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

Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#31

Post by rmrfrmrf »

ignostic wrote: post #26
JulianMorrison wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware patents shouldn't exist. Business method patents shouldn't exist. Drug patents shouldn't exist. Gene patents shouldn't exist. All patents are bad.

My opinions on patents are still evolving, but I tend to see drug patents as a good thing that needs reform. I know it's a bit of a tangent, but would someone mind explaining a little? My main concern is that we can't expect anyone to invest m/billions in necessary drug research if they can be copied the instant the drug shows success. The R&D cost per new drug brought to market is often between 1-12 billion.[1] Even…

I say the same thing about software and hardware patents, though. What incentive will any company have to innovate if they're constantly getting copied?

IMO too many people let their emotions dictate their thoughts about business -- Company X is big enough, so it doesn't deserve patents. Company Y sues everyone in the sun for using their technology; what a horrible company! For every high-profile case like these, though, there are stories of small businesses and new inventors getting screwed by distributors who outright steal product ideas and resell them for cheaper. We need to make sure that whatever system we have can allow for invention but also not stifle progress of entire industries.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#34

Post by djrobstep »

ignostic wrote: post #26
JulianMorrison wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware patents shouldn't exist. Business method patents shouldn't exist. Drug patents shouldn't exist. Gene patents shouldn't exist. All patents are bad.

My opinions on patents are still evolving, but I tend to see drug patents as a good thing that needs reform. I know it's a bit of a tangent, but would someone mind explaining a little? My main concern is that we can't expect anyone to invest m/billions in necessary drug research if they can be copied the instant the drug shows success. The R&D cost per new drug brought to market is often between 1-12 billion.[1] Even…

There are solutions to funding drug research that don't require artificial scarcity. Eg prizes, or simply more government R&D.

The status quo is rediculously inefficient: "...patent-protected brand drugs sell for more than three times the price of generic drugs that sell in a free market. This means that the country could save approximately $140 billion a year on its $220 billion annual bill for prescription drugs if the government did not provide patent protection and drugs were instead sold in a competitive market.

According to the pharmaceutical industry, it spent $41.1 billion on research in the United States in 2004.4 This means that the country spends more than three dollars in higher drug prices for every dollar of drug research supported through the patent system. The rest of the additional spending went to marketing, high CEO pay, and drug company profits."

(Quoted from: http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cns.html#5)

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#35

Post by belorn »

ignostic wrote: post #26
JulianMorrison wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware patents shouldn't exist. Business method patents shouldn't exist. Drug patents shouldn't exist. Gene patents shouldn't exist. All patents are bad.

My opinions on patents are still evolving, but I tend to see drug patents as a good thing that needs reform. I know it's a bit of a tangent, but would someone mind explaining a little? My main concern is that we can't expect anyone to invest m/billions in necessary drug research if they can be copied the instant the drug shows success. The R&D cost per new drug brought to market is often between 1-12 billion.[1] Even…

The R&D issue is indeed real. Even if the state already infuses the industry with $31 billions of tax payers money each year into research, patents add an other form of extra cost onto the product (a form of taxation) that also goes to the producers medicine, which a fraction gets into R&D.

What I hear from people, is the question if this form of state supported industry is really the best way to produce superior speed in research. There are no research to support the claim that state support monopolies is the only choice, a choice with by itself is not even enough so the government has to funnel even more cash to keep things going.

The current system also makes the government assessor to murder, by preventing people in producing medicine that saves lives. Its a sacrifice some for the greater good argument, but for a 2013 society it kind of bad. We really can't figure out a better way except forbidding people to heal themselves? Kind of odd system if one think of it.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#36

Post by Oletros »

riskable wrote: post #29
Oletros wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That patents has nothing to do with Fingerworks.

I highly doubt that. I have a FingerWorks Touchstream LP that (while I don't use it anymore) was performing the same exact gestures we all recognize as "swipes" on capacitive touchscreen phones/tablets. As evidence I point you to the founder's dissertation on the topic from 1999: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf The only difference between how it worked on a Touchstream LP and a modern capacitive touchscr…

>I highly doubt that.

Have you read the actual application and the references?

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#37

Post by talmand »

riskable wrote: post #29
Oletros wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That patents has nothing to do with Fingerworks.

I highly doubt that. I have a FingerWorks Touchstream LP that (while I don't use it anymore) was performing the same exact gestures we all recognize as "swipes" on capacitive touchscreen phones/tablets. As evidence I point you to the founder's dissertation on the topic from 1999: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf The only difference between how it worked on a Touchstream LP and a modern capacitive touchscr…

Wait, it could identify which fingers were in use? Surely there was some sort of limit on this in some way. I find it doubtful that I could put my two index fingers on the surface somewhere and the system would know that was my two index fingers as opposed to any two of the rest of my fingers.

What you describe is more like counting touch contacts within a certain space on the surface and reacting to that regardless of which fingers were which.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#38

Post by babesh »

Oletros wrote: post #13
JulianMorrison wrote: post #10

Patents shouldn't exist.

Software patents shouldn't exist

I think we should be looking at first principles. If we do, then how are software patents different from hardware or drug patents? One difference could be the time and cost necessary to develop them and thus to recoup costs.

If technology is accelerating, why not just shorten patent periods? We could also impose FRAND terms that dwindle over time.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#39

Post by chroem »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #31
ignostic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinions on patents are still evolving, but I tend to see drug patents as a good thing that needs reform. I know it's a bit of a tangent, but would someone mind explaining a little? My main concern is that we can't expect anyone to invest m/billions in necessary drug research if they can be copied the instant the drug shows success. The R&D cost per new drug brought to market is often between 1-12 billion.[1] Even…

I say the same thing about software and hardware patents, though. What incentive will any company have to innovate if they're constantly getting copied? IMO too many people let their emotions dictate their thoughts about business -- Company X is big enough, so it doesn't deserve patents. Company Y sues everyone in the sun for using their technology; what a horrible company! For every high-profile case like these, tho…

Fine, let's use your example of the small business. Suppose that this company invents a revolutionary technology, such as a cure for cancer or a teleporter. That company is perfectly within its rights to just sit on the technology for 20 years. Even if it does decide to produce the technology, there is no way that it could keep up with demand, so it ends up shipping very small numbers of a very expensive and exclusive product. There really is no situation in which patents make sense.

Do you know why 3D printing is finally taking off? The parents are starting to expire. The technology has been around since the 80's. Try to let that set in how much patents have held back a very important innovation.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#40

Post by acjohnson55 »

As I type on my MacBook Pro, I also wonder at what point we as a community are going to start voting with our wallets against Apple and the extent to which they are abusing the broken US patent system. Of course it's only rational to expect that they will use any means at their disposal to get a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean that we must reserve moral judgment.

For me, Apple has already moved into "prefer competitors' products" territory, but they keep pushing me closer to all-out boycott.

Post reply on HN