Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

Educate me Horatius. Why does the platform matter wrt patents? Why do Apple's patents specify the platform the patent applies to, if not because such uses have been used on other platforms and what Apple is doing is taking existing tech and patenting it for mobile devices?

So now you're complaining because they didn't claim broadly enough?

Make up your fricken' mind.

BTW, there's no rule against claiming more narrowly than what you've actually invented. They conceived of their idea as being a method of using a smart phone. It wouldn't be the first time an inventor forgot to look beyond their narrow field of interest to see if their actual invention could be applied more broadly, and it won't be the last time, either.

 

[WildCat]

So now you're complaining because they didn't claim broadly enough?

Really? That's what you took from that post?

Do you think Benz could have patented the wheel on a device with an internal combustion engine?

 

[Horatius]

Really? That's what you took from that post?

Yes. You're essentially saying that the limitation that it be used on a mobile device is an admission that the method was know for use on non-mobile devices. That's an implied assertion that cannot be legitimately drawn from the claim, and has not been supported by any external references.

There may be lots of reasons why they would claim it in such a limited fashion, and existing prior art they're trying to skirt around is only one of those reasons.

As I said, they may have simply not noticed they were claiming more narrowly than they were entitled to.

They may have known that, but simply not cared about the non-mobile market. Lots of inventors claim that way, essentially dedicating the non-claimed embodiments to the public.

They may not have felt the non-mobile market was worth the cost of obtaining an additional, broader patent, as this functionality would find its best use in the mobile market. On a large device, location based swiping would work better than it does on a small device. It's only on the small screens that you really need this non-location based scrolling behavior.

Do you think Benz could have patented the wheel on a device with an internal combustion engine?

If he had been the first to ever do that, after years of other people not doing that even though engines and wheels were known, then yes.

But, too bad for your strawman argument, analogous prior art existed as far back as the 17th century, so he couldn't have gotten a patent on that even if he tried. Too bad you still haven't shown prior art that relates to what was actually patented.


Now,to make your strawman a bit more realistic, should Benz, or whoever, have been granted a patent on a new transmission that allowed more efficient coupling of the engine to the drive wheels?

 

[WildCat]

If he had been the first to ever do that, after years of other people not doing that even though engines and wheels were known, then yes.

Excellent. Now define "years", exactly how many are required?

How many years were inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens available before Apple's iPhone patent?

How many years were the wireless data networks available that make smart phones practical in the first place?

Those are reasons why Judge Richard Posner ruled the way he did. The patents may well be valid, but they are also worthless or nearly so for the purpose of a tort. When you have hundreds of thousands of patents necessary for a single $X00 product the value of any one of them is virtually nothing, and in no small part because there's simple workarounds for any one of them and rapidly changing technology give them a very short market life anyway. He opined that for these reasons such things shouldn't be patentable at all.

There's certainly no reason to think that these patents are fomenting innovation, it's quite the opposite. Cell phone makers will always try to outdo their competitors, patent or not. So what if your competitors copy you in their next model iteration? By then you'll have a new model out with new unique features.

Apple didn't invent the smart phone, they didn't invent the technologies that make smart phones possible. All they did was make the first one that hit it big with consumers. Great, they had a hit product! That doesn't grant them sole rights to the smart phone market from that point forward.

But, too bad for your strawman argument, analogous prior art existed as far back as the 17th century, so he couldn't have gotten a patent on that even if he tried.

I specifically said "internal combustion engine", and your example is a steam engine (external combustion).

Do you think Benz could have patented wheels on a device with an internal combustion engine?

 

[BenBurch]

...

Yeah, they probably looked at the iPhone and took ideas from it.

...

Then we might as well not have any patents, because a patent is there to protect ideas that you can embody into a product.

If they took ideas, and those ideas were the subject of patent, or if they took ideas and those ideas were the subject of copyright, or if they took ideas and so created a trade dress which was confusingly similar, then Apple has will win.

 

[BenBurch]

I've not seen any sign of an Apple fanboy in this thread.

Just two people who are educated as to how patents actually work, and are frustrated by people misrepresenting the facts of patent cases.

Hey! I think I know how they work, too.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Do you think Benz could have patented the wheel on a device with an internal combustion engine?

In 1888? Yes.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Hey! I think I know how they work, too.

It appears so. I should not have limited it to "two."

 

[WildCat]

In 1888? Yes.

Doing a little research I find that a guy named George Selden actually did that in 1897 (filed in 1879). He suceeded in getting rich on royalties until Ford challenged the patent, and while the trial court agreed with Selden the appellate court ruled for Ford:

Ford appealed, however, and on January 10, 1911 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the automobile in all of its potential forms and types was not capable of being patented.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/373.pdf


The "Road Engine":

Selden applied for a patent on the "Road Engine" in 1879. Sensing that the time was not right for a horseless carriage, he delayed issuance of the patent until 1895, by which time a young automobile industry was growing in the USA. Although he had no interest in manufacturing his invention, he was very interested in benefiting from it. Under threat of suit, almost all of the manufacturers took out licenses from Selden, or from the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM), to whom he sold the patent.

...There was one notorious holdout, a young manufacturer named Henry Ford. Selden sued Ford (among others), and the lawsuit dragged on for nearly eight years. During that time the ALAM took out magazine ads, threatening to sue anyone who bought an unlicensed car - some advised people "don't buy a lawsuit with your new automobile." Here's a sample ALAM advertisement, claiming that the Selden patent was so broad that any practical car must infringe:

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? Only difference is Selden was only interested in licensing, not manufacturing and it's the opposite with Apple.

 

[Horatius]

In 1888? Yes.

I'd say no. The earlier prior art of steam powered automobiles renders it obvious, as the ICE is merely an equivalent part as to function. While an ICE may be better as it's lighter and more powerful, it's been held (at least here in Canada) that merely replacing a part with a superior part is considered to be obvious. The benefits of the superior part are inherent.

That being said, there very well may be patentable aspects of adapting the exiting steam powered cars to ICE power. Like the new transmission I mentioned above.

 

[Horatius]

How many years were inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens available before Apple's iPhone patent?

How many years were the wireless data networks available that make smart phones practical in the first place?

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens"? That touchscreen paper you linked described a technology that could have implemented this method, but that didn't implement it.

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "wireless data networks"? Anyone could have used a desktop computer with a touchscreen, and linked it to the internet, so as to have web pages to manipulate in this manner, but they didn't.

You're just trying to come up with excuses to support your original misinformed opinion.

 

[WildCat]

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "inexpensive low power consumption touchscreens"? That touchscreen paper you linked described a technology that could have implemented this method, but that didn't implement it.

And what was it that Apple did in that method that required "wireless data networks"? Anyone could have used a desktop computer with a touchscreen, and linked it to the internet, so as to have web pages to manipulate in this manner, but they didn't.

You're just trying to come up with excuses to support your original misinformed opinion.

Those items were prerequisites to a practical smart phone. And they're certainly not the only ones.

Now why don't you answer the questions? How many "years of other people not doing it" are required, specifically?

 

[WildCat]

In 1888? Yes.

I'd say no. The earlier prior art of steam powered automobiles renders it obvious, as the ICE is merely an equivalent part as to function. While an ICE may be better as it's lighter and more powerful, it's been held (at least here in Canada) that merely replacing a part with a superior part is considered to be obvious. The benefits of the superior part are inherent.

That being said, there very well may be patentable aspects of adapting the exiting steam powered cars to ICE power. Like the new transmission I mentioned above.

Wow, 2 of the resident patent experts are both wrong per the Circuit Court decision I cited above. It turns out you can't patent the general concept of an ICE-powered automobile, and prior art had squat to do with the decision.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wow, 2 of the resident patent experts are both wrong per the Circuit Court decision I cited above.

Nope.

It turns out you can't patent the general concept of an ICE-powered automobile, and prior art had squat to do with the decision.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the decision said at all.

 

[WildCat]

Nope.


I'm pretty sure that's not what the decision said at all.

Those are some compelling arguments there Avalon, give me some time to read through your links.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Those are some compelling arguments there Avalon, give me some time to read through your links.

How about you spend the time reviewing some basic information on patent law instead? Or can't you be bothered to learn the basics before popping off on a hundred-year-old case like you know what you're talking about?

 

[WildCat]

How about you spend the time reviewing some basic information on patent law instead? Or can't you be bothered to learn the basics before popping off on a hundred-year-old case like you know what you're talking about?

That counters my links and posts how, exactly?

And please cite the law that renders my hundred year old case moot.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You claim that case says "you can't power the general concept of an ICE powered automobile, even in the absence of any prior art."

Please cite the portion of the case that in any way supports your claim.

 

[Horatius]

Wow, 2 of the resident patent experts are both wrong per the Circuit Court decision I cited above. It turns out you can't patent the general concept of an ICE-powered automobile, and prior art had squat to do with the decision.

You do realize there can be more than one reason to deny a patent? And that the courts only need to have one reason to do so?

You do realize that the courts have more authority to decide what is and is not patentable than a patent examiner, right?


What Am I asking. Of course you don't.

 

[monoman]

I cant see how allowing ideas to be copied helps innovation. Surely we dont want a market of clones such they are all the same. Looks like you are confused.

This is how I see it. Imagine you have some great ideas for a smart phone, you manage to raise the capital and set up your own company to develop it in the hope that you are first to market.

The problem is, you find out you have to license 100 different intuitive features such a phone icons, double clicks, two finger gestures etc. You either license these, which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds.

Though immaterial, to rub salt into the wound, you find out the patent holders didn't even develop these features but asset stripped the patents from smaller companies they'd bought.