Hmm.. brb patenting the process of applying for a patent.
and the recently patented wheel or the wooden stick (to throw your dog)
Apple granted broad mobile patent
51–60 of 104 posts
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#52I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…
> "Don't hate the player, hate the game." I do hate the game. The game needs to be reformed. But some players appear too keen to play the game. Not pointing fingers at Apple here; most of them are as bad as each other. I actually support the idea of software patents and hardware patents and "look and feel" patents; just not how they're implemented now. Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significa…
> Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time.
Don't they take something like 2-3 years to only review the application and grant the patent at the moment ?
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#53The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release. Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff)…
Today a lot of mainstream media published articles along the same line on how Apple's new patents will kill competition; which makes me think, they do it to push the aapl share price higher in the lack of any major apple product announcements in the current quarter.
They do it because hyperventilating articles get clicks. Just look at this submission -- how many of us clicked it just to see what astonishing, competition-destroying patent Apple was granted?
Oh, a scrollbar that disappears. Okay...
Of course they piss away credibility doing that, but credibility seems to hold little value these days.
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#54The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release. Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff)…
> "and the vertical bar is not a scroll bar." These words were added to get around prior art. All Google would need to do is allow its position indicator to also function as a scroll bar and this patent doesn't apply.
Interesting to note that on OS/X Lion, the indicator DOES function as a scrollbar. And when it doesn't on IOS, it bugs me (try flicking through a very long document with the non-grabable indicator on iOS). Sounds like Apple has been granted a patent for a less-usable variant of an existing technology.
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#55I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…
"Don't hate the player, hate the game"
I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "player" that your actions help shape how the "game" is played.
In any case, your presentation of Apple's actions is a lot more benign than reality. It's one thing to acquire questionable technology patents to help you defend yourself against litigation. That's unfortunate, but doesn't really actively harm anyone. It's also not what Apple is doing: Apple is using its patent portfolio offensively to try to shut out competing products.
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Don't hate the player, hate the game." I do hate the game. The game needs to be reformed. But some players appear too keen to play the game. Not pointing fingers at Apple here; most of them are as bad as each other. I actually support the idea of software patents and hardware patents and "look and feel" patents; just not how they're implemented now. Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significa…
> Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time. Don't they take something like 2-3 years to only review the application and grant the patent at the moment ?
That and a 2 year window would mean that companies would have to file in such a way that their patent is granted right before they go to market.
If the patent gets filed a year before they go to market, their market time is halved.
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.
All other companies typically recognize that nobody ever invented anything on their own and the industry would be dead if products were banned because of infringements. So they settle either for royalties or a cross-licensing deal. Not so with Apple. They want Android smartphones banned from the market.
Exactly, it's not so much the suits themselves as the goal they're pursuing. To extend the OP's metaphor, it's not enough to "hate the game" when one player is trying to change the rules. (To be clear, though, the game is indeed a terrible thing.)
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china. The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?
I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.
"has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google"
There's no question that Apple has been more litigious than Google. Google stands pretty much alone these days as one of the tech giants who hasn't been an asshole when it comes to abusing the patent system.
Example: Hadoop is an open source implementation of Google's MapReduce and GFS papers, both technologies are patented by Google and were huge competitive advantages for them in their main business. Did Google go around suing people using Hadoop? No, they granted Apache a liberal blanket patent license to make sure anyone who used Hadoop would be secure in knowing they weren't going to be sued for it.
Up until fairly recently Microsoft was also pretty good with patents but lately they've become schizophrenic (some groups in the company have been doing good things to calm fears of patent suits stemming from Mono, some groups have been shaking down Android licensees for patent fees).
IBM has a long history of patent abuse. Oracle too (though not to the scale of IBM in their prime).
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#59So, my question is: given all the controversy in the (tech) media over patents lately, how is the patent office able to rationalize granting (what appears to me to be) a very bad patent?
That's what they do.
USPTO: "The mission of the patent business area is to help our customers get patents; its performance goal is to grant patents to inventors for their discoveries. "
http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/1998/a98r-2.jsp
I think it is significant that the mission is not "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by [whatever]" It is simply to "help our customers get patents."
To be fair, the 2011 annual report says the mission is: "Fostering innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, domestically and abroad to deliver high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide, with a highly skilled, diverse workforce." http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/2011/mda_01.html
Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent
#60> We can’t take all of our energy and all of our care and finish the painting, then have someone else put their name on it. What a load of shit. What happened to “great artists steal”? Great art must be stolen to inspire new, greater art. The iPhone is awesome. May a thousand devices like it bloom.
> What a load of shit. What happened to “great artists steal”? Great art must be stolen to inspire new, greater art.
You'd be totally cool with me stealing the side project you've poured heart and soul into for 5 years, to sell it to an overseas company that floods the market for 1/10 the price?