATIVE.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10...eve-jobs-got-serious-about-patents/?iid=HP_LN

The article linked to in the OP is a excerpt from a long (and worth reading) NYTimes article that probably belongs in the OP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/t...among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html

Imagine a world without patents...

Spoiler

But of course patents can be very important. When you're small, not when you're Apple or Samsung. When you're that big and rich, screw you and just don't stop coming up with new and better stuff if you want to keep being relevant.

Patents are of course extremely important. They are even guaranteed in Section 8 of the US constitution. That said, the current tech patent war is absurd and an extreme detriment to our system of commerce. Some things do not fall under the realm of patents. This is more about legal gamesmanship than preserving innovations.

An excerpt from that article:

The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. "I would like to decline to participate," he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn't believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.

 

[felipeko]

If youre denied a patent but someone else gets it later they probably cant sue you with it. You can also get the patents before the trolls do. So theyre defensive in those ways.

Of course, but this defense is just "prior art", you don't need a patent to have prior art, you can just publish it in any way, and then, you have a defense if a troll ever sue you with this idea.

Though you will still have to spend large amount of money to defend this.