Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

litigationandtrial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#21

Post by Joeri »

Cushman wrote: post #10

These articles are getting a bit tiring. > On December 14, 2007, Apple laid claim to the supposed novel invention of “list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display,” the formal title of United States Patent 7,469,381 B2 For those of you who just joined us, you do not get patents for ideas , you get patents for inventions. The named patent is not for "List scrolling and docum…

How do you know it wouldn't have occurred to someone else working in the same field? I find the assumption of the patent system that the patented innovations wouldn't have happened without being patentable to be fundamentally flawed. That may be true for fields with huge R&D cost, like medicine, but in fields with near-zero R&D cost like software I find it hard to argue for the necessity of any sort of patent protection.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#22

Post by MaxwellKennerly »

otterley wrote: post #17
MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it had occurred to other people, and lots of them. You can even watch Tom Cruise pinch-to-zoom, and scroll by waiving his hands. Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.: US5844547 May 9, 1995 Dec 1, 1998 Fujitsu Limited Apparatus for manipulating an object displayed on a display device by using a touch screen US6567102 Nov 25, 2001 May 20, 2003 Compal Electronics Inc. Touch screen using pressure to contr…

Are you honestly contending that if anything depicted in a sci-fi movie cannot qualify as patentable subject matter when actually implemented? E.g., if someone invents a matter transporter as depicted in Star Trek, the inventor cannot patent it?

Of course not, and it bears repeating that this patent doesn't cover any of the underlying technology that makes the iPhone actually work as a phone, it merely covers part of the appearance of the UI, an appearance that any competent programmer can replicate on a whim.

I am contending that you can't patent a user interface you see in a sci-fi movie, which is what Apple did here. What they patented is no different from patenting the way the command module looks on the Enterprise. Do you think that Apple should be able to patent, say, the use of oval icons?

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#23

Post by philwelch »

otterley wrote: post #17
MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it had occurred to other people, and lots of them. You can even watch Tom Cruise pinch-to-zoom, and scroll by waiving his hands. Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.: US5844547 May 9, 1995 Dec 1, 1998 Fujitsu Limited Apparatus for manipulating an object displayed on a display device by using a touch screen US6567102 Nov 25, 2001 May 20, 2003 Compal Electronics Inc. Touch screen using pressure to contr…

Are you honestly contending that if anything depicted in a sci-fi movie cannot qualify as patentable subject matter when actually implemented? E.g., if someone invents a matter transporter as depicted in Star Trek, the inventor cannot patent it?

It depends on whether it's described in sufficient detail. Robert Heinlein's (written) descriptions of the design of a waterbed were sufficient prior art against Charles Hall's 1968 patent claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land#Lite...

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#24

Post by jewel »

otterley wrote: post #17
MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it had occurred to other people, and lots of them. You can even watch Tom Cruise pinch-to-zoom, and scroll by waiving his hands. Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.: US5844547 May 9, 1995 Dec 1, 1998 Fujitsu Limited Apparatus for manipulating an object displayed on a display device by using a touch screen US6567102 Nov 25, 2001 May 20, 2003 Compal Electronics Inc. Touch screen using pressure to contr…

Are you honestly contending that if anything depicted in a sci-fi movie cannot qualify as patentable subject matter when actually implemented? E.g., if someone invents a matter transporter as depicted in Star Trek, the inventor cannot patent it?

Here's another Star Trek example: if someone creates a wearable badge that was also a cell phone, that you touch to activate, they couldn't patent "touch-to-implement communicator", but they might be able to patent their specific method of detecting the touch.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#25

Post by doktrin »

MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #6
martythemaniak wrote: post #3

The verdict was a monumentally stupid decision and I hope it won't prove to be too harmful in the long run. One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity. Something which is novel, hard, expensive and rare today must become a cheap and ubiquitous commodity tomorrow. It is this process that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and easily leverage past…

The patent system is supposed to encourage the commoditization of inventions by using a trade-off: if you invent something novel and useful, you can get a patent that gives you a complete monopoly for a limited amount of time, but in return you have to completely disclose how your invention was made, so that, first, others can see if the intention would be useful for them right now (and thus negotiate a license with…

I'm glad to see someone highlight the fact that design patents are inherently illogical, and in fact run altogether counter to the purpose of the patent system.

Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished.

Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles and UI elements in rows of 4 are simply not inventions.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#26

Post by philwelch »

danielweber wrote: post #12
twoodfin wrote: post #5

...with a patent application granted after a year-long review by the patent office that apparently didn’t include watching this scene from 2002’s Minority Report, where Tom Cruise does all of those things and more with a spiffy 3D interface. This is silly, as is the Gates analogy. I assure you, if anyone manages to develop a practical holodeck, they will be able to patent the hell out of it. Star Trek is not prior ar…

The depiction of a holodeck would not stop someone from getting a utility patent for a holodeck. But the appearance of an identical work in fiction should stop a design patent . So if you wanted to get a design patent on a duplicate of a PADD, Star Trek would count as prior art.

In fact, Paramount has been awarded design patents for Star Trek phasers, uniforms, and starships: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_design_patents

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#27

Post by mindslight »

twoodfin wrote: post #5

...with a patent application granted after a year-long review by the patent office that apparently didn’t include watching this scene from 2002’s Minority Report, where Tom Cruise does all of those things and more with a spiffy 3D interface. This is silly, as is the Gates analogy. I assure you, if anyone manages to develop a practical holodeck, they will be able to patent the hell out of it. Star Trek is not prior ar…

> Patents protect the implementation, not the idea

That's certainly the supposed goal, but it clearly does not match reality. What actually happens is a company implements a long thought-of idea using modern technology, and then writes a trolling-ready patent which claims the entire idea by way of obvious and extraneous details.

This is a major reason why nobody bothers to read the patent claims when discussing bad patents - they're basically the synopsis of the patent combined over and over with straightforward technical 'chum' to make them seem specific and complex.

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#29

Post by jeremyarussell »

MaxwellKennerly wrote: post #6
martythemaniak wrote: post #3

The verdict was a monumentally stupid decision and I hope it won't prove to be too harmful in the long run. One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity. Something which is novel, hard, expensive and rare today must become a cheap and ubiquitous commodity tomorrow. It is this process that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and easily leverage past…

The patent system is supposed to encourage the commoditization of inventions by using a trade-off: if you invent something novel and useful, you can get a patent that gives you a complete monopoly for a limited amount of time, but in return you have to completely disclose how your invention was made, so that, first, others can see if the intention would be useful for them right now (and thus negotiate a license with…

I love how people like to forget about that, software patents never carry the actual code in the patent, so I can't see how they are really divulging how everything works without the code. As it stands when a patent for software finally does expire, no one gets how it worked except for those who had already re-engineered it.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this seem a bit strange?

Re: Apple v. Samsung Verdict: Could Bill Gates Have Patented The iPhone in 1995?

#30

Post by nirvana »

Joeri wrote: post #21
Cushman wrote: post #10

These articles are getting a bit tiring. > On December 14, 2007, Apple laid claim to the supposed novel invention of “list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display,” the formal title of United States Patent 7,469,381 B2 For those of you who just joined us, you do not get patents for ideas , you get patents for inventions. The named patent is not for "List scrolling and docum…

How do you know it wouldn't have occurred to someone else working in the same field? I find the assumption of the patent system that the patented innovations wouldn't have happened without being patentable to be fundamentally flawed. That may be true for fields with huge R&D cost, like medicine, but in fields with near-zero R&D cost like software I find it hard to argue for the necessity of any sort of patent protect…

And yet, repeatedly in its history, Apple has come out with major new inventions, while its competitors seem to just ship the same old stuff.

The primary improvement for most PCs has always been the work of Microsoft or Intel, not Dell, HP, et al. Yet Apple has worked to actually improve the design and technology of the PC itself.

The truth is, genuine innovation is exceedingly rare. Nobody was working to revolutionize the cellphone industry except Apple. Apple was the only one who cared, and that's why they caught everyone flat footed.

Anyway, patents don't require that nobody else be working on the same thing you are, quite the opposite: patents are designed to get everyone working on this new invention, by publishing it.

Two people who happen to come up with the same method at the same time is so rare I cannot think of a single example... and if they did, there would still likely be differences that result in both getting patents (even if one of them gets the patent on part of the solution because he files first.)

If samsung had been doing the fundamental research that would allow them to release an iPhone type device in 2008, Apple being to the patent office first would not have been a problem for them--- because the phone they produce in 2008 would have been so different because they would have had 5-7 years of working in isolation with the priorities of a korean company and sensibility of korean culture.

They would have produced very different solutions to these same problems if they had been working on them.

Instead Samsung was not working on a touch UI, not even trying to do novel work, and simply decided to copy apple thinking the litigation risk was worth it.

Post reply on HN