Read more.Quote:
How would you sort out the patent mess?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
How would you sort out the patent mess?
Easy. Invalidate every wishy-washy patent. I.e. rounded corners, clear desktop, colours, style and anything that keeps devices standardised (i.e. finger zooming and other gestures)
This. A patient should be something really unique - something like 'bouncing' isn't unique - designing a new never thought of device is. Copyright should be enough for designs/icons.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
Hold both companies in contempt of court for nothing more than a territorial pi$$ing contest tell Apple it can't copyright a rectangle and to grow up. fine them both and give the money to some nice charity for people who own Windows based phones :)
then point out the obvious there is bound to be some likeness due to them being used by the same species and being anatomically designed for ease of use
If it exists in the physical world, it cannot be patented in the digital world. This applies to devices (slide to unlock on a phone, versus the slide to unlock in the stall at a public restroom) and techniques (pinch to zoom, akin to stretching something to make it larger in real life.)
Look and feel of anything should not be patentable.. if rounded corners on a shape are patentable, then the round shape should be patentable, thus making circles, patentable, thus making any shape patentable... thus making the way anything looks an infringement on an already existing patent... This is rubbish and should not be tolerated.
They should all be slapped with a wet fish.
How about throwing them both out of court and letting the market decide?
I wish Apple had won with a slightly lower award (say $600 million), and that Samsung's claims had also been upheld (granted to a lesser amount, say $150 million). Then, both sides could threaten to ban each other's devices and hopefully, either common sense woudl prevail (and they would sort out some kind of cross-licensing agreement) or common sense might finally have prevailed in the US legal/political circles when they would be faced with the prospect of banning all affected iPhones AND all the relevant Samsung phones. See what they think that would achieve for consumer choice.
Also - I think the rounded corners patent is extremely stupid, and not in any way new. I also think the Samsung FRAND patents are a stupid thing to use in court unless someoen is refusing to pay the same terms as are offered to everyone else.
Well it's hard to wade through the mounds of detail in the case but it does feel like US protectionism, Japan has just ruled in favour of Samsung in a similar case, South Korea's courts chastised both companies for being petty.
I'd be more inclined to side with Apple if they had actually invented anything, I can't think of a single product Apple came up with themselves. No doubt they produce and market products very successfully, it's just not innovation, they have invented and invigorated markets to a collosal scale which is impressive.
MS bailed Apple out years back, I think they should be more humble and respect the others in the tech world, I'm getting fed up of the extreme aggression from all sides.
Scrap the entire software patent system wholesale.Quote:
'what would you do to resolve this ever-escalating patent mess?'
Then start a discussion on whether there should even be a replacement (IMHO, no)
First off I was of the opinion that Apple was being petty, now I'm not so sure and maybe they do deserve a small payment - that said I would have thought anything more than about US$10 per device was just plain extortion. And from what little I've heard on the Samsung case Apple's definition of "FRAND" is kind of odd - they seem to think that they deserve better terms than everyone else. As***les! :censored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tpyo
This^ and what's really worrying me is that Samsung will be speaking to their government for a bit of protection of their own. And I can't see any good coming of that! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by brasco
Nuke the USPTO - seriously, these bozo's seem to be at the heart of the majority of patent trollery - in fact, that a patent troll "industry" even exists should be a sure sign to anyone with common sense that the US trademark/patent system is fundamentally broken. That done, make "being a patent lawyer" a criminal activity, subject to prosection! :pQuote:
Our QOTW, therefore, is 'what would you do to resolve this ever-escalating patent mess?' Imaginative, creative and acerbic answers are all welcome.
Okay, joking aside, I'd like the ITO to step in - there's US patents involved here that don't seem to be held as valid anywhere else. In that case, it'd surely be an improvement if - for example Samsung - could go to the ITO, get a ruling and force the USPTO to drop the offending patent as "invalid". Likewise, if Samsung were offering worse FRAND terms to Apple, then Apple and Samsung could be compelled to sit with the ITO as an arbiter (like a sort of global ACAS) with again the ITO offering a binding, final verdict. My naive hope is that since the ITO is a global body then we'd see less of this moronic "home advantage" wrt protectionist use of the legal system.
I just think that the whole patent system is flawed and it is clear that something needs to be done about it.
To quote the great JC (jeremy clarkson): "I'd have them all shot. I'd take them outside and execute them in front of their families" ;^)
When I was young I used to have a small little chalk board to draw on... I think Apple owes me millions for copying my early version of their now popular ipad!!!!
I'd simply ban software patents. End of.
Imagine if we were having these patent wars 20 years ago: Web servers, mail servers, GUI's and even a mouse cursor could be the case of the day.
We will look back on these current cases in 20 years and laugh at their stupidity. That or it will have held us back so much that we'll be crying.
To qualify for a patent, and invention must be novel, useful and non-obvious. Apple's patented UI elements certainly cover the first two. The third is very debatable. Looking at it through a 2012 lens, they are certainly obvious designs. However, we have to question whether or not this is due to the wide adoption of these paradigms within the industry. Today, a smartphone would feel wrong without them. The real question is, were these ideas non-obvious in 2004, 2005, 2006 while the iPhone was being developed? Were they the product of a lot of research conducted by Apple to find ways of interaction that feel natural? Or were they the obvious and only logical ways of interaction? I'm leaning towards the former - if the ideas were so obvious, why hadn't anybody beaten Apple to the punch? They didn't appear in their current guise in any smartphone or fan concept that I can find, prior to the release of the iPhone in 2007.
Since 2007, these UI patents have become so widely used that they are now basically an industry standard. People are used to using these gestures to interact with their devices. It would seem wrong to take that away from consumers. At the same time, the only reason why these ideas are now industry standard is because certain companies chose to ignore the protection granted by a patent and use the technology anyway. The legal system shouldn't support this stance - the idea that you can steal patented designs or technologies, reap the benefits and then deal with the aftermath further down the road should not be encouraged. It supports the destructive idea that patents need not apply if your pocket book is big enough. The offending companies need a thoroughly good slap.
Currently, Apple licenses these patents to certain companies (Including Microsoft. Possibly Palm/HP, Nokia and others), sues others and lets some escape litigation entirely. This isn't a fair stance. These UI paradigms have become industry-standard and are the expected methods of interaction. As such, they should be available to all. Apple should be required to license these patents under FRAND. That way, anybody can use them providing a fair and reasonable license fee is paid. This license fee would go some way towards acknowledging the contribution that Apple has made towards modern smartphones and reinforces the positive message that thinking differently pays off.
The patent for the iPhone's shape was ridiculous. If every manufacturer patented each product's shape then pretty quickly we'd be in a market with no room for manoeuvre. A Motorola would look like a Motorola because that would be the only shape(s) they'd legally be allowed to use. Was the shape of the original iPhone iconic? Yes. Did the patent offer some protection against other companies copying it? Looking at the Galaxy S, 'some' would be the right word. Would the market have become saturated with iPhone clones without the patent? Probably, but they'd soon get bored and... copy the next iPhone's shape (I jest - eventually someone would realise that all they need to do to stand out is make something that doesn't look like an iPhone).
On Samsung's patents... well... I'm no expert and the argument is complicated. From my limited understanding, it does seem a lot like a 'what have we got to countersue with?' moment, rather than a genuine complaint.