Apple wins patent victory over HTC

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity

Apple the partent troll.

Google not the patent troll - buying Motorola Mobility to obtain 17,000 patents... as usual that's different though because it's not Apple - grow up, get a life and stop wasting time hating things, do something positive, it's far more beneficial both to yourself and others...

[Ekaros]

Some sense should be put into software patents. I see the point for technologies like LTE and 3G, which really do take man-hours and money to develop, also they are ones you have to license outside.

On the other side is 1-click buying, double click and such, which realy doesn't make any sense, or should you be able to patent book and process of reading it?

So yes you should be able to patent such things as solution to P=NP problem and modulations, coding-schemes which are non obvious, but not a blinking light when you receive email...

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity

Apple the patent troll.

Or... Digitude, the patent troll for Apple. Or, maybe... Digitude had some patent, and made a deal with Apple to acquire and use other patents in other lawsuits... Blah.

I read this a week or so ago, and am interested to see where it goes.

Here's another article about the "deal with the devil."
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/app...-patent-troll/

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The one thing Apple and its former head paranoic constantly forget/forgot is that few of Apple's success stories were original to Apple. Jobs was, himself, an idea thief, largely from Xerox. Jobs improved on the many of the ideas but did not originate them. Jobs was proof of the old saying that it takes a thief to spot a thief.

And Xerox stole its copying tech. from University of Michigan.

Luck;
Ken

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Here's another article about the "deal with the devil."
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/app...-patent-troll/

I spoke with Julie Samuels, Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who focuses on patents, who points out that in some cases certain companies will sell their patents to other parties when they’re under financial stress. But Apple clearly doesn’t fall into that bucket.

If Apple were deliberately aiding Digitude, Samuels says “it would be horrifying — the patent troll problem is completely out of control. Apple has every legal right to sue over its patents, but it should be the one to do it”.

I wonder if Julie Samuels is equally horrified at Google giving patents to HTC to help it sue Apple, or if Google is still immune from all critisicm from the OSS community. Google has every right to sue over its patents, but shouldn't it be the one to do it? And I don't think Google is under financial stress either.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the thing, though, about these "obvious" ideas: they are obvious only in hindsight.

No they're not. They're just plain obvious.

Software patents in general are ridiculous, but especially stupid stuff like this.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No they're not. They're just plain obvious.

Software patents in general are ridiculous, but especially stupid stuff like this.

Ah, I see. Thanks for putting me right on this.

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No they're not. They're just plain obvious.

Software patents in general are ridiculous, but especially stupid stuff like this.

There are somethings which should be patentable, like how the whole system works for mobiles, they do cost money to develop, things like how your mobile phone transfers calls and data between handset and base-station.

Yes functions of UI should not, and neither should too general designs, protecting apple which someone else has thrown away is ok, but not a black square...

There should be line somewhere, I would likely go with something like: If regular person(a coder) can make something functionally similar in short period of time it shouldn't be patentable. So things like double-click and off button isn't patentable under this. But much larger things should be.

Anyway the stuff which makes things run falls under category which companies anyway have to license, and it's fair developing somethings do cost a load of money.

Stoping certain things from being patented wouldn't hamper the innovation, companies still has to provide best possible user experience and features to sell, you can't realy hide those either as they appear to customer. Still techonology running on background is much harder to make and takes a lot longer.

[afv011]

And now apple tries to patent fuel cells for mobiles. I thought you couldn't patent stuff you had no means to develop. I guess I'll rush and patent the transporter (beam me up, Scotty), the phaser and warp drives.

Source

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afv011

And now apple tries to patent fuel cells for mobiles. I thought you couldn't patent stuff you had no means to develop. I guess I'll rush and patent the transporter (beam me up, Scotty), the phaser and warp drives.

Source

Who says they don't have the means to develop... patenting has nothing to do with producing a commercially viable method of doing something, it is the means of doing it... if they can make a 6 inch square fuel cell to power a mobile (and it has something unique in it's design) then it can be patented... doing it commercially just means reducing the size then to actually fit in a mobile phone...

Now if you have a viable unit to operate as a transporter then go patent it but I guess you don't even have a basic, non-commercial demo unit let alone actual plans or even a basic tech for doing this...

And don't take the Register word-for-word, they really don't seem to like Apple and what they describe as Apple's patent points are typical for any patents - means, methods, tech etc - and any company in development will try and patent such things because if they don't then someone else WILL and they'll then want licensing fees for work already done... simples

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ah, I see. Thanks for putting me right on this.

You're welcome.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ah, I see. Thanks for putting me right on this.

Guess irony/sarcasm just plain flies over some heads...

[afa]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Jobs was, himself, an idea thief, largely from Xerox.

Is it really theft if the "victim" invites you inside and tells you to help yourself? From Wiki:

"Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share."

And this is from the article on PARC itself:

"Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product."

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by afa

Is it really theft if the "victim" invites you inside and tells you to help yourself? From Wiki:

"Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share."

And this is from the article on PARC itself:

"Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product."

Ahhh, come on... you actually want people to let facts get in the way of Apple hating...