Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[Horatius]

Those items were prerequisites to a practical smart phone.

But they were not prerequisites to developing this type of scrolling using these types of gestures. Do try to keep up.

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

There is no specific answer, but in what you describe as "rapidly developing technologies", I'd suggest it should be something less than the about 20 years we already know about.

 

[Horatius]

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.

"which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds"



Two unfounded declarations in one sentence.


And of course you don't even consider licensing or selling your patent to the larger manufacturers as a revenue stream.

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.

And why is this such a huge issue in this field, but not in others? Patents get bought and sold all the time, should we simply disallow that entirely?

 

[monoman]

"which you can't afford, or you have to implement clumsy work-arounds"

Two unfounded declarations in one sentence.

Since it's my hypothetical, I can tell you with 100% certainty that Bad-boy cannot afford to license these 100 features.

And of course you don't even consider licensing or selling your patent to the larger manufacturers as a revenue stream.

Depressing but possible.

And why is this such a huge issue in this field, but not in others? Patents get bought and sold all the time, should we simply disallow that entirely?

I don't know. All I know is that it's been an issue, in a field that I'm interested in, for a good few years.

 

[Horatius]

Since it's my hypothetical, I can tell you with 100% certainty that Bad-boy cannot afford to license these 100 features.

But, despite having a good enough idea to attract the attention of investors in a notoriously aggressive field of technology, the best he can come up with to replace these features are "clumsy work-arounds"?

What was that about "stifling innovation"?

 

[monoman]

But, despite having a good enough idea to attract the attention of investors in a notoriously aggressive field of technology, the best he can come up with to replace these features are "clumsy work-arounds"?

What was that about "stifling innovation"?

They wouldn't* implement the clumsy work-arounds, they'd have to license the tech to someone else. This is not much of an incentive to enter the field.

* The major players have made such implementations in the past. Whether the cost of the licenses was exorbitant or they were biting their nose of to spite their face I don't know.

 

[Horatius]

They wouldn't* implement the clumsy work-arounds, they'd have to license the tech to someone else. This is not much of an incentive to enter the field.

* The major players have made such implementations in the past. Whether the cost of the licenses was exorbitant or they were biting their nose of to spite their face I don't know.

Cutting and pasting from an e-mail I got from an e-mail list I'm on.

- SAMSUNG USERS WOULD PAY $100 FOR IPAD FEATURES

Interesting twist in evaluating likelihood of commercial success, or
damages for use of patents in part of a product. An MIT professor,
a witness for Apple in its case for Samsung, did a survey and
determined that Samsung users would pay $100 for iPad features covered
by patents being asserted by Apple against Samsung.

Samsung lawyers attacked his assertions with a righteous attack -
without explaining the survey methodology, survey population, etc.,
the $100 figure could be the third of (lies, damned lies, and statistics).

EETIMES article at:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4392174/Survey--Apple-features-worth--100-per-device
i

Also, in August 2010, Apple presented its views of Samsung's use of Apple's
patents in Samsung smartphones, to a group of Samsung's lawyers. A copy of
the slides, an exhibit from the trial, is at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102595858/Apple-s-August-2010-presentation-to-Samsung-on-iPhone-patents

Two months after that presentation, Apple offered to license its patents
to Samsung, seeking $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.

 

[tyr_13]

I saw that Apple offered to license what it claims were covered under it's patents for $24 (after a 'discount' if Samsung let Apple use its patents) per smart phone, etc. Well that's a huge, stupid fee for one and I'm not surprised Samsung responded with 'see you in court'. However, they seemed to be presenting that as evidence that Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents. If I offered to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and they refused, is that evidence that I own the bridge? Of course not. It does indicated that Apple knew it was using Samsung's patents so unless I'm missing something (probable) then it's a bad bit of lawyer work there.

Apple could have been smart about it like Microsoft, who had much more concrete patents that it still over-reached with to extort fees from Android. Microsoft however didn't require stupidly high fees and is now raking in a good bit of money from that. I understand that Apple is competing more directly with Samsung, but the more I read of this the more it seems to be a problem of their own making.

 

[monoman]

Cutting and pasting from an e-mail I got from an e-mail list I'm on.

The details of the questionnaire are missing from the link and Apple's lawyer refused to go into them.

I've had a look through the list of slides in the second link but there's simply not enough information. On face value, it looks like they're trying to patent a lot of the kinds of features you claimed they weren't. That kind of link may be responsible for the misunderstanding of the claims.

For instance, when they're talking about binding, OOP and events, I feel like I'm reading about the .NET framework. I assume Java developers would feel likewise.

 

[The Dark Lord]

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.

I love how you took the whole ting out of context by snipping a large part out.

Do you believe your beloved Apple should be sued for billions of dollars because they borrowed the idea of pull down notifications from Android? Or do you believe like Steve Jobs apparently did that Apple is free to take ideas, but when it happens to them it is time for "thermonuclear war".

 

[BenBurch]

No, that fee is not out of line at all, Tyr 13.

Nobody HAS to license any patents at all. A patent is an exclusive right for 14 years.

If Apple wanted to, it could simply deny Samsung the patents. To license them at all is a gesture of goodwill.

 

[BenBurch]

I love how you took the whole ting out of context by snipping a large part out.

Do you believe your beloved Apple should be sued for billions of dollars because they borrowed the idea of pull down notifications from Android? Or do you believe like Steve Jobs apparently did that Apple is free to take ideas, but when it happens to them it is time for "thermonuclear war".

They are not "beloved" by me. I think that OSX and before it MacOS were simply better operating systems, so I used them when appropriate.

I also use Windows machines, and generally, they are a much larger hassle, but some hardware and software is for Windows only. Typing now on a HP laptop, for example.

I've been in direct competition with them a few times now. And lost.

And I can tell you that if Apple started using one of our patents without licensing it, there would be hell to pay.

Now, if Google/Android has a valid patent on the pull-down notifications, then it is up to them if they think it worth their while to sue Apple. I have seen no hint of any such suit.

 

[The Dark Lord]

No, that fee is not out of line at all, Tyr 13.

Nobody HAS to license any patents at all. A patent is an exclusive right for 14 years.

If Apple wanted to, it could simply deny Samsung the patents. To license them at all is a gesture of goodwill.

The fee is way out of line considering that the patents are for things like multi-touch gestures which shouldn't even get patents in the first place. Especially since it meant that Apple got access to Samsung's much larger patent portfolio.
The even demanded fees for phones that had nothing to do with Android like Windows, Symbian, and Bada. Yeah, their demands were crazy.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Now, if Google/Android has a valid patent on the pull-down notifications, then it is up to them if they think it worth their while to sue Apple. I have seen no hint of any such suit.

There is a patent pending, I believe. Google may decide to sue. Or not. Either way, iOS clearly borrowed this idea from Android. Do you think this is acceptable?

 

[BenBurch]

There is a patent pending, I believe. Google may decide to sue. Or not. Either way, iOS clearly borrowed this idea from Android. Do you think this is acceptable?

If a patent issues, and is defended in court, then no.

If no patent issues, or Google loses in court, then yes.

Apple may have a patent they think covers that already, BTW.

 

[The Dark Lord]

If a patent issues, and is defended in court, then no.

If no patent issues, or Google loses in court, then yes.

So you are unable to form your own opinion?

If Samsung wins in court, that means that you will find that their actions were acceptable?

Apple may have a patent they think covers that already, BTW.

If s, they waited awfully long to implement the feature. It has been in Android for years. It was one of the magical, revolutionary features in iOS5, yes?

 

[This is The End]

God forbid I should try to alleviate ignorance in the subject area I'm an expert in

That you are, supposedly, an expert on patents seems to be the very reason you are blind to several of the multitude of reasons why the system is horribly broken.

Proving someone makes a mistake concerning current law and current claims also has nothing at all what-so-ever to do with the patent system being abused and/or broken.

And pointing out repeatedly in the thread that someone made a mistake (even to the extent of making fun and ridicule); instead of merely correcting them, reflects quite badly on you.

 

[This is The End]

And why is this such a huge issue in this field, but not in others?

Because this field, phone software, is the one being horribly abused. Compare it to the previous 40 years of video game software to see how the system should actually work.

 

[Horatius]

However, they seemed to be presenting that as evidence that Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents. If I offered to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and they refused, is that evidence that I own the bridge? Of course not. It does indicated that Apple knew it was using Samsung's patents so unless I'm missing something (probable) then it's a bad bit of lawyer work there.

They might be trying to set up for a claim of "willful infringement".

Willful patent infringement is a critical issue in patent litigation, as it can result in an award of up to treble (enhanced) damages.

It's not so much that "Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents", as "Samsung was informed it was using Apple patents", which, if the patents stand up in court, would be evidence of willful infringement.

I've had a look through the list of slides in the second link but there's simply not enough information. On face value, it looks like they're trying to patent a lot of the kinds of features you claimed they weren't. That kind of link may be responsible for the misunderstanding of the claims.

For instance, when they're talking about binding, OOP and events, I feel like I'm reading about the .NET framework. I assume Java developers would feel likewise.

They seem to be only listing the patent titles, which are often a bit mysterious, even though they're not supposed to be. You'd have to look up each one, and look at the claims, to figure out what they really cover.

That you are, supposedly, an expert on patents seems to be the very reason you are blind to several of the multitude of reasons why the system is horribly broken.

I'm not blind to problems with the patent system. In fact I've said several times I'm open to serious, informed discussion of the real problems.

But the stupid crap that some people have been spreading about this one Apple Patent in particular isn't one of those real problems.

Proving someone makes a mistake concerning current law and current claims also has nothing at all what-so-ever to do with the patent system being abused and/or broken.

It does if their ill-informed opinion leads them to focus on the wrong problems.

And pointing out repeatedly in the thread that someone made a mistake (even to the extent of making fun and ridicule); instead of merely correcting them, reflects quite badly on you.

That would be the mistake he's had explained to him, in detail, multiple times over two different threads now, and which he insists on continuing to make? At this point, ridicule is entirely appropriate.

We don't accept that sort of willfully ignorant nonsense from woos, why should I accept it here?

 

[tyr_13]

They might be trying to set up for a claim of "willful infringement".




It's not so much that "Samsung agreed it was using Apple patents", as "Samsung was informed it was using Apple patents", which, if the patents stand up in court, would be evidence of willful infringement.

That makes more sense. Thanks.

 

[BenBurch]

So you are unable to form your own opinion?

If Samsung wins in court, that means that you will find that their actions were acceptable?

If s, they waited awfully long to implement the feature. It has been in Android for years. It was one of the magical, revolutionary features in iOS5, yes?

No, but I deal with real patent issues in a real workplace.

I know that my opinion matters not at all in whether a patent gets issued and whether a patent survives a challenge.

Guys go to school for YEARS to become patent attorneys - along with Admiralty law, Patent law is one of only two recognized specializations in the legal profession. There are literally TONS of TOMES on patent law.

So the chance that I know the answer to a question like that is small, and unless you also have 35 years of an engineering career behind you, the chances you know the answer is approximately nil.