Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

Right, once again they just took existing tech and combinmed them in a unique but obvious way.

And once again you ignore the fact that all sorts of patents are granted for "existing tech combined in a unique way". That's part of what "novelty" means. That's why the patent system exists: so people can see what others have done, and improve upon it, but combining it in new an useful ways.

You also ignore the fact that you can't mere assert that this new combination is "obvious", you have to prove that, using references. References you have never been able to provide, despite having been asked for them several times.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Seeing as the patent office fairly regularly allows patents for perpetual motion devices and other such nonsense I doubt anything has ever been laughed out of it.

"Fairly regularly allows"?! Do you have proof for these ridiculous claims of yours?

How about you cite the number of a single perpetual motion patent issued in the 1980s, one issued in the 1990s, and one issued since 2000? If the patent office "regularly allows" such patents, it should be easy for you to find one each per decade, right?

 

[Horatius]

US Circuit judge, University of Chicago lecturer and intellectuial property expert Richard Posner sounds off:

When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.

See, now this is a reasonable discussion to have: what do we, as a society, want to be patentable? I have no problem with re-writing the law to either explicitly include or exclude any particular types of technology (Here in Canada we already explicitly deny patents on methods of medical treatment, for instance), but as it stands right now, we're required to enforce the law as it exists, and as it has been interpreted by the Courts.

Go ahead and fix that if you think it's broken, but again, you'll get nowhere with that if you don't even understand the basics of the laws you're complaining about.

 

[AvalonXQ]

When patents are used solely as a tool to stifle competition and innovation and engage in monopolistic behavior it's clear evidence that the system originally designed to encourage innovation is broken.

It really doesn't appear that you have any idea what you're talking about. The only thing you can do with a patent is either exclude competition with it (patent litigation), or make an agreement not to exclude them (patent licensing). That's precisely what a patent does; it gives you a limited monopoly over what you invented. That's what it's for.

Your statement is as nonsensical as "When land deeds are used solely as a tool to stifle land use and exclude competitors from parcels of property...."

What else do you imagine we use patents for? The question isn't whether they're used against competitors (duh); the question is whether they were properly granted and whether they are properly applied.

And that's a question that can only be answered with research you apparently refuse to do.

 

[Horatius]

"Fairly regularly allows"?! Do you have proof for these ridiculous claims of yours?

How about you cite the number of a single perpetual motion patent issued in the 1980s, one issued in the 1990s, and one issued since 2000? If the patent office "regularly allows" such patents, it should be easy for you to find one each per decade, right?

I might take you up on that challenge - BS patents like that were the topic of my first TAM talk at TAM 5.

But yes, as a percentage of the number of patents issued each year in the US, it's a very small problem. It's also, note, a completely different problem from that of "obvious" or trivial patents being issued. The problems with PM machines is one of utility, which is much harder to challenge than lack of novelty or obviousness, and requires a far greater commitment of resources on the part of the Examiner.

That's another of those real problems I see that these sorts of silly arguments do nothing to fix.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

I have no idea how patents work, nor do I really wish to know. I think it's a bit silly to be able to patent a simple improvement of an already existing product though. I have no idea if that is the case here or not.

If someone invented the television, they've invented a new product, and should get a patent. When that patent runs out and someone else comes along and decides to add color to the television, it doesn't seem like that should be able to get a patent. It's not a new product. It's an upgrade to an existing product. Later, when someone comes up with hi-def, that too, is an upgrade, not a new product. Why should you be able to patent an upgrade?

I guess it would get a little mirky would the remote control. It's an upgrade, but the product itself, the remote control, is a new product.

Glad I'm not ruling on this stuff.

 

[AvalonXQ]

PM patents aren't a real problem because they're facially invalid anyway. They disintegrate at the first legal challenge.

Patents granted on obvious/trivial features are definitely a different and important problem.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If someone invented the television, they've invented a new product, and should get a patent. When that patent runs out and someone else comes along and decides to add color to the television, it doesn't seem like that should be able to get a patent. It's not a new product.

What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent?

I don't see any reason why the first guy to come along with glue, for instance, should get a patent, but the second guy who comes up with a new and different way to make a better and stickier glue, shouldn't.

 

[WildCat]

And once again you ignore the fact that all sorts of patents are granted for "existing tech combined in a unique way". That's part of what "novelty" means. That's why the patent system exists: so people can see what others have done, and improve upon it, but combining it in new an useful ways.

You also ignore the fact that you can't mere assert that this new combination is "obvious", you have to prove that, using references. References you have never been able to provide, despite having been asked for them several times.

It's a touchscreen, how is it not obvious that you manipulate it by touching it? That's pretty much the whole point of a touchscreen display.

 

[WildCat]

What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent?

Except in this case another team of engineersd came up with a completely different way to transmit and display color information but was still somehow blocked by the first team's patent. That's what we're seeing in the smart phone battles.

 

[Horatius]

Except in this case another team of engineersd came up with a completely different way to transmit and display color information but was still somehow blocked by the first team's patent. That's what we're seeing in the smart phone battles.

Actually, they got a patent for their new way of doing it, then cross-licensed with the earlier patentees, who had earlier cross-licensed with the guys who came up with B&W TV.

The existence of a previous, broadly claimed patent doesn't prevent you from getting a patent to a new, more narrowly-claimed invention. Which you'd know if you knew how to read patent claims properly.

 

[Horatius]

PM patents aren't a real problem because they're facially invalid anyway. They disintegrate at the first legal challenge.

Yeah, that's true. The larger social issue is, the PM patentees (and others like them) aren't using the patents in the manner intended - that is, suing those who infringe. Instead, they're using patents as marketing tools to either sell to gullible consumers, or as inducements to investors*. They stay as far away from the courts as they can.




*The notion is, if it's patented, it must work! The Government said so!

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

What about if I told you that it took a team of engineers 20 years and $10 million to figure out how to transmit and display color information in condensed enough a form to reliably produce it on a television screen? Now would you think they deserve a patent?

I don't see any reason why the first guy to come along with glue, for instance, should get a patent, but the second guy who comes up with a new and different way to make a better and stickier glue, shouldn't.

And what if I told you that a second team spent the same 20 years, and about 10 million, but they ended up being just a couple of months behind the first team? Why is it okay to say "screw you, someone else came first" in that instance, but not with the first team?

Once a product like the tv is invented, it's much easier for engineers to imagine improvements for it. Coming up with the initial product is much trickier, because you are doing something that hasn't been done before. Sure, another guy may be working on a tv, but the chances are it will be different than yours. The guys working on color? They are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there. They have a template (the tv) with which to formulate their ideas off of.

 

[Horatius]

And what if I told you that a second team spent the same 20 years, and about 10 million, but they ended up being just a couple of months behind the first team? Why is it okay to say "screw you, someone else came first" in that instance, but not with the first team?

If they come up with essentially the same thing, well, that sucks, but they knew the risk when they decided to invest.

And why do you imagine that this only happens with improvements to technology? Look into the history of the telephone - there were several people working on similar ideas all at essentially the same time.

The race to the patent office can be brutal, but it was implemented so as to encourage timely disclosure of inventions. There is much less benefit from someone who spends 30 years tinkering in his basement before finally revealing his work.

Once a product like the tv is invented, it's much easier for engineers to imagine improvements for it. Coming up with the initial product is much trickier, because you are doing something that hasn't been done before. Sure, another guy may be working on a tv, but the chances are it will be different than yours. The guys working on color? They are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there. They have a template (the tv) with which to formulate their ideas off of.

And that's why "improvement" patents have much narrower claims than patents on brand new ideas. The first inventor gets a broad patent, and can profit by licensing that broad patent to those who develop the improvements. But the improvements also get patents - just of a much narrower scope. That why people who "are still working on the same project, no matter which method they use to get there" can still get their own patent - different ways of arriving at the same effect are still patentable.

That's part of what AvalonXQ and I have been trying to get across. The patent claims you see here are of extremely narrow scope. They're not just for "using a touch to control a touch screen", they are for a very particular type of touch, that manipulates a very particular type of displayed information, to manipulate it in a very specific way, and they cover nothing else outside the bounds of those very specific limitations. Can you really claim that the whole entire remainder of the smart phone industry is doomed because they might have to pay a licensing fee to use this one, very specific method?

 

[The Dark Lord]

So what ?

So, is the GS3 a copy of the iPhone? If not, then Apple winning is obviously not necessary in "forcing Samsung to come up with their own features rather than just aping the iPhone".

 

[This is The End]

Exactly. Apple is trying to shut down a product from being sold if Apple can convince a judge somewhere that that competitor product, which has thousands of features, has interacted upon one of a billion patents.

They should be fined and told to remove that feature post-haste, not banned from being sold in entire countries! And if they don't remove that feature from the next manufacturing, or in the next version update, fine them some more! Big money. But don't ban the product from being sold during that time for a tiny feature.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a tiny, very narrow, feature or it's not.

 

[This is The End]

The claim is for selective scrolling of a page with frames. It scrolls the whole page if you use one finger, or it scrolls just the frame if you use two fingers.

First of all, love how Apple has to call "windows" "frames".

That's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that should be patentable. Video games steal input ideas from each other all the time that are way more complicated than that and it is fine. Why? Because it's the most obvious way to do something.

If using one finger scrolls the "whole thing", then obviously if you want to scroll just something that is part of the "whole thing" you'll use two fingers.... Humans have fingers! What would the alternative be? Use your nose? Now ]that would be patentable!

 

[Horatius]

First of all, love how Apple has to call "windows" "frames".

That's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that should be patentable. Video games steal input ideas from each other all the time that are way more complicated than that and it is fine. Why? Because it's the most obvious way to do something.

If using one finger scrolls the "whole thing", then obviously if you want to scroll just something that is part of the "whole thing" you'll use two fingers.... Humans have fingers! What would the alternative be? Use your nose? Now ]that would be patentable!

"Ex post facto analysis"

If it's so "obvious", why can't either you or WildCat ever seem to point to anyone who even hinted at this type of scrolling prior to the filing date of this patent?

Just a hint, is all we need. I won't even hold you to the standards of an "enabling disclosure" that the patent office is legally required to follow.

 

[BenBurch]

Exactly. Apple is trying to shut down a product from being sold if Apple can convince a judge somewhere that that competitor product, which has thousands of features, has interacted upon one of a billion patents.

They should be fined and told to remove that feature post-haste, not banned from being sold in entire countries! And if they don't remove that feature from the next manufacturing, or in the next version update, fine them some more! Big money. But don't ban the product from being sold during that time for a tiny feature.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a tiny, very narrow, feature or it's not.

Removing those features and having a product working well enough to sell would be pretty much impossible. They would need a totally new design.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Removing those features and having a product working well enough to sell would be pretty much impossible. They would need a totally new design.

They'd need to innovate, then?