backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by jRaskell.. on Mar 5 at 9:59 AM


  (Source: New Line Cinema)
Patent reform is crucial or electronics industry will be consumed in self-destructive chaos

It's simple math.  And it illustrates how broken the international patent registration and court system is when it comes to intellectual property.

I. The System is Broken

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) recently revealed that tentative Google Inc. (GOOG) acquisition Motorola Mobility wanted $22.50 per device for a series of video codec patents.  This request was clearly ridiculous -- as Microsoft states, the typical licensing rate for a collection of standards patents under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms is around $0.02 USD per device.

FRAND is actually a model system in that it is inherently an exemplar in the world of intellectual property.  It represents fair compensation to innovators, yet opens key developments to the masses, allowing them to push the envelope.

The issue is that FRAND is on the verge of dying.

FRAND patents are for friends
[Original Image: Cayusa/Flickr; modifications: Jason Mick/DailyTech]

The would-be murderer is patent litigation.  Keep that $0.02 USD patent licensing figure in mind.  Now imagine you patent a trivial user interface gesture, which is essentially some sort of variant on drag and drop.  Suddenly you can ban a competitor's device which retails for $200.00 USD.

That's right -- based on recent court decisions, almost trivial non-FRAND patents [1][2][3] are being rewarded with rulings worth 10,000x or more the cost of traditional licensing fees.

This abysmal state of affairs not only encourages patent trolling, it offers a strong financial incentive to stop any FRAND related work.  If your competitors go non-FRAND and your company works cooperatively under FRAND guidelines, your firm will almost certainly be dealt a series of crippling court rulings under the current patent atmosphere.  Try explaining that to investors.

II. Some Suggestions for Improving the System

User interface patents, firmware patents, and their ilk certainly represent a philosophy of protecting software innovators.  That's a noble goal.  However, in the future, it would be good for the patent system to consider a couple of points:

1. The potential for alternatives

Apple recently patented sending an interrupt to a processor in order to underclock it.  Now, interrupts have been used for decades as the fundamental firmware mechanism to deal with immediate events.  And a processor's power circuitry must receive some sort of guidance in order to underclock a chip.

Thus, while Apple's patent may be novel (assuming a lack of prior art), there are few feasible alternatives.  The patent system should note this kind of situation and put a higher pressure to reach a fair licensing situation in this kind of case.  You can't patent the laws of physics, so to speak, and even if you could, the least the system can do is to force you to license it.

2. The importance of a patent

Thus far Apple has secured short bans on Android products for relatively trivial features -- swipe to unlock, fast scrolling algorithms, and a "bounce" animation when performing drags or pinches.

In terms of the iPhone's net worth these represent maybe 1/500th or less of the total software innovation in the device.  Thus it might be fair to charge collectively $1.00 USD per device for them, but seeking a ban or exorbitant fees from competitors who use similar effects/inputs is extremely punitive and unfair.

3. Eliminating repetition

The mobile industry is awash in a deluge of repatents -- companies taking personal computer innovations, putting a mobile spin on them and then filing for a patent.  Apple's swipe to unlock is essential a touch screen version of the time immemorial drag-and-drop.

Motorola unlock
Motorola's forbidden swipe to unlock gesture [Image Source: YouTube]

If such repeats are allowed, the patents should at least be flagged.  Again such a flag could be used as a basis to force a licensing settlement and/or reduce the maximum damages a company can seek to collect in a suit.

4. Force Companies to Reach Licensing Settlements

Barring a handful of patents where the IP describes essentially an entire product, there should be strict guidelines forcing companies to settle software IP disputes.

A reasonable place to start would be to charge x10 the going FRAND rate (e.g. $0.20 USD for licensing a portfolio of IP).  In FRAND terms, this would not be fair and reasonable.  But the approach would bring into line the risk-vs-reward equation of the FRAND-vs-non-FRAND filings, versus the current hyper-inflated value scenario which essentially tilts the value scale in the direction of non-FRAND so far that the balance bar breaks.

III. Don't Want to Fix the System?  Prepare for a Dying Industry

As the industry stands right now, FRAND is on the verge of collapse.  Google and its partners are fast learning that playing fair does not work.  Their FRAND suits illustrate a willingness to play dirty.  And that new perspective will likely soon manifest in a cessation of FRAND work.

This is a horrible state of affairs for the industry.  By allowing injunctions that exceed FRAND payouts 10,000-fold, the global intellectual property sphere is revelling in the creation of an anti-competitive, anti-technology environment.

This system promises an ugly future in which mobile communications are slow (as it would be uneconomical to participate in FRAND communications standard development), there interfaces will be clunky (a company will be limited to a handful of UI elements for fear of infringement), and product quality will be decreased to offset an inevitable slew of licensing fees.

Cavemen fire
Prepare for the future of technology if the patent system is not reworked.
[Image Source: Museum of Natural History]

This is a system where nobody wins.  And this is the system that will result if drastic action is not taken, right now.

Is Google/Motorola/Samsung playing dirty?  Yes.
Is Microsoft milking the licensing system [1][2]? Yes.
Is Apple acting as an anticompetitive litigation abuser? Yes.

In a macroscopic sense, the problem is not these companies.  The problem is the intellectual property system.  This argument must not be lost amid our personal prejudices, lest the increasingly hyperlitigious atmosphere destroy the innovative devices we enjoy today, regardless of who makes them.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who is surprised...?
By Amiga500 on 2/29/2012 6:36:59 AM , Rating: 5
That lawyers are, as usual, f**king things up for the rest of us?

They have been doing so since the about the middle of the 20th century.




RE: Who is surprised...?
By kalizec on 2/29/2012 7:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
I've yet to see a single example in all of the history of Intellectual Property where society in general has benefited from Intellectual Property laws. I can only hope that the masses will realize the insanity of creating artificial scarcity with the only truly free resource (information).


RE: Who is surprised...?
By bug77 on 2/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Who is surprised...?
By sprockkets on 2/29/2012 10:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
"IP" is a myth. That's saying an idea should be granted the same protection as a piece of REAL property.

Companies patents on software are ridiculous because they patent abstract ideas, with NONE of the source code that actually does what the patent claims is available to do it. Which then becomes overkill because the code already is protected by copyright.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By dsx724 on 2/29/2012 12:42:30 PM , Rating: 5
IP was originally based on an extension of property rights. However, where property is exclusive, IP is not exclusive and thus nullifies the very foundation it rests on. If I were to copy the way you built your house, I didn't steal your house from you. The modern concept of IP is inane due flawed basis.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By BZDTemp on 2/29/2012 8:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
The you need to open your eyes.

Was it not for the protection IP laws offer those investments made to invent new technology much of what we take for granted may not have been invented.

Today there is much abuse going on with regards to IP laws and it is for instance absurd that IP protection for entertainment items provide so much better and cheaper protection than the patent system. Lex Disney is absurd but the original idea with the patent system makes perfect sense.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By nolisi on 2/29/2012 8:56:55 PM , Rating: 3
This is supposition and there is no evidence to back this idea.

People will always invent new technology when they can as being first to market is incentive enough to continue creating things that make life easier/more fun/enticing.

IP was not in place thousands of years ago. Yet people created clothes. THen they created more efficient ways of producing clothes. Then as an element of society, people created clothes which implied status.

No one held a patent over nudity which forced the creation of clothing. No one held a patent on poorly made/ugly clothing which necessitated the discovering/making of nicer clothes more and making them more efficiently.

The IP system is a mechanism for people to prevent the wholesale theft of someone elses creation. It does not in any way help or even provide incentive to create new technology.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/29/2012 8:06:51 AM , Rating: 5
I'm in favor of banning lawyers completely. They add nothing to society and benefit greatly from causing problems for everyone else to contend with. I'm also in favor of banning "career politicians". Take it back to the way it was where you served a term or two and then went back to having a real job, an interesting idea is cap people from holding any elected positions for more than say 8-10 years of their total life. Lawyers and Politicans do not hold "real jobs", it's a house of cards that is self sustaining at this point.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By fhornmikey on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Who is surprised...?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/29/2012 8:33:40 AM , Rating: 4
I have the unfortunate distinction of dealing with attorneys and their "good ideas" on a near daily basis. I will stand on my earlier statement that they are functionally useless. Lawyers do NOTHING except further saturate a legal system already bogged down by decades of precedent and rules which were generated by yet more lawyers. They are self sustaining at this point and are causing more harm than good. Granted there are criminal attorneys that are unfortunately necessary based on a persons rights, but most other types of attorneys (Tax attorneys, are you kidding me?) really need to be eliminated in an effort to trim the fat.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By Goothry on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Who is surprised...?
By bug77 on 2/29/2012 10:14:40 AM , Rating: 2
Please, enlighten us.

PS: Not all lawyers are bad. It's just 99% that ruin the reputation for all of them.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By jahinoz on 3/1/2012 2:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Role of the tax attorney:

1. Hire a forensic accountant to do the work
2. Invoice client half his net assets.
3. Pocket the difference.
4. Drive around in Ferrari with undeserved sense of accomplishment.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By jnemesh on 2/29/2012 11:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
"The Legal System runs much faster now that they have abolished all lawyers!" -- Doc Brown BTTF2


RE: Who is surprised...?
By The0ne on 2/29/2012 3:08:08 PM , Rating: 1
Like Reclaimer77, I think you need to open your eyes and mind to what there are out there. You only have to look no further than the state of Texas to find these type of lawyers, in fake towns, in fake offices and in fake names; all for the sake of being able to sue anyone and any company for rights they have.

Sure there are "good" lawyers out there doing their job but don't kid yourself that there aren't tons more "bad" lawyers that will eat anyone alive given the chance. Your statement almost matches Reclaimers claimed that 10+ million Wii users are idiots for having bought into a fad that is the Wii and is NOT a game system. He has it in his head that he is more special because he has this X instead of the Wii and that 10+ million people are wrong :)

And lastly, he keeps telling people to open their eyes like you are right now. The irony, the stupidity and the igorance!


RE: Who is surprised...?
By drycrust3 on 2/29/2012 9:43:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Lawyers and Politicans do not hold "real jobs", it's a house of cards that is self sustaining at this point.

Unfortunately, as much as we may loath them, the fact is we do need to have rules, regulations, laws and contracts and stuff like that, and we need to have consequences when people don't follow those rules, regulations, laws, contracts, etc.
Societies have different ways of deciding how people should or shouldn't behave, and one way is to have lawyers and politicians do it. If you don't have them, then you need priests and religious law to do it.
Like it or not, we have one can of worms, and if you don't want that can of worms and get rid of it then you'll end up with another can of worms.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By RedemptionAD on 3/1/2012 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is just like ruling power like a "career politician" will hold it too long and become corrupted. I am in favor of term limits on all politician, not just the president. Something like 8-12 years would suffice. As far a lawyers go, the politicians need to follow a K.I.S.S. policy and in cases of murder, child molestation, or rape, the client attorney privilege needs to be revoked in times when a defendent has admitted to the crime. Call it a clear conscience law where the lawyer will have the option to switch sides. Just my 2 cents.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By nafhan on 2/29/2012 10:21:18 AM , Rating: 3
Complex legal system = lawyers are a necessary evil. The law is sufficiently complex that only an individual with years of legal training has any hope of thoroughly understanding it.
Banning lawyers would give us "legal consultants" or something who would serve the same exact function as a lawyer, but possibly be less regulated, etc. Similar issues arise with getting rid of career politicians. The "problem" here is both difficult to define and way more complex to solve than "Lawyers and politicians are bad! Let's get rid of 'em!"


RE: Who is surprised...?
By bigdawg1988 on 2/29/2012 10:39:16 AM , Rating: 3
Complex legal system = Archaic and needlessly complex rules written by lawyers for lawyers to make it necessary.
Most laws should be written to be easily understood by the average person. A high school graduate should be able to understand most laws. And no, it's not necessary to make them so complex, that's the lawyers (and politicians) who make it so to prop up their "system." Sounds like they all need a freshman level writing course....


RE: Who is surprised...?
By Solandri on 2/29/2012 12:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no fan of lawyers; I think we're badly in need of legal reform too. But the problem with legal language being difficult to understand is something that crops up any time you need to be precise. Mathematical proofs have the same problem.
http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/notes/sketches.pdf

Any time you have to phrase things so that there's one and only one possible interpretation, it starts to get very complex and sound like lawyer-speak.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By nafhan on 2/29/2012 12:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more. Implementing it is the key though, and we might need to call in some legal experts to make sure we get it right... :)


RE: Who is surprised...?
By bigdawg1988 on 2/29/2012 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 3
The real problem is that the law is written by lawyers, therefore the laws are written so that only lawyers can understand them. If the laws were rewritten to remove latin terminology (why the hell?) and obscure and outdated terminology they would be clearer for the average person to understand. Right now the law is for lawyers, not for the average person.
Thing is, only lawyers, judges, and politicians (all lawyers!) will be able to do anything about it; but job security says they won't do it. Why is it necessary for a lawyer to do a title search? With all the technology we have now it should be fairly easy to do it with computers so the average person can do it and not have to pay lawyers to do it.
I wonder how much we could save in society by rewriting the laws so that average people could do much of what lawyers do now?


RE: Who is surprised...?
By nafhan on 2/29/2012 1:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real problem is that the law is written by lawyers
Except, the "average" person (in my experience) generally has a pretty poor grasp of things like logic, much less the legal system.
quote:
If the laws were rewritten to remove latin terminology (why the hell?) and obscure and outdated terminology they would be clearer for the average person to understand
Those terms aren't there just to confuse you. They generally are there because they have extremely specific meanings. The same thing happens in science and engineering. Plenty of terms get used that aren't part of the common lexicon :)

Further, historically speaking, having a simple legal "code" means you end up with a lot of law based on precedent, which WILL end up getting very complex, very quickly; and guess who handles complex legal issues? Yep, lawyers.

I agree that there are definitely areas where the US legal system should be and can be simpler (taxes for instance). However, laws can only be as simple as the situations they legislate, and those situations will likely never be simple enough to completely eliminate the need for legal experts.


RE: Who is surprised...?
By masamasa on 3/1/2012 11:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about a cash grab. Senseless, mindless greed as always.


Patents
By TSS on 2/29/2012 8:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
This will continue on as long as patents are in existence. Not just for software patents either. When reading about the steam engine, i learned that james watt personally held back the industrial revolution by 25 years because he refused to licence his patent, as well as fighting to extend it. Just to gain more money from it.

Disney has succesfully fought and extended media patent law just to protect mickey mouse - who is now in public domain anyway because governments thought 90 years was enough.

Even a few days ago looking up things about the lightbulb. Seems that there was a patent dispute around that as well, which cost us some time in innovation. But i haven't got the time now to look that up again.

Yes the patent system does what it's designed for. It makes sure the patent holder can get rich off his invention. But it comes at the cost of delaying progress for everybody. Isn't it time we ask if that's worth it?

There's still ways to keep exclusivity without patents. The best example remains the coca-cola recipe. That's so old, it has to be in the public domain. BUT, it's still kept a secret. And as long as that remains, coca-cola will keep raking in the money even though there are 1001 knock offs.




RE: Patents
By Gurthang on 2/29/2012 9:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is fine to allow patents and protections for inventors. But I think all patent holders should all be subject to "fair and reasonable" terms for people who wish to license their ideas. The whole point of patents is to be a protected marketplace of ideas to sow innovation not as a tool to bludgen competitors out of a market. So if I am the inventor of the super soaker water pistol and patent the idea in its entirety an someone wished to make super soaker pistols using the design I think because the patent covers the entire design it might be fair to require a 5-10% fee on the value of each device. Now if we are talking about a single UI widget in a huge GUI OS which represents less than 1% of the interface which represents only of half of what makes a smartphone (assuming you divide the relationship 50/50 for the hardware and software) Then I would think the value should be 5-10% of at best 0.5% of the value of the device. (or about $0.1 per phone if it cost them $200 to make it.) And I think i am being overly generous here siteing the limits to which you could streach it.


RE: Patents
By nafhan on 2/29/2012 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This will continue on as long as patents are in existence.
You have no evidence to back this up. The current IP system, today, has major problems. That doesn't mean that an IP system couldn't be developed that wouldn't have problems. I think a lot of the issues with our IP system are related to the fact that governments in most industrial nations seem to be more beholden to large corporations/media cartels/etc. than they are to the people they should be representing.

An IP protection system that truly puts "the people" first could be great for innovation and advancement of the arts. We're quickly headed in the opposite direction of that, though.


Dailytech
By Thomaselite14 on 2/29/2012 7:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
The anti-apple sentiment constantly being written here and the comments section is garbage. And the fact that legitimate, differing opinions are rated down to oblivion illustrates the ignorant group-think.

Variety is king. When every single article about apple is negative, no matter the situation, it kills the legitimacy.




RE: Dailytech
By jRaskell on 3/5/2012 9:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Variety is king.


Not according to Apple. If they had their way, the only smartphone that would exist would be the iPhone.


Good assessement
By blueaurora on 2/29/2012 8:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
I have to say that Google, Moto, and Samsung hold the entire house of cards with their FRAND portfolio so if they upend the entire system because Apple and Microsoft are douche bags with their previous frivolous litigation. Its like a three way game of chicken that is threatening to take the whole industry and flush it down the toilet.

I think the suggestions made in the article are good ones to consider at least. I believe at this point a similar FRAND should be reached on some of the groundwork and computers and UI interfaces. Its the only way out.

Your suggestions on the powers that should be allocated to the patent enforces are spot on. Let them determine what is universal and force fair licensing fees. That is the only way we will win.




reform?
By staff on 2/29/2012 11:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
"Patent reform"

Just because they call it reform doesn't mean it is.

“This is not a patent reform bill” Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) complained, despite other democrats praising the overhaul. “This is a big corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the right of small inventors.”

Senator Cantwell is right. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. The agents of banks, huge multinationals, and China are at it again trying to brain wash and bankrupt America.

They should have called the bill the America STOPS Inventing Act or ASIA, because that’s where it is sending all our jobs.

The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??

Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations and maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. In this way large firms are able to play king of the hill and keep their small competitors from reaching their full potential as large firms have. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help fight this bill should contact us as below.

Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Congress tinkering with patent law while gagging inventors is like a surgeon operating before examining the patient.

Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/




Here we go again
By adiposity on 2/29/2012 1:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, here is my response to the other article where you made the same claim. Again, I say, you cannot compare the retail price of a piece of hardware to the cost of licensing a patent and come up with a ratio that means anything! The $200 does not go to Apple, so they aren't being "rewarded" 10000x the FRAND patent cost.

quote:
For example a collection of FRAND patents is oft licensed for $0.02 per device. This is very reasonable. It would be also reasonable to allow Apple to sue and potentially win a mandatory licensing settlement of $0.20. (10x premium over FRAND) What I don't see as fair is Apple suing over a relatively minor piece of intellectual property and potentially banning a $200 product. This represents a 10,000x premium versus the FRAND licensing!!!!


Jason, while you make some good points, I really don't see how you can compare the cost of the licensing to the cost of the product. There is no direct comparison between the license cost and the retail price of a device, and banning a $200 device is not the same as requiring $200 is licensing fees. It is simply banning the device until it is not violating patents.

Now I don't agree with Apple's suing, but you are comparing two totally different numbers and then trying to calculate a ratio which is meaningless. There is no ratio known as "the retail price divided by the license cost of one patent" that can calculate your "10,000x premium."

If anything the cost of a phone vs. the price minus the cost minus the licensing might be compared. Then you could see what the total amount lost might be for getting banned vs. licensing. While it would be interesting, it would not be any kind of "premium," because the money doesn't go to Apple! It's just inability to sell the product.




Way off
By Trisped on 2/29/2012 5:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In a macroscopic sense, the problem is not these companies. The problem is the intellectual property system.
It is not the defined system, but the implementation that is the problem.

It is not suppose to be possible to invent the same thing repeatedly. A new idea must be uniquely non-trivial. Apple's slide to unlock is a perfect example of a trivial invention, combining two existing ideas (drag and drop, phone locking/unlocking). This is the same as placing a seat cover in my car before driving.

Once proper implementation starts then these superfluous law suits and patent trolling will stop.




DIE PATENT SYSTEM DIE!
By Darksurf on 3/1/2012 10:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sick of all this legal bull crap. Microsoft and Apple are guilty of blowing up everything to do nothing but get money they don't deserve. Now that Google/Motorola/Samsung are all fighting back and blatantly showing the world what happens when jerks like these do this crap, everyone is in fear of FRAND dying? I got a better idea, KILL THE PATENT SYSTEM! the US patent office is a sick joke! I'm sick of the "legal theft, and legal anti-competitiveness" the patent system nurtures!

Everyone finds it OK to steal from Linux, Open Source, Android, HP, Samsung, Moto, and the list goes on and on, but do something similar to Microsoft or Apple and either get taxed to death or get sued? This is pure BS.




Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By Tony Swash on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By bug77 on 2/29/2012 10:19:32 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
If the UI items being contested in the various legal cases are trivial then why not just change them?


Trivial does not equal easily changed. If MS patented square windows, would you have liked Apple to use circular ones instead?
Just because somebody does something first, it doesn't automatically mean they deserve a monopoly.


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By testerguy on 2/29/2012 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 1
Would you think a patent on square windows was trivial?

Note that 'trivial' means 'of little value or importance'. Do you think someone having a patent on square windows would be trivial? I certainly don't.

Furthermore, a patent on square windows wouldn't be possible due to obviousness and prior art. The exact same arguments being made in the case of slide-to-unlock. Which may very well still be deemed not a valid patent.

If someone does something innovative and original enough to be patented, first, they do deserve a monopoly in the eyes of the law. It's that fact which has led to millions of inventions. If any innovations could simply be copied there would be far less invention in the world.


By bug77 on 2/29/2012 7:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Note that 'trivial' means 'of little value or importance'. Do you think someone having a patent on square windows would be trivial? I certainly don't.


As long as you're not selling software windows, yes, it is trivial.
Nobody buys a device for the way it unlocks, the way it shuts down or the way it reacts when you scroll to the end of a list. If it's not a selling criterion, it shouldn't be a banning criterion either. But that's assuming common sense.


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By nafhan on 2/29/2012 10:34:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's only trivial to you because you don't own the patent to it and your business is not affected by competitors infringing on it.
I would say being able to describe the function and implementation of something in a few sentences should be enough to make it trivial (legally, of course, triviality is somewhat arbitrarily determined by patent offices).
quote:
Apple's strategy is not to ban products per se or permanently.
Then why did Steve JC essentially say that in regards to Android? What you believe about your most favored corporate entity does not match up with what they are actually saying or doing.
quote:
They [The bans] will be forgotten in a few years, as will be the legal cases.
Wrong again. The legal precedents set now will have far reaching implications. Pretending they won't because it might show Apple in poor light doesn't change that.


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 10:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
About the banning, they don't want to ban per Tony, but when Samsung CHANGED the Galaxy Tab 10.1, they tried to BAN the NEW one too. But they don't want to ban them? LOL

I don't know what dream world Tony is living in but he needs a serious reality check.


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By testerguy on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By retrospooty on 2/29/2012 1:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Not complicated."

No, it isn't. Apple wants the ability to copy others tech freely and wants others to not be able to copy as they do themselves. They are using their high priced corporate lawyers to manipulate the highly flawed patent system to their advantage to try and ban competition.

Not complicated at all, its called being hypocritical.


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By tng on 2/29/2012 4:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not complicated at all, its called being hypocritical.
I agree with that fully.

I don't think that it would matter if Samsung had done a third revision of it's tablet, made it oval with a design that was in no way like the iPad, Apple would have again asked for a ban. They may have found some other reason but I think that it is clear that it is not about patent infringement, it is about competition.


By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 5:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious it's about banning the competition at this point. A few people are utterly blind to this fact.


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By Tony Swash on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By nafhan on 2/29/2012 2:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point is that the product bans are not what the Apple legal strategy is aiming for
According to Apple's former CEO, one of the corporate goals was the complete destruction of competing product. That + what's actually going on kind of disagree with your statements. Apple is seeking product bans to eliminate competition. Period. Patenting every possible aspect of, well, almost everything in the name of "protecting their IP" is also being done to eliminate competition.
quote:
Let's face to iPhobes Apple's continued existence and success is in itself pretty provocative.
Bad grammar aside, it looks like you're saying that anyone who disagrees with Apple's current legal crusade is an "iPhobe", is that right? I guess when logic fails name calling begins... :) Anyway, I would consider myself more of a "current-state-of-IP-law-phobe", but I guess if the definition of iPhobe = "what Tony says" I might be one?


RE: Trivial is the eye of the beholder
By Tony Swash on 2/29/2012 3:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Apple's former CEO, one of the corporate goals was the complete destruction of competing product. That + what's actually going on kind of disagree with your statements.


How does that disagree with my statement?

All you are doing is jumping from one statement

"According to Apple's former CEO, one of the corporate goals was the complete destruction of competing product"

to another

"Apple is seeking product bans to eliminate competition"

with no logical argument as to why one relates to the other.

You, I and Apple's management all know that there isn't a chance in hell of getting a legal ban on any of their competitors products of such magnitude that it would destroy them. No chance whatsoever. For Apple's management to even attempt to follow such a strategy would be ludicrously incompetent, and Apple's performance seems to indicate that that is unlikely.

All this talk and indignation about Apple banning competing products as a core business strategy or that Apple intend to destroy their competitors using some sort of underhand methods is just one big intellectual smokescreen to avoid facing up to the simple but unpalatable truth: Apple are beating their opponents and growing their business by building and selling astonishingly popular and successful products.


By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 3:58:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple are beating their opponents and growing their business by building and selling astonishingly popular and successful products.
Yep, and that's why they are trying to ban the competition. You are one seriously delusional individual.


By nafhan on 2/29/2012 7:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does that disagree with my statement?
Try re-reading your statement?
quote:
"According to Apple's former CEO, one of the corporate goals was the complete destruction of competing product" to another "Apple is seeking product bans to eliminate competition"
I'll draw the dotted lines for you here:
What do you think happens to a product that cannot be sold in most major markets due to patent encumbrance? It would be "destroyed".
quote:
You, I and Apple's management all know that there isn't a chance in hell of getting a legal ban on any of their competitors products of such magnitude that it would destroy them.
How do you know this? You have some inside info you aren't sharing?
quote:
Apple are beating their opponents and growing their business by building and selling astonishingly popular and successful products.
That's what they're doing NOW. In the future, they may not have this luxury without extensive legal action, now. I don't really care one way or the other about that anyway. If Apple was only competing by providing an excellent product, I would applaud them.

The patent system needs to be fixed or we will continue to see more "innovation" through legislation, which is good for the company on top with the most money, but bad for pretty much everyone else (even you the consumer).


By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 2:50:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know it's hard to follow but do try to concentrate.
You should follow your own advice. When the competitor changes what Apple perceives was copied, and they then try to still BAN the changed product, this is more than just trying to "get them to quit copying".

It's not that hard to understand, they are looking to ban the competitor, plain and simple.


Pointing out the bias
By testerguy on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Pointing out the bias
By bug77 on 2/29/2012 8:42:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's just the first paragraph - honestly this is the worst and most biased article ever, even for you - and believe me that is saying a lot.


Not coming from you, it doesn't.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By alexwgreen on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Pointing out the bias
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Pointing out the bias
By alexwgreen on 2/29/2012 11:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I am a unique poster, by the name of Alex Green. Clue is in my account name. Though in the absence of any way of proving this, I will have to accept that you will never be satisfied.

I wasn't intending to praise Testerguy so to speak. But I DO agree with his logic IN THIS INSTANCE.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 11:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clue is in my account name
That proves nothing . It's quite amusing you are using exactly the same style wording, typing, terminology as he does. But you want us to believe you are not him and your very first post, sounds exactly as he would type it, is praising him.

Quite funny to say the least...


RE: Pointing out the bias
By alexwgreen on 2/29/2012 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
So how would you like to go about my proving my independence.

In fact, scratch that. There's clearly only room for one rational poster here, and that position is occupied. I'm out!


RE: Pointing out the bias
By hexxthalion on 2/29/2012 11:50:16 AM , Rating: 1
there's no point to feel offended or angry about comments here. it's anti-apple through and through and it's apparently filled with not very bright people who either lack knowledge or common sense, in some scenarios both.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 12:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
very bright people who either lack knowledge or common sense, in some scenarios both.
They are called iTards...


RE: Pointing out the bias
By muhahaaha on 2/29/2012 1:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
and you, sir, only post Apple propaganda, as shown on your posting history. Not one informative, funny, or useful post ever, just iSheep nonsense.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By hexxthalion on 3/1/2012 5:39:43 AM , Rating: 1
that's a bit of a stretch. I own several devices and work with various platforms - I own both iOS and Android based devices. I do hate fanboys from both camps but I'm not definitely a fanboy of either. so you're talking shit


RE: Pointing out the bias
By muhahaaha on 2/29/2012 1:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's easy. Brand new account with 4 posts today only.

alexwgreen alexwgreen has posted a total of 4 comments at DailyTech, the average comment rating was 1.25. Below, is a listing of alexwgreen's latest comments.

Date Selection

Comment Date Rating
RE: Pointing out the bias Feb 29, 2012 11:37 AM 2
RE: Pointing out the bias Feb 29, 2012 11:30 AM 2
RE: Pointing out the bias Feb 29, 2012 11:14 AM 2
RE: Pointing out the bias Feb 29, 2012 9:56 AM -1


RE: Pointing out the bias
By alexwgreen on 2/29/2012 2:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
Where does it say that my account is brand new?

Just because I didn't post till today, doesn't mean I haven't had the account active for over a year. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I made it quite clear in my post that my personal opinion of Apple is not relevant to my recognising when someone has, with justification and in a reasoned manner, pointed out the obvious lack of independent thinking in the above article.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 3:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
my personal opinion of Apple is not relevant
Dead give away right here.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By Schrag4 on 2/29/2012 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, scratch that. There's clearly only room for one rational poster here, and that position is occupied. I'm out!


LOL - and that one poster is....testerguy and alexwgreen, right?


RE: Pointing out the bias
By alexwgreen on 2/29/2012 11:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Also...

"Uses the same terminology too"

what do you mean by this? Good English?


RE: Pointing out the bias
By hexxthalion on 2/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Pointing out the bias
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 11:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
Don't read it? No one is forcing you.


RE: Pointing out the bias
By Thomaselite14 on 2/29/2012 7:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
Based on your realization, why reply?


RE: Pointing out the bias
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/29/2012 7:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The anti-apple sentiment constantly being written here and the comments section is garbage. And the fact that legitimate, differing opinions are rated down to oblivion illustrates the ignorant group-think. Variety is king. When every single article about apple is negative, no matter the situation, it kills the legitimacy.
Why bother reading or replying if it's "garbage"?


RE: Pointing out the bias
By hexxthalion on 3/1/2012 5:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
because some of us have been reading dailytech for a long long time and sometimes it hurts to see how bad it got through the years


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki