51–60 of 77 posts
IMO: Trade war Courts in China are not independent, let's be honest. Hurting Apple, the crown jewel, is a warning to USA (even if Qualcomm is US based) Edit: also see Huawei CFO getting jailed etc etc. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/huawei-cf... China answered....with hundreds of billions in market cap for Apple.
The USA has elected and appointed partisan judges!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That same argument could be levied against all patents more generally, and as a result, I don't think it really helps the anti-software-patent cause. Physical patents have been licensed for this reason (to avoid the r&d of alternative methods) since nearly the advent of patents.
The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution. Patents that patent trivial ideas are nothing but roadblocks. Edit: There are some ideas in software that were non-obvious. Algorithms and protocols. Those might make sense to be patent-able.
It depends entirely on the software. I spent much of my career as an engineer developing software for SDRs. E.g. I spent the better part of a summer doing Matlab simulations to figure out how you can get a network of frequency agile SDRs to quickly converge onto the same radio channel when they start up, where the spectrum environment is unknown a priori and the radios cannot communicate with each other without being on the same channel. Figuring out what code to write (which involves a lot of theory and math) is the hard part. Once you figure that out, the rest is just coding.
Another area is protocols, where the "idea" is more important than any given implementation. Inventing TCP/IP (and verifying it works) is harder than implementing TCP/IP. Of course, just because you give away the idea doesn't mean nobody has to pay for it. In the case of TCP/IP, the U.S. military paid for it. In the case of its conceptual successors (QUIC), advertising is paying for it. Without software patents those are your two main avenues for bankrolling protocols. I think at least the second one is inferior compared to a model based on patent protection, like MPEG or h.264.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution. Patents that patent trivial ideas are nothing but roadblocks. Edit: There are some ideas in software that were non-obvious. Algorithms and protocols. Those might make sense to be patent-able.
Algorithms should be the least patenable as math is explicitly not granted patent protections.
So in some recent version of ios 12, Apple changed the way they resize photos and manage applications on screen to get around Qualcomm's patents. It would be fascinating to see just what features on which devices are missing due to patents as opposed to the manufacturer not wanting to do it. Sure, most of the time the features can be designed in a non-infringing way, but that takes additional resources that might mak…
How did they change it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution. Patents that patent trivial ideas are nothing but roadblocks. Edit: There are some ideas in software that were non-obvious. Algorithms and protocols. Those might make sense to be patent-able.
Algorithms should be the least patenable as math is explicitly not granted patent protections.
So in some recent version of ios 12, Apple changed the way they resize photos and manage applications on screen to get around Qualcomm's patents. It would be fascinating to see just what features on which devices are missing due to patents as opposed to the manufacturer not wanting to do it. Sure, most of the time the features can be designed in a non-infringing way, but that takes additional resources that might mak…
"The court found Apple violated two of Qualcomm’s software patents around resizing photographs and managing applications on a touch screen." Well, that's not exactly the victory they wanted, but I think Qualcomm will take anything they can get at this point.
- "Chinese Court Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patents" New York times
- "Apple Hit With Sales Ban on Older iPhones in China" Wall Street Journal
- "China bans most iPhone sales after granting Qualcomm an injunction against Apple" CNN
- "Apple Banned From China As A Result Of Battle With Qualcomm" Forbes
- "Qualcomm Says It Won Case Banning Sale of Older iPhones in China" Bloomberg
It's plain ridiculous and shows how much the press cares about the truth and how much Qualcomm and others are paying them to write misleading crap like that.
In theory, Qualcomm banned iPhone sales in China.
In practice, no. All phones that Apple is selling have the latest iOS 12, so it's plain wrong that they banned the sale of a single iPhone, old or new.
So in some recent version of ios 12, Apple changed the way they resize photos and manage applications on screen to get around Qualcomm's patents. It would be fascinating to see just what features on which devices are missing due to patents as opposed to the manufacturer not wanting to do it. Sure, most of the time the features can be designed in a non-infringing way, but that takes additional resources that might mak…
That same argument could be levied against all patents more generally, and as a result, I don't think it really helps the anti-software-patent cause. Physical patents have been licensed for this reason (to avoid the r&d of alternative methods) since nearly the advent of patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution. Patents that patent trivial ideas are nothing but roadblocks. Edit: There are some ideas in software that were non-obvious. Algorithms and protocols. Those might make sense to be patent-able.
> The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution. It depends entirely on the software. I spent much of my career as an engineer developing software for SDRs. E.g. I spent the better part of a summer doing Matlab simulations to figure out how you can get a network of frequency agile SDRs to quickly converge onto the same radio channel when they start up, where the spectrum environment is unknown a priori and th…
Can you share the outcome?