Technology catch-all thread

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

So this boils down to Apple fanboyism? Plenty of companies bring technology to market and hold patents. It's not like Apple isn't constantly defending itself from patent infringement lawsuits or spending tens of millions or more on licensing them.

 

Read that patent that started this discussion. It is a basic description of a pattern-analyzing algorithm that then turns matches into hyperlinks. It did not cost them millions of dollars to invent this. They didn't have to spend a dime to bring it to market if they wanted to sit on it and prevent others from doing so. It is a concept in someone's head, not a method of actually implementing it, and it shouldn't be protected.

 

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

 

That's what that article was about. Apple sued HTC for violating their patent on clickable phone numbers in text messages. Apple is not alone in this, of course.

 

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.

 

Yes, software code is copyrighted. Much like a book, I couldn't take the whole chunk of code and rewrite a few segments and call it my own. My contention is that these basic concepts do not deserve any protection, any more than physical concepts of inventions or technologies do. I can copyright my story, but I can't patent a literally device or a plot line.

 

Apple should not be allowed to bar HTC from independently devising their own system and method of clickable phone numbers, instead forcing them to pay a licensing fee or simply refusing to grant them a license. This is one specific example, but it is endemic to software patents.

Edited December 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

That would certainly help eliminate crap like 15 year old patents on the concept of streaming music that weren't novel when they were granted.

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110728/...us-market.shtml

Edited December 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

So this boils down to Apple fanboyism? Plenty of companies bring technology to market and hold patents. It's not like Apple isn't constantly defending itself from patent infringement lawsuits or spending tens of millions or more on licensing them.

 

Read that patent that started this discussion. It is a basic description of a pattern-analyzing algorithm that then turns matches into hyperlinks. It did not cost them millions of dollars to invent this. They didn't have to spend a dime to bring it to market if they wanted to sit on it and prevent others from doing so. It is a concept in someone's head, not a method of actually implementing it, and it shouldn't be protected.

 

 

 

That's what that article was about. Apple sued HTC for violating their patent on clickable phone numbers in text messages. Apple is not alone in this, of course.

 

 

 

Yes, software code is copyrighted. Much like a book, I couldn't take the whole chunk of code and rewrite a few segments and call it my own. My contention is that these basic concepts do not deserve any protection, any more than physical concepts of inventions or technologies do. I can copyright my story, but I can't patent a literally device or a plot line.

 

Apple should not be allowed to bar HTC from independently devising their own system and method of clickable phone numbers, instead forcing them to pay a licensing fee or simply refusing to grant them a license. This is one specific example, but it is endemic to software patents.

It's not an issue of Apple fanboyism. It's an issue of Apple being far and away the best innovators in media and media devices over the last decade, and as a function of that, them having innovation after innovation which has then been wholesale copied by the rest of the market. It bothers me that they would be required to spend the money to develop products that are better, only to have them copied within months of their release. That is not a great path to innovation in my opinion.

 

Is the wheel on the iPod a patentable invention?

[bmags]

Here's a good example, the pull down refresh. That is a very intuitive move that has been copied all over. It started out in one of twitter's third party apps. IT's been adopted pretty much universally. It's been good for everyone, and that person could have patented something like "scroll refresh" that was very vague, and sued everyone in existence. He has nothing beside a defunct app, but he could get money from every company. Is that good for anyone? Was he going to make a whole business on this? It's just silly to give patents for so long in a market like this, and for things that are so vague.

[iamshack]

Here's a good example, the pull down refresh. That is a very intuitive move that has been copied all over. It started out in one of twitter's third party apps. IT's been adopted pretty much universally. It's been good for everyone, and that person could have patented something like "scroll refresh" that was very vague, and sued everyone in existence. He has nothing beside a defunct app, but he could get money from every company. Is that good for anyone? Was he going to make a whole business on this? It's just silly to give patents for so long in a market like this, and for things that are so vague.

So what reward did he get for that innovation? What is the incentive for people to create things like that if everyone is just going to steal it from you anyways?

 

Ultimately, the world has changed, the market for goods has changed, technology has changed, etc. People who have the skills and the imaginations to create good products are usually rewarded in the job market or in the goods market in an immediate fashion that was not reality back when much of patent law was drafted and the case law was developed. I get that. The laws and protections need to be changed or updated.

 

However, I still feel there needs to be some protection. There will always be some small innovators that maybe design one or two great things, whether they be large or small, that are so simple or such an improvement that everyone in that industry will utilize them. Those innovators need to be protected, otherwise their numbers will dwindle, along with their imaginations.

[StrangeSox]

It's not an issue of Apple fanboyism. It's an issue of Apple being far and away the best innovators in media and media devices over the last decade, and as a function of that, them having innovation after innovation which has then been wholesale copied by the rest of the market. It bothers me that they would be required to spend the money to develop products that are better, only to have them copied within months of their release. That is not a great path to innovation in my opinion.

 

Apple is one player, do not focus on them. Like I said, they are also sued for infringement and buy millions upon millions of dollars worth of patents and licenses. Everything wrong with the software patent system doesn't revolve around Apple.

[Y2HH]

Apple is one player, do not focus on them. Like I said, they are also sued for infringement and buy millions upon millions of dollars worth of patents and licenses. Everything wrong with the software patent system doesn't revolve around Apple.

 

Apple paid Nokia about 600 million dollars this past year because it settled out of court for stealing Nokia's patents...so you're right, it's not just about Apple, because they're just as guilty of stealing other peoples patented ideas, too...

 

EDIT: And note, I'm an Apple fan. I have 2 iMac's, 2 iPhones (a 4 for my wife and a 4s for me), and an iPad2.

 

I've had every iPhone at release from the very first release, which I still have (and it still works!)

Edited December 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

Apple is one player, do not focus on them. Like I said, they are also sued for infringement and buy millions upon millions of dollars worth of patents and licenses. Everything wrong with the software patent system doesn't revolve around Apple.

Why is it that you are allowed to insult me, and then when I defend myself, you tell me not to focus on the point about which you insulted me?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Why is it that you are allowed to insult me, and then when I defend myself, you tell me not to focus on the point about which you insulted me?

 

Lighten up, Francis. I threw out the fanboyism thing because you were focusing so much on how awesomely awesome Apple's innovations are and how they need protection from everyone stealing from them. It's wrong (see Nokia) and it is irrelevant to discussing whether we need software patents or not. This argument isn't about Apple or Google or Microsoft or any one company in particular.

[iamshack]

Lighten up, Francis. I threw out the fanboyism thing because you were focusing so much on how awesomely awesome Apple's innovations are and how they need protection from everyone stealing from them. It's wrong (see Nokia) and it is irrelevant to discussing whether we need software patents or not. This argument isn't about Apple or Google or Microsoft or any one company in particular.

There you go again.

 

Sorry. I bring up Apple because they have been the ones making the most innovations. And I am still waiting for you to address my questions and my points. You like to steer things in your way and condescendingly attack the people you are debating against, which is why I usually just ignore you. I guess I'll go back to that philosophy again now.

[StrangeSox]

There you go again.

 

Sorry. I bring up Apple because they have been the ones making the most innovations. And I am still waiting for you to address my questions and my points. You like to steer things in your way and condescendingly attack the people you are debating against, which is why I usually just ignore you. I guess I'll go back to that philosophy again now.

 

Lighten up, Francis is a joke from Stripes. I was trying to convey that the fanboy jab was light-hearted.

 

How awesome Apple is or isn't (and they do make great, innovative products) is irrelevant to the general question of whether software patents are a good idea. I think I've addressed every one of your questions except for the click-wheel, which I would say it patentable since it's an actual implementation of a user-interface and not the concept of "using a finger to control a device"

[bmags]

So what reward did he get for that innovation? What is the incentive for people to create things like that if everyone is just going to steal it from you anyways?

 

Ultimately, the world has changed, the market for goods has changed, technology has changed, etc. People who have the skills and the imaginations to create good products are usually rewarded in the job market or in the goods market in an immediate fashion that was not reality back when much of patent law was drafted and the case law was developed. I get that. The laws and protections need to be changed or updated.

 

However, I still feel there needs to be some protection. There will always be some small innovators that maybe design one or two great things, whether they be large or small, that are so simple or such an improvement that everyone in that industry will utilize them. Those innovators need to be protected, otherwise their numbers will dwindle, along with their imaginations.

 

Go ask an engineer. 1) They like building things. 2) They'll get hired as an engineer at a big firm. or 3) make a name for themselves among investors and start their own startup.

 

[StrangeSox]

Soxtalk's ad banner is now referring me to patent lawyers, lol

[HuskyCaucasian]

Soxtalk's ad banner is now referring me to patent lawyers, lol

Mine is Dove soap... what does it know about me that I dont? lol

[iamshack]

Go ask an engineer. 1) They like building things. 2) They'll get hired as an engineer at a big firm. or 3) make a name for themselves among investors and start their own startup.

I'm sure Albert Pujols likes playing baseball, too. Should he do it for peanuts because it's fun?

 

Again, I am willing to concede that the job and goods markets have changed, i.e., inventors/innovators get rewarded more consistently and immediately these days. However, should there be no protection for someone who invents something innovative that truly revolutionizes an industry?

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The stated purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts [...]." Yes, there should be protections for ideas that really are innovative and novel. I do not think that there should be protections for broad software concepts.

[Y2HH]

I'm sure Albert Pujols likes playing baseball, too. Should he do it for peanuts because it's fun?

 

Again, I am willing to concede that the job and goods markets have changed, i.e., inventors/innovators get rewarded more consistently and immediately these days. However, should there be no protection for someone who invents something innovative that truly revolutionizes an industry?

 

Nobody. I repeat, NOBODY here is saying that.

 

You won't accept it, but everyone here is saying generalized broad based patents are BAD, and they are. Here are some examples of what we all consider generalized board based and bad patents: (which you obviously like because it seems you get paid defending this kind of bulls***)

 

* apparatus used to move from one point to another in a box (tires)

* apparatus used to open/close a slab of wood (doorknobs)

 

This is the absurdity you CONTINUE to defend, over and over. You are literally defending the fact that some jackass awarded someone a patent on a f***ing hyperlink.

 

Look, swipe to unlock, that's a good idea -- it's a LOCK -- but it's a new never thought of method of opening a touch based device...and it should be patentable. We aren't denying that. Note that's a VERY specific use patent, not to mention very well implemented. Yes, by all means, that specific implementation of it was great, so let them patent it. It's quite different from them patenting ANY/ALL method(s) of locking/unlocking a touch based device. This is the part you don't seem to get.

 

What we are saying is don't extend that very specific implementation to the generalized version of "method of unlocking a touch screen device", period. Which would mean that NOBODY else could lock/unlock a touchscreen device regardless of how different their implementation is. We are against patenting general IDEAS, not specific implementations of ideas. It's like patenting the idea of a key, but no specific key, regardless of the fact that hundreds of different implementations/styles/kinds of keys exist.

 

I think I've made enough perfectly clear examples for you to understand the difference now.

 

You're trolling at this point.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

Nobody. I repeat, NOBODY here is saying that.

 

You won't accept it, but everyone here is saying generalized broad based patents are BAD, and they are. Here are some examples of what we all consider generalized board based and bad patents: (which you obviously like because it seems you get paid defending this kind of bulls***)

 

* apparatus used to move from one point to another in a box (tires)

* apparatus used to open/close a slab of wood (doorknobs)

 

This is the absurdity you CONTINUE to defend, over and over. You are literally defending the fact that some jackass awarded someone a patent on a f***ing hyperlink.

 

Look, swipe to unlock, that's a good idea -- it's a LOCK -- but it's a new never thought of method of opening a touch based device...and it should be patentable. We aren't denying that. Note that's a VERY specific use patent, not to mention very well implemented. Yes, by all means, that specific implementation of it was great, so let them patent it. It's quite different from them patenting ANY/ALL method(s) of locking/unlocking a touch based device. This is the part you don't seem to get.

 

What we are saying is don't extend that very specific implementation to the generalized version of "method of unlocking a touch screen device", period. Which would mean that NOBODY else could lock/unlock a touchscreen device regardless of how different their implementation is. We are against patenting general IDEAS, not specific implementations of ideas. It's like patenting the idea of a key, but no specific key, regardless of the fact that hundreds of different implementations/styles/kinds of keys exist.

 

I think I've made enough perfectly clear examples for you to understand the difference now.

 

You're trolling at this point.

I've conceded three or four times now the point about the hyperlink. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of turning into the Incredible Hulk and spazzing out?

 

And I am not trolling. I am asking all three of you what is patentable and what is not. I'm also asking what changes would you implement to the patent system.

 

What you are doing is getting angry and swearing like you usually do. In about two hours you will probably berate me and get suspended for a week.

 

You keep giving these broad examples as to what isn't patentable, but you are not saying what is patentable. You also are not mentioning how discontinuing software patents will or may stifle innovation. All I am trying to do is point out that this case you and SS and BMags are making is not as clear-cut as you might like to make it seem. But since I disagree with you, as usual, you are getting angry, which is par for the course with you.

 

 

 

[iamshack]

The stated purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts [...]." Yes, there should be protections for ideas that really are innovative and novel. I do not think that there should be protections for broad software concepts.

Yes, to promote the progress of science and the arts. And yes, technological innovations fall under science.

 

 

[Y2HH]

I've conceded three or four times now the point about the hyperlink. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of turning into the Incredible Hulk and spazzing out?

 

And I am not trolling. I am asking all three of you what is patentable and what is not. I'm also asking what changes would you implement to the patent system.

 

What you are doing is getting angry and swearing like you usually do. In about two hours you will probably berate me and get suspended for a week.

 

You keep giving these broad examples as to what isn't patentable, but you are not saying what is patentable. You also are not mentioning how discontinuing software patents will or may stifle innovation. All I am trying to do is point out that this case you and SS and BMags are making is not as clear-cut as you might like to make it seem. But since I disagree with you, as usual, you are getting angry, which is par for the course with you.

 

I'll have you know I swear in RL, so that's just how I talk.

 

Also, I haven't been suspended in a long time.

 

We've already made some key points on patents and what should be valid, such as specific implementations of a generalized idea. You're just ignoring them because you're a patent troll.

 

I made a perfectly clear example of something that's patentable -- I.E. touch method of using swipe to unlock -- and you ignored it. So I re-posted what you ignored multiple times now, which will probably just get ignored again. Patenting that specific method of unlocking a touch based device and patenting ANY method of unlocking a touch based device are galaxies of difference.

[bmags]

Someone sued twitter because they had a patent for "electronic messaging between celebrities and fans".

 

[iamshack]

I'll have you know I swear in RL, so that's just how I talk.

 

Also, I haven't been suspended in a long time.

 

We've already made some key points on patents and what should be valid, such as specific implementations of a generalized idea. You're just ignoring them because you're a patent troll.

 

I made a perfectly clear example of something that's patentable -- I.E. touch method of using swipe to unlock -- and you ignored it. So I re-posted what you ignored multiple times now, which will probably just get ignored again. Patenting that specific method of unlocking a touch based device and patenting ANY method of unlocking a touch based device are galaxies of difference.

I can agree with that.

 

As for the multi-touch screen you mentioned earlier, that technology was purchased by Apple from a company called FingerWorks, along with all their patents, the entire company, and the founders were hired to work for Apple. It's not like they stole it from the dufus at Microsoft.

 

So tell me this...since you are obviously far more knowledgeable about this industry than me...if I come up with something like "slide to unlock", how difficult would it be for someone at say, HTC, to figure that out once he saw how it worked on my device?

[iamshack]

Someone sued twitter because they had a patent for "electronic messaging between celebrities and fans".

And honestly, part of the problem is that these people come to the patent office when these technologies are far off into the future and they seem more novel than they do to us now.

 

Perhaps there could be a requirement for a working prototype or something?

 

I know Apple patented the iPad in 2004 or something and it showed a drawing of a guy holding a rectangle table device. Well what the hell does that tell us? Nothing.

[bmags]

And honestly, part of the problem is that these people come to the patent office when these technologies are far off into the future and they seem more novel than they do to us now.

 

Perhaps there could be a requirement for a working prototype or something?

 

I know Apple patented the iPad in 2004 or something and it showed a drawing of a guy holding a rectangle table device. Well what the hell does that tell us? Nothing.

 

Fine. How about this. you get a software patent for 9 months. If after 9 months you have not began seriously moving forward your idea into production you lose that patent.

[iamshack]

Fine. How about this. you get a software patent for 9 months. If after 9 months you have not began seriously moving forward your idea into production you lose that patent.

I believe there are some sort of rules like this in place already (perhaps Badger or some of the other attorneys here could refresh my memory), but yeah, there needs to be either an entirely different set of rules for software, or they need to just start all over with the entire system.