Technology catch-all thread

[Y2HH]

I'm not going to disagree that it is antiquated.

 

It's beyond antiquated. It wasn't written with software in mind, because it was enacted BEFORE anyone thought of patenting software based ideas. It has to be rewritten completely in light of the newer technologies and realities that exist. Applying an out of date method of law to a modern idea does not and cannot work...hence why the lawsuits we are seeing are as absurd as they are.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

It's beyond antiquated. It wasn't written with software in mind, because it was enacted BEFORE anyone thought of patenting software based ideas. It has to be rewritten completely in light of the newer technologies and realities that exist. Applying an out of date method of law to a modern idea does not and cannot work...hence why the lawsuits we are seeing are as absurd as they are.

I don't disagree. Am I allowed to do that?

 

But there has to be some protection. When I see something designed that is head over heels better than any product that has come to market, and then suddenly a year later, all the products on the market are basically mimicking that product because all the other companies reverse engineered it, I think that is wrong.

[StrangeSox]

It's beyond antiquated. It wasn't written with software in mind, because it was enacted BEFORE anyone thought of patenting software based ideas. It has to be rewritten completely in light of the newer technologies and realities that exist. Applying an out of date method of law to a modern idea does not and cannot work...hence why the lawsuits we are seeing are as absurd as they are.

 

The main problem, as I understand it, is that basic, broad concepts are given patent protection and not actual implementation. When Edison patented the light bulb, he didn't get a patent on producing light via radiation from electrical resistance, he got a patent for his specific implementation of that idea. Apple didn't get a patent for how they implemented what is a simple extension of a hyperlink, but over the entire concept of making a hyperlink on a smartphone via pattern recognition.

[StrangeSox]

I don't disagree. Am I allowed to do that?

 

But there has to be some protection. When I see something designed that is head over heels better than any product that has come to market, and then suddenly a year later, all the products on the market are basically mimicking that product because all the other companies reverse engineered it, I think that is wrong.

 

That's more or less the entire history of technological innovation, though. Is my understanding wrong that, outside of software patents, it is the actual implementation of the concept that is patented?

[iamshack]

If we want to compare your analogy here, then we need to be able to patent the concept of a massage chair without actually designing a functional massage chair or making any efforts to do so, and the patent needs to cover any implementation whatsoever of a chair that massages you, allowing you to patent-troll anyone who tries to market a massage chair. Even if the concept was already executed years or decades before you were granted your patent.

 

Apple's "invention" here is no more novel than a weblink, which allows "you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly."

Do you honestly support a system where I can simply buy your invention, take it apart, figure out how it works, and then rebuild it and sell it?

 

That's what companies were doing with some of Apple's technology.

[StrangeSox]

Do you honestly support a system where I can simply buy your invention, take it apart, figure out how it works, and then rebuild it and sell it?

 

That's what companies were doing with some of Apple's technology.

 

Reverse engineering goes back to antiquity. Do you honestly support a system where you can patent the broad concept of something, never make any attempts to actually design or market something utilizing that concept, and then sue anyone who later makes something that infringes on your patent?

 

Who came out with the first disc brakes for cars? Should they have been allowed to hold a 20 year patent on that concept? What about the concept of using an electric starter to start a car instead of a hand-crank? Should that be patentable? If not, why should software concepts be given such broad protections?

 

edit: better example, should Henry Ford have been able to patent the concept of an assembly line utilizing interchangeable parts for manufacturing? That is the scope that many of these software patents cover.

Edited December 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I don't disagree. Am I allowed to do that?

 

But there has to be some protection. When I see something designed that is head over heels better than any product that has come to market, and then suddenly a year later, all the products on the market are basically mimicking that product because all the other companies reverse engineered it, I think that is wrong.

 

We don't disagree on the fact that IMO, a lot of people are copying off of Apple, but of course they are. That happens when you gain a ton of momentum. Just like in the 80's a lot of people started trying to copy Nike's idea of putting air in shoes. Ideas that get big attention will get copied in some form or another.

 

The issue isn't in defending design rights, or ideas that aren't general use such as slide to unlock. But they're getting patents awarded (not just Apple) on broad general use function, including ideas that have been out in the open for years, such as clicking a link and having it open another program...something that's been working across all operating systems for over a decade now. Note that when you click a video link in your web browser, regardless of it running on OSX, Windows, Linux, etc...and regardless of which browser you use, be it Safari, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, IE, etc...they all open another video window and display the video in some form or fashion. That's the SAME basic idea that Apple was granted a patent of...and it's a bulls*** software patent.

 

The patent office does NOT understand software patents, so they're just handing them out arbitrarily, including to people that have never even attempted to implement it.

[iamshack]

That's more or less the entire history of technological innovation, though. Is my understanding wrong that, outside of software patents, it is the actual implementation of the concept that is patented?

The problem is in the way software or software innovations are created versus how more tangible inventions are created, would be my guess.

 

I am not a software writer or anything, but my guess is I could write a code for something like this that is just slightly different than the way someone else wrote it to accomplish the same goal.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

FWIW the patent office is pretty seriously under-staffed and under-funded.

[Y2HH]

The problem is in the way software or software innovations are created versus how more tangible inventions are created, would be my guess.

 

I am not a software writer or anything, but my guess is I could write a code for something like this that is just slightly different than the way someone else wrote it to accomplish the same goal.

 

You mean just like you could design a cranking system on a car slightly differently and have it start? It's the same.

 

The issue is that many of these patent holders are not coding anything, they're not writing any software...they're just patenting unimplemented ideas that may someday be of use and suing people for it.

 

General use stuff aside, it's such a mess that there are patent holders out there and their company exists ONLY to get patents, but never actually attempt to do anything with them other than strong arm people or litigate. That's insane.

[StrangeSox]

The problem is in the way software or software innovations are created versus how more tangible inventions are created, would be my guess.

 

I am not a software writer or anything, but my guess is I could write a code for something like this that is just slightly different than the way someone else wrote it to accomplish the same goal.

 

And I can build a massage chair that's a little different from your massage chair and not violate any patents, since I haven't copied your implementation but just the concept. Does Apple really deserve a 20 year hold (or however long the patent is for) on the concept of making a phone number clickable on a phone? How is this really any more novel than automatic email address recognition and linking? How does this help society and our economy as a whole to give one company such a broad monopoly?

 

I think it's notable that a good portion of the software development community is strongly against software patents.

[StrangeSox]

You mean just like you could design a cranking system on a car slightly differently and have it start? It's the same.

 

The issue is that many of these patent holders are not coding anything, they're not writing any software...they're just patenting unimplemented ideas that may someday be of use and suing people for it.

 

General use stuff aside, it's such a mess that there are patent holders out there and their company exists ONLY to get patents, but never actually attempt to do anything with them other than strong arm people or litigate. That's insane.

 

Exactly. They'll collect thousands of patents and then go sue anyone and everyone who does basically anything, since it's in violation of a patent. Or, they'll strong-arm companies into giving them money to license these patents. These groups have caused billions of dollars of drag on our economy and technological innovation while adding absolutely nothing. It's a clear sign that the system is broken.

[iamshack]

Reverse engineering goes back to antiquity. Do you honestly support a system where you can patent the broad concept of something, never make any attempts to actually design or market something utilizing that concept, and then sue anyone who later makes something that infringes on your patent?

 

Who came out with the first disc brakes for cars? Should they have been allowed to hold a 20 year patent on that concept? What about the concept of using an electric starter to start a car instead of a hand-crank? Should that be patentable? If not, why should software concepts be given such broad protections?

 

edit: better example, should Henry Ford have been able to patent the concept of an assembly line utilizing interchangeable parts for manufacturing? That is the scope that many of these software patents cover.

The assembly line was patented, by Ransom Olds.

[iamshack]

And I can build a massage chair that's a little different from your massage chair and not violate any patents, since I haven't copied your implementation but just the concept. Does Apple really deserve a 20 year hold (or however long the patent is for) on the concept of making a phone number clickable on a phone? How is this really any more novel than automatic email address recognition and linking? How does this help society and our economy as a whole to give one company such a broad monopoly?

 

I think it's notable that a good portion of the software development community is strongly against software patents.

Bulls***. It's very likely that there is some sort of technology in my massage chair that you have to pay me for in order to utilize.

 

You guys are completely ignoring the fact that patents don't make these technologies unavailable to others, they require others to pay a fee to utilize them.

 

There are plenty of technologies that Apple uses, for instance, that they did not invent. What they do, however, is buy the entire company, including its patents, and even go as far as taking the designers and putting them on their payroll.

 

There are many, many inventors who patented something and then sold it to major companies.

[StrangeSox]

The assembly line was patented, by Ransom Olds.

 

This unintentionally works even better as an analogy for software, as the patent office will grant patents for existing technologies and ideas that may already be covered under another broad patent.

 

Some google searching seems to call into question whether Olds was ever granted that patent. I would be very surprised to learn that it patented the basic concept of an assembly line, and I would be curious as to how Ford got around it if that were the case.

[iamshack]

This unintentionally works even better as an analogy for software, as the patent office will grant patents for existing technologies and ideas that may already be covered under another broad patent.

 

Some google searching seems to call into question whether Olds was ever granted that patent. I would be very surprised to learn that it patented the basic concept of an assembly line, and I would be curious as to how Ford got around it if that were the case.

How would you suggest there is any protection for software innovations then?

[StrangeSox]

Bulls***. It's very likely that there is some sort of technology in my massage chair that you have to pay me for in order to utilize.

 

If I want to use that technology, sure. If I want to build a chair that massages you with a completely different implementation, I don't. You don't hold a patent on "massage chair" as a concept, which is how software patents tend to work. You would hold monopoly on the entire concept of massage chairs. Anyone who wanted to design and build one, regardless of functionality,

 

You guys are completely ignoring the fact that patents don't make these technologies unavailable to others, they require others to pay a fee to utilize them.

 

Rent-seeking is a drag on the economy. Allowing the creation of overly broad patents that allows companies to rent-seek for very basic concepts hurts the economy and hurts innovation.

 

There are plenty of technologies that Apple uses, for instance, that they did not invent. What they do, however, is buy the entire company, including its patents, and even go as far as taking the designers and putting them on their payroll.

 

There are many, many inventors who patented something and then sold it to major companies.

 

But that's part of the whole patent-trolling problem. Come up with a basic concept, patent it, never even try to implement it, and then force a company to pay you. It's not a good thing.

 

I'm not against patents as a concept. I'm against what our current software patent system is.

 

[StrangeSox]

How would you suggest there is any protection for software innovations then?

 

Copyright the code, possibly allow patents for specific implementations of a concept instead of making basic concepts patentable.

 

Why should Apple be given a patent for the 'novel' invention of what is essentially a hyperlink? Why should they be allowed to extract money from anyone who wants to use this very basic concept? What good does that serve anyone aside from Apple shareholders?

 

Patents were created in order to protect the profit incentive for inventors, not to give companies the ability to hold monopoly on concepts. One of the areas where my ideology crosses with libertarians like Tim Lee at CATO.

 

The European Patent Office rejected Amazon's ridiculous one-click payment patent, which it still holds in the US.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

Copyright the code, possibly allow patents for specific implementations of a concept instead of making basic concepts patentable.

 

Why should Apple be given a patent for the 'novel' invention of what is essentially a hyperlink? Why should they be allowed to extract money from anyone who wants to use this very basic concept? What good does that serve anyone aside from Apple shareholders?

 

Patents were created in order to protect the profit incentive for inventors, not to give companies the ability to hold monopoly on concepts.

I am not claiming that it does. You have taken this argument and turned it into what you are arguing and what you hope I will argue so that you can make me look foolish.

 

What I have argued is that there has to be some sort of protection available. Without it, there will also be negative consequences, which, conveniently, you have failed to recognize.

 

I agree that the patent office is antiquated, and seemingly has struggled to keep up with modern technology. The system needs to be overhauled so as to address many of the concerns you and Y2H have mentioned.

 

However, they are trying to follow the case law, as well as their guidelines, and the companies are incentivized to throw every application at them that they can, because there is no downside other than the fees. I can't blame Apple or any other company for trying to create as much protection under the law as they possibly can.

 

So let me ask you this question: Are you of the opinion that the "slide to unlock" feature is patentable?

[bmags]

Yes, apple is incentivised to do that. However, that incentive adversely affects the consumer and business. Apple, google, etc would probably take the trade off of loss of their patents in exchange for no more petty lawsuits of patent infringement by some guy that said he invented the text chat bubble in 1994.

edit: no slide to lock should not be. When you have a touch screen phone, there are only so many things you could sensibly do to unlock.

Edited December 20, 2011 by bmags

[iamshack]

Yes, apple is incentivised to do that. However, that incentive adversely affects the consumer and business. Apple, google, etc would probably take the trade off of loss of their patents in exchange for no more petty lawsuits of patent infringement by some guy that said he invented the text chat bubble in 1994.

edit: no slide to lock should not be. When you have a touch screen phone, there are only so many things you could sensibly do to unlock.

So then you are of the opinion that the market should offer the ultimate protection? Whomever designs the best product will ultimately make the most money?

[StrangeSox]

I am not claiming that it does. You have taken this argument and turned it into what you are arguing and what you hope I will argue so that you can make me look foolish.

 

What I have argued is that there has to be some sort of protection available. Without it, there will also be negative consequences, which, conveniently, you have failed to recognize.

 

I agree that the patent office is antiquated, and seemingly has struggled to keep up with modern technology. The system needs to be overhauled so as to address many of the concerns you and Y2H have mentioned.

 

Well, you came up with the chair analogy, which I think perfectly demonstrates the problem with software patents and how they're fundamentally different from other patents. And it started with you saying that you didn't see anything wrong with Apple's hyperlink patent, and Y2HH and I trying to explain why we feel it's fundamentally a bad thing. No one is trying to make you look foolish.

 

I don't know if software patents need to be heavily reformed or completely eliminated; I've seen convincing arguments on the later. I have not seen very many good arguments in favor of preserving them.

 

However, they are trying to follow the case law, as well as their guidelines, and the companies are incentivized to throw every application at them that they can, because there is no downside other than the fees. I can't blame Apple or any other company for trying to create as much protection under the law as they possibly can.

 

Apple etc. are working within the confines of the law and exploiting it to their best advantage. I also do not blame them for amassing thousands upon thousands of defensive patents. I do blame them for engaging in patent trolling. I also blame the US Patent Office and the court systems for making such a mess of this in the first place.

 

So let me ask you this question: Are you of the opinion that the "slide to unlock" feature is patentable?

 

As a concept? No. How Apple implements that concept? Sure.

[StrangeSox]

So then you are of the opinion that the market should offer the ultimate protection? Whomever designs the best product will ultimately make the most money?

 

What technology ultimately succeeds isn't that simple, but more or less I'd agree with that. It is much preferable to granting monopolies on simple concepts and allowing billions of dollars of rent-seeking.

[iamshack]

Well, you came up with the chair analogy, which I think perfectly demonstrates the problem with software patents and how they're fundamentally different from other patents. And it started with you saying that you didn't see anything wrong with Apple's hyperlink patent, and Y2HH and I trying to explain why we feel it's fundamentally a bad thing. No one is trying to make you look foolish.

 

I don't know if software patents need to be heavily reformed or completely eliminated; I've seen convincing arguments on the later. I have not seen very many good arguments in favor of preserving them.

 

 

 

Apple etc. are working within the confines of the law and exploiting it to their best advantage. I also do not blame them for amassing thousands upon thousands of defensive patents. I do blame them for engaging in patent trolling. I also blame the US Patent Office and the court systems for making such a mess of this in the first place.

 

 

 

As a concept? No. How Apple implements that concept? Sure.

Ok, I admit the phone number hyperlink is not the best example for the point I am trying to make. However, it does seem odd to me that one company seems to bring all these ideas to market (which costs millions of dollars, btw, another point Y2H conveniently passed over), when other companies did not. Apple has taken devices that really did suck, and improved them. As a result, they filed patents, which, IMO, should be protected. While some are more trivial than others, the point remains that their innovations cost millions of dollars and should provide them with more protection than simply the time it takes for someone else to reverse engineer their product and bring a copycat to market.

 

Secondly, I am unaware of their patent trolling, so I have no comment on that.

 

Thirdly, how Apple implements the concept is equivalent to what? Their exact software coding? It seems to me that that is almost no protection at all.

[iamshack]

What technology ultimately succeeds isn't that simple, but more or less I'd agree with that. It is much preferable to granting monopolies on simple concepts and allowing billions of dollars of rent-seeking.

I agree in regards to the rent-seeking.

 

As for the monopoly, perhaps the time should be lessened on software patents...perhaps something like 24 months would be more reasonable now.