Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust me, you didn't. Android is not "just a clone" but it's clear that they decided to aggressively clone the iphone's features. If you don't think that's obvious, you missed what Android looked like 6 months before the iphone debut and 6 months after. Now whether those features are protectable as IP or not is another matter but if they are it's no surprise that Apple would want to enforce such protections.
Aggressively clone as in...? A top statusbar? A touchscreen? A virtual keyboard? A grid layout of applications? Custom applications? Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those, Android included most of them before the iPhone announcement (from the little that we know of its development at Google beginning in 2005), and the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any oth…
Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
81–90 of 137 posts
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#82It's amusing that when there is a ruling in HTC's favor the headline is: "Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents"...but when there was a ruling in Apple's favor it was: "Apple's Plot to Kill Top Android Maker HTC Nears Fruition With Win" The latter being illustrated with a picture of Steve Jobs as the Emperor from Star Wars. Classy.
Whoever claimed tech journalism was unbiased?
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#83Awaiting the day when 'Patent Law 101' becomes a pre-req for Computer Science degree..
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#84Awaiting the day when 'Patent Law 101' becomes a pre-req for Computer Science degree..
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggressively clone as in...? A top statusbar? A touchscreen? A virtual keyboard? A grid layout of applications? Custom applications? Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those, Android included most of them before the iPhone announcement (from the little that we know of its development at Google beginning in 2005), and the first Android phone (G1) didn't resemble the iPhone more than any oth…
"Aggressively clone as in...? " As in completely overhauled the device from a blackberry knock off to an iphone knock off: http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-l... "Hate to break it to you, but iOS wasn't the first to do any of those" I'm not making any claim that (1) iOS was first for any of those or that (2) whatever claims Apple is making are protectable or not or (3) whether google violates…
Misleading image is misleading. This is what the first Android phone looked like: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2008/10/androi...
Plenty of handsets had full touch-screens before the iPhone came out. The only difference being that the iPhone decided to ditch any hardware keyboard option. Oh wait, what's that on the knockoff? A hardware keyboard option, and almost every other button from the pre-release prototype as well.
Please. The arguments are childish now. Every manufacturer takes inspiration from devices on the current market. Apple included. Only they decided to go and start suing everyone left and right.
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#86We live in a capitalistic society. I'd like to think that means IF !STOLEN THEN PAID and its contrapositive IF !PAID THEN STOLEN. Patents say IF USED THEN STOLEN. Companies tend to license these patents into their capitalistic form for many reasons, but the fact that they have a decision in the matter allows for monopolistic behavior.
I believe all patents should come with a required provision that lists a fair market value for licensing it which anyone can use, thus IF !STOLEN THEN PAID. In turn, this forces the USPTO to actually quantify (to some degree of error) the "useful" requirement of a patent and, by small extension, if it is "statutory" (product or productizable) and "nonobvious" (existing competition?). I think it also forces the requestor to give some detail on the intention of the patent rather than making an arbitrary claim to an underlying concept.
It's all about the money; they need to stop pretending and judge it that way. As it reads now, the current patent system was a premature optimization which planned for a society out of Star Trek instead of, well, lets not go there today.
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#87The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory? Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are gr…
The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho. A case can be made that in most cases they are used by entrenched players against the small upstart. Fact: We can't assume we'll ever get an ideal system and must choose among flawed on…
>The solution is that intellectual property and government granted monopolies are bad and should not be the law. They exist on shaky ground in that we assume that they produce more good than harm -- not a well grounded assumption imho.
Except those laws are what allows the entire software industry(both closed source and FOSS). Without the protections of IP, none of the copyleft licenses(either Apache or GPL) have any power. Neither does any closed source license.
So no, intellectual property by itself isn't bad. It's absolutely required.
EDIT: Not sure why this is downvoted. The GPL itself relies on copyright powers to have any force. Remove copyright, the GPL loses all it's power. Any software license becomes useless, too.
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.
He's not saying that small inventors couldn't profit. Just that their profits as a result of monopoly rights should be capped at a dollar amount. Patent rights are already capped in time: 20 years from the time of filing. After that, inventors no longer have the monopoly. The problem is that in high-tech fields, 20 years is too long. We don't want individual inventors to hold back progress for 20 years. Capping retur…
He isn't saying that, but it would be the result of his suggestion. It would be hugely lopsided in favor entities with lots of money, since the value of your invention to you (but not to potential infringers) is bounded by your cash on hand. The cost of getting a patent is already a hardship on non-corporate inventors. They won't be able to afford a lot on top of that — the ROI would just not be there. If Joe Inventor patents his technique for creating geese that lay golden eggs but can only afford to pay $5000 on top of the filing fees, then I can rip it off and end up having to pay him fractional pennies out of every dollar I make off my infringement.
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#89The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory? Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are gr…
Taxing a patent directly in the way you suggest is a terrible idea. Then smaller innovators who might benefit from patent protection are priced out by larger players directly! The value of the patent becomes proportional to the wealth of the patent holder, not the value of the innovation being protected.
Small innovators don't have the legal muscle to play hardball with large players anyway. More small companies died after getting distracted with a patent lawsuit than were saved by one.
Re: Judge Finds Apple in Violation of HTC's Newly Acquired Patents
#90The level of IP related discourse on HN is reminiscent of talking politics with people who spend all their time listening to talk radio. I mean of course Ronald Reagan singlehandedly killed communism and minorities caused the housing crisis but did you know that the entire patent and copyright system could be removed tomorrow and everything would be just hunky dory? Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are gr…
"the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO"
This is categorically impossible for software patents.
We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true.
Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.