31–40 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. I think the obviousness of an idea might change throughout time. 2. What if one industry is dominated by two companies, in the sense that all the experts are employed by one or the other, then how could they be unbiassed?
Simple. Monopolies and duopolies shouldn't be awarded patents, which are just monopolies themselves. Why award monopolies to monopolies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off: the use of "obvious" in the law is technical, and not a synonym for "simple". It means obvious to a learned practitioner in the field. If you handed a touchscreen UI to 100 handset designers in 2007 and asked them to come up with a unlock mechnism, you really think that none of them would have invented a slide gesture? More broadly: I think your attitude is, in fact, exactly the problem . The existing pate…
If "some things are obviously obvious" that implies there is an objective (or universal subjective) criterion for judging obviousness. What would this be? Note that a lot of brilliance looks obvious ex post facto because one is looking up the branch and seeing only one branch instead of down it and the bifurcations.
So if you want to make that case, make it. Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection. Don't hide behind platitudes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I struggle to think of Apple as innovative - I consider them iterative. They DO make amazing, fantastic products. With few exceptions, however, their products tend to be things that are iterative improvements over already existing technology. For example, iPhone and iPad - both of these concepts (smartphone and tablet) already existed. Only, a lot of them were shitty before Apple came along. They basically swept thro…
Touch versus stylus wasn't iterative. It was revolutionary. "Swipe to unlock" wouldn't even have been practical in the prior resistive touchscreen/stylus paradigm.
> The judge said that HTC's "arc unlock" feature - which also involves a predefined gesture along a path shown on-screen - would have infringed Apple's technology had it not been for a device released in 2004. No, no, no. It is clearly obvious , the fact that there happens to also be prior art just adds insult to injury. If there had not been prior art, it would still be a frivolous, trivial patent. This is exactly w…
I perfectly agree. But how do you prove in court that it was obvious? Most countries do have that paragraph in their legislation stating patents need to be non-obvious to someone of similar skill. But you almost never see that being tested in court, because how the hell do you prove it? One of the big problems with the patent system is that it tries to implement solutions that are not viable in practice. There's no g…
That's kind of how Apple's slide to unlock patent is now. Even if they twist the heck out of that method, it might still fall within Apple's description for a "slide to unlock" method for which they got a patent.
Stuff like this shouldn't be allowed to be patented. But I think people tend to give Apple the benefit of the doubt much more than they deserve, because they were the ones changing the mobile industry in 2007, and now they somehow believe that anything that even remotely resembles what Apple has needs to belong to Apple and only to Apple. But that's not how things should work. Apple should just compete and try to stay 1 step ahead. That's how it's done in all the other industries. They don't try to squash every single one of their competitors with bogus lawsuits because they "compete" i.e. making something "similar".
"We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace." This. I do think that Apple is an innovative company which creates great products. But this does not in anyways justifies its actions in courtrooms all over the world trying to exploit a system that is clearly outdated.
I struggle to think of Apple as innovative - I consider them iterative. They DO make amazing, fantastic products. With few exceptions, however, their products tend to be things that are iterative improvements over already existing technology. For example, iPhone and iPad - both of these concepts (smartphone and tablet) already existed. Only, a lot of them were shitty before Apple came along. They basically swept thro…
The fact they haven't created a new product area by themselves doesn't mean they don't innovate at all.
"Apple declined to comment on the specifics of the case. Instead it re-issued an earlier statement, saying: "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."" This reaks of disastrous lazy damage control PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is so difficult. Something has to be nontrivial to practitioners in the relevant field, so just survey a few random software engineers - not some clerks at the patent office. Pay them for their time, obviously, and that cost should come from the patent application fee. If this were done the vast majority of software patents existing today would not have been granted. Which is probably why the syste…
1. I think the obviousness of an idea might change throughout time. 2. What if one industry is dominated by two companies, in the sense that all the experts are employed by one or the other, then how could they be unbiassed?
Sounds like an excellent reason not to allow someone to own the idea for 20 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If "some things are obviously obvious" that implies there is an objective (or universal subjective) criterion for judging obviousness. What would this be? Note that a lot of brilliance looks obvious ex post facto because one is looking up the branch and seeing only one branch instead of down it and the bifurcations.
No. You're arguing precisely the fallacy I tried to refute. The fact that you personally (or any given judge or patent officer) didn't think of something isn't reasonable grounds for making it non-obvious, which is a technical (legally "objective", if not logically) distinction. So if you want to make that case, make it . Show me the "brilliance" in Slide-to-Unlock that makes it a unique flower worthy of protection.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I struggle to think of Apple as innovative - I consider them iterative. They DO make amazing, fantastic products. With few exceptions, however, their products tend to be things that are iterative improvements over already existing technology. For example, iPhone and iPad - both of these concepts (smartphone and tablet) already existed. Only, a lot of them were shitty before Apple came along. They basically swept thro…
Apple doesn't create new product areas, it grabs an area and disrupts the status quo by offering significantly improved user experiences. In that pursuit they have really innovated in various areas, from UI design to manufacturing to logistics. The fact they haven't created a new product area by themselves doesn't mean they don't innovate at all.
Yes tablets had existed in the past but did any of them have scaled down, touch optimised UIs ? All I recall is full blown Windows which was probably the biggest reason they didn't succeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. I think the obviousness of an idea might change throughout time. 2. What if one industry is dominated by two companies, in the sense that all the experts are employed by one or the other, then how could they be unbiassed?
Simple. Monopolies and duopolies shouldn't be awarded patents, which are just monopolies themselves. Why award monopolies to monopolies?