Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue • Hacker News Board

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#121

Post by piyush_soni » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 3:50 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #112

JohnTHaller wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ALL of that already existed in the marketplace before the iPhone. Heck, the things that are claimed to be unique in what you quote above is an almost exact description of the LG Prada which came out before the iPhone. Seriously, look at this a moment: http://i.imgur.com/iBD3A1z.jpg Remove the phone answer/end keys from the bottom row, and it basically is the front of the iPhone. Re-read what you wrote above and l…

Its not about whether those individual attributes existed already. Samsung blatantly copied apple product designs, from the physical appearance of the device, to the design of the packaging right down to the design of the chargers and cables. This is not speculation, it's fact. I don't deny that most modern smartphones, including the iPhone, look vaguely similar to that LG. No way you would confuse them for the same…

Not exactly a 'design pattern' (I'll find and report those cases here too), but these two examples should suffice to show you their unethically greedy intentions:

1) Apple tries to sue a small German coffee shop over logo: http://gawker.com/5853402/apple-threatens-to-sue-tiny-german... (Now tell me honestly, does the logo of the 'fruit' apple really look similar at all to Apple's logo? I mean, that poor lady running the coffee shop was not even in electronics business, just serving some coffee! What did they think, the fruit apple is their property now? This is inhuman to do that to a small coffee shop in my opinion.

2) Apple sues Polish Grocery store over name "a.pl": http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp - Apple said they are trying to use their 'reputation' by using a name similar to theirs. really? Come on, .pl is Poland's top level domain for god's sake. 'a' is the first letter of English alphabet. And they are in Grocery business! How would they snatch Apple's customers?

A company which can do the above, can sue anyone, for just anything. They have money, they are big. They're the electronics equivalent of Monsanto.

On the other hand, it's not that Apple doesn't copy blatantly. They stole Swiss railway's clock blatantly and 'exactly', without taking permission or paying. Finally Swiss railway sued and Apple had to pay $21 million for theft. Many, many other such examples.

The crux is, incremental evolution is the only way the industry learns and progresses. Suing others for getting inspiration (while doing the same yourself) is dangerous.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#122

Post by flipped_bit » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 7:43 AM UTC

quink wrote: post #86

flipped_bit wrote: post #70

The core of the issue (if any) is that historically, the patent system is inextricably tied into the free-market/laissez-faire economic system, which for all its flaws, did create the world as we know it for the last ~ 200 to 300 years which led to an exponential rise in technological development - a unique phase started in the Western world, where now some of the 'successful and well-developed' countries in the East…

> A knee-jerk reaction to throw out the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing the whole patent system may not be the right solution here. To further that analogy, if that bathwater is a toxic brew with, at least in the software industry, a serious chilling effect on innovation and enterprise is that really a bathwater the baby should be in? If you can point out to me more success stories because of software paten…

Sorry to get back too late for the response as I hadn't seen it earlier.

I do agree that the patent system as it is applied to software (and possibly other areas too like biotechnology) needs to be reformed. I am not defending the status quo but just pointing out that people who argue for abolishing the whole system needs to first understand its historical role before taking a drastic action.

At the risk of over-simplifying, there is a tussle between 'software as a collection of algorithms which in turn are defined as a special class of mathematics' which is not patentable, vs software as a 'product' that provides useful functions which is in-line with how patents have been applied in other areas. Things get a little more complicated with 'process patents' as applied to software.

It is hard to draw a fine line here and I don't claim to have any answers except looking at each case individually and deciding to apply it, sort of like the early definition of art vs porn: "I know it when I see it" (or something to that effect).

Even if you were to grant a expansive protection for functional cases or business methods (implemented by the software), you will still have ridiculous ones like the 'Amazon one-click patent'.

Regarding examples of 'success stories', I am not sure if these apply but the entire model of software business was driven on licenses during its critical growth period in the 1980s. One example is the core functionality of Excel which is probably one of the most successful software ever built:

http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5272628

Even Google's core search ranking algorithm was patented:

https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999

I should leave with this comment from PG:

http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

"Frankly, it surprises me how small a role patents play in the software business. It's kind of ironic, considering all the dire things experts say about software patents stifling innovation, but when one looks closely at the software business, the most striking thing is how little patents seem to matter."

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#123

Post by x0054 » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 8:07 AM UTC

piyush_soni wrote: post #120

ZoFreX wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remove the phone answer/end keys from the bottom row, and it basically is the front of the iPhone That's not how designs work. A design is violated if you copy multiple elements, giving an overall impression that is substantially similar. If I copy just the buttons from a dress, or just the cut, or just the colour - no infringement. If I copy all of them, then I have infringed.

As people said above, all of those things, except one or two, were already there in their entirety (in their combined form, like LG Prada) in the market before Apple released their first iPhone.

But you have to take a look at the entire product as a whole. No consumer would confuse the LG Prada with Apple iPhone. LG has a physical keyboard, much sharper edges, 3 physical buttons on the front, different software layout, etc. Even though LG has claimed that Apple copied there designs, the general look an feel of the iPhone was fixed in 2005, long before the LG released the Prada.

Also, I think that a grate confusion stems from USPTO using the word "patent" to describe design patents. Design patents are not like utility patents. Utility patents are interpreted broadly. Design patents are usually interpreted very specifically. Meaning, for instance, that apple would not be able to enforce it's design patent against the Prada (if it had come out subsequent to iPhone), or most of the Android phones, including the Galaxy line. But you have to admit that the Galaxy Tab looks remarkably like the iPad. I am not saying that that alone should have permitted apple to sue Samsung. But when you take the entire product as a whole, including the packaging, the charger, the ridiculous and unnecessarily wide charging cable, and the look of the device, you can see where Apple had a point.

Samsung blatantly copied, and for all the wrong reasons.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#124

Post by piyush_soni » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 10:49 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #102

JohnTHaller wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D670,286 is, quite literally, a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners (it's about the solid lines in the drawing). And they sued Samsung over it and Samsung was forced to make the rounded corners on the top and bottom of their phone different sizes. Despite the fact that multiple phones and tablets predated the iPad and iPhone and were rectangles with rounded corners.

They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities: "Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design: * a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners [emphasis mine]; * an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface tha…

So, the fact that they sued Samsung on a 'number of combined similarities', doesn't take away the fact that they quite literally have a patent for a rectangle with rounded corners. So probably it was not me who was talking shit.

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#125

Post by dTal » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 12:58 PM UTC

kvb wrote: post #114

dTal wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing patents with copyright. Patents were meant to encourage people to disclose . It was taken for granted that people will invent things regardless of patent protection - they will just keep their inventions trade secrets.

Depends on the industry; there are plenty of places where trade secrets aren't viable (e.g. medicinal chemistry, where it's trivial to reverse engineer a drug).

Maybe so, but nevertheless patents were not "meant to encourage people to invest".

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#126

Post by cLeEOGPw » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 1:05 PM UTC

x0054 wrote: post #20

Have you guys looked at the patents in this case? They look thick and serious, but if you actually read the claims, you will soon realize that it's nothing but an obvious and straightforward procedure for deciding when and with whom to establish a VPN. None of these patents make sure that a VPN connection is more secure, more reliable, or in any way better. Majority of the patent is explanation on how a VPN works, di…

It seems that patent examiners have way too much power and way too little understanding of what are they doing. Shouldn't there be some procedure to throw away such invalid patents?

Re: Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue

#127

Post by eridius » Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 6:03 PM UTC

lucian1900 wrote: post #83

eridius wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are patent trolls only patent trolls if they go after small businesses?

I would argue anyone that uses an obvious or old patent offensively is a troll. That includes Microsoft and, more recently, Apple.

That's a pretty broad statement. The definition of "obvious" is different to a lot of people, and there are a lot of things that seem obvious in retrospect that weren't obvious at the time. So it's hard to use that as a way to define troll.

As for old, if the patent is still valid, does the age matter in isolation? Sure, you can argue that patents stay valid for too long, but I don't think I can call a company a troll for using an old patent if the age alone is how you're labelling them a troll.