Like Tree9Likes

Software patents

This is a discussion on Software patents within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; O_o Well, I didn't actually say it was C or C++, but I'll grant you C++ because this is a ...

  1. #16
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,231
    O_o

    Well, I didn't actually say it was C or C++, but I'll grant you C++ because this is a C family forum.

    Soma

    Code:
    #define this b
    struct a{}b;
    bool operator ++ (const a &){return(true);}
    int main(){while(++this);}

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,370
    well of course you can do it with a macro hack :P

    just goes to show that context is everything.

  3. #18
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    I remember reading that Amazon was suing someone for the one-click payment. I mean c'mon, seriously?

    But what can you do? If you are a small developer and your idea is not patented then anyone can steal it from you. If you need money to patent it then for sure you also need money to protect it and sue someone in court. This is within the nature of software I believe, I consider it a necessary evil. The problem as GReaper said is that companies get greedy about it. But do you think Apple will go and sue a small developer? Probably not. And I could care less what two big companies do, they have more than enough funds to spend for lawyers. More lawyers don't make a better world, but a better iPhone doesn't either. So, meh, money wasted anyway :/

    Now the problem can be medium-size companies. They try to compete and have to face all this patent barrier. But again this works both ways. If Apple can just use your idea their sheer marketing strength (and genius) will put you out of business. The fact that you can protect your innovative idea is all that keeps you alive.

    At the end of the day, the committees that approve patents just have to do a better job. If something is fairly obvious then the patent shouldn't be accepted!

  4. #19
    &TH of undefined behavior Fordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,789
    I remember reading in an article some years ago that big tech firms were buying dying/failed startup companies to get patents that might possibly have been infringed by competitors. The author suggested this would lead to an arms race between the big players, where they held these patents as a threat against competitors that held similarly aquired patents against them. Sounded like something the CEO & Dogbert from Dilbert would cookup, but with the whole SCO drama, who knows?

    Either way, I agree that usually only the lawyers benefit from this kind of racket.

  5. #20
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Fordy View Post
    I remember reading in an article some years ago that big tech firms were buying dying/failed startup companies to get patents that might possibly have been infringed by competitors. The author suggested this would lead to an arms race between the big players, where they held these patents as a threat against competitors that held similarly aquired patents against them. Sounded like something the CEO & Dogbert from Dilbert would cookup, but with the whole SCO drama, who knows?

    Either way, I agree that usually only the lawyers benefit from this kind of racket.
    I am sure the owner of the failing company is not complaining

  6. #21
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,673
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    I am sure the owner of the failing company is not complaining
    Which just seems weird to me since the legal budget is huge and yet companies are apparently fine with flushing billions down a toilet.

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,485
    Most megacorporations have large patent portfolios only to be able to counter sue, and come to a cross license agreement if they are sued themselves. It's a cost of doing business basically. In practice the validity of a patent is tested in court when ever it goes that far, that's how I see it at least.

  8. #23
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    Some interesting/disappointing numbers are that when someone requests a re-examination of a patent it is granted 92% of the time.

    When a patent is re-examined 78% are found to be invalid or in need of correction.

    To me that says that patents are not examined properly prior to being granted.

    http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/E...ne_30_2012.pdf
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  9. #24
    &TH of undefined behavior Fordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,789
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    I am sure the owner of the failing company is not complaining
    Usually (if like other cherry-picked corporate assets), they will be bought following an insolvency process. In that case, the owners often get nothing. Why pay off the owner and take on a failing company, with all its liabilities and staff when you can let it fail, do a deal with whoever is dealing with the liquidation and avoid all the problems?

  10. #25
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Subsonics View Post
    Most megacorporations have large patent portfolios only to be able to counter sue, and come to a cross license agreement if they are sued themselves. It's a cost of doing business basically. In practice the validity of a patent is tested in court when ever it goes that far, that's how I see it at least.
    Tested in court by a jury of uneducated citizens. Patent lawsuits should be determined by trained arbitrators that have at least some understanding of the concepts being explained to them. Almost every major player in the tech field, including Steve Wozniak, has spoken out against the decision of the Samsung/Apple patent suit. This is because it's determined by a jury that knows nothing about technology and explained to them by lawyers that know very little.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Tested in court by a jury of uneducated citizens.
    Not necessarily, do you agree that the validity of a patent is not guaranteed when it's granted, but in practice, if it's ever challenged by a court?


    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Almost every major player in the tech field, including Steve Wozniak, has spoken out against the decision of the Samsung/Apple patent suit. This is because it's determined by a jury that knows nothing about technology and explained to them by lawyers that know very little.
    I don't know why you went from the general, abstract to the specific and concrete. It's not that interesting, it's one case among 10000's of other cases. But I will say this, this was a trade dress case so the "general public's" perception about it is very much the way to do it. Both sides called in expert witnesses, and the jury was selected and approved of by both sides, (Samsung and Apple) before the trial, yet you have objections about it.
    Last edited by Subsonics; 09-26-2012 at 11:31 AM.

  12. #27
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,231
    Not necessarily, do you agree that the validity of a patent is not guaranteed when it's granted, but in practice, if it's ever challenged by a court?
    What you apparently don't understand is the reality of getting a patent reviewed or made invalid.

    Do you have the funds to throw at such a thing? I don't. I shouldn't have to either. If a patents isn't valid or would be found invalid on review it should have never been granted in the first place.

    Both sides called in expert witnesses, and the jury was selected and approved of by both sides, (Samsung and Apple) before the trial, yet you have objections about it.
    I certainly have a problem with it.

    The dress stuff is a "red herring". You can focus on that if you like, but you'd be walking blind for no reason other than your own failures to understand the case.

    I'm not going to regurgitate what the jury foreman said; you can read it anywhere you like.

    I'll only say this: he clearly had an agenda. Maybe he just wanted to get home. Maybe he has a distaste for Samsung because he once bought a bad television. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that, if what he and other jurors have said is true, he violated multiple instructions from the judge and standing case law besides.

    Should Samsung have been found guilty of violating the dress stuff? Maybe.

    The fact that software patents were lumped into a case where even you think it was just a dress case is disturbing. This stopped being a dress case when money was awarded over an obvious patent because of a product that doesn't even infringe.

    Soma
    Last edited by phantomotap; 09-26-2012 at 12:15 PM.

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    What you apparently don't understand is the reality of getting a patent reviewed or made invalid.

    Do you have the funds to throw at such a thing? I don't. I shouldn't have to either. If a patents isn't valid or would be found invalid on review it should have never been granted in the first place.
    Have I said anything that indicates that it is fair? I made cold, cynical remark on the way it currently works. Apparently you took that as some kind of implicit defense of the patent system on my part.



    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    The dress stuff is a "red herring". You can focus on that if you like, but you'd be walking blind for no reason other than your own failures to understand the case.

    I'm not going to regurgitate what the jury foreman said; you can read it anywhere you like.

    I'll only say this: he clearly had an agenda. Maybe he just wanted to get home. Maybe he has a distaste for Samsung because he once bought a bad television. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that, if what he and other jurors have said is true, he violated multiple instructions from the judge and standing case law besides.
    Take off your tinfoil hat, it's obscuring a clear thought process for you.


    I don't give a ........ what Samsung, Apple or the Oracle's of the world does. It's not the interesting part of the discussion, again it was SlyMaelstrom who made the discussion specific, my comment has nothing to do with any particular case at all. The megacorps will ........ you over if you ever take them on in court with the current patent law or without it. For example, the inventor of GPS, a Swedish guy has never received one cent in licensing, and he has a patent, and has been spending decades of his life fighting megacorps and governments. The point is they will get the little guy if they are challenged, by pure brute force and by throwing money at the problem.

    For me the system should have some parameters tweaked to better serve the lonely inventor, to a lesser extent the megacorps, and least of all pure patent trolls.
    Last edited by Subsonics; 09-26-2012 at 01:00 PM.

  14. #29
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,231
    my comment has nothing to do with any particular case at all.
    O_o

    Is your memory really that bad? The comment you made is still, at this time, on the board. You can just read it again if your memory is that bad.

    I'll explain what happened for you. What you are referencing in this paragraph is a comment I made about a specific case related to a comment you made about a specific case which was related to comment someone else made about a specific case.

    What part of this don't you get?

    The comment I responded to is about a specific case. The comment you made is about a specific case. You specifically mentioned the nature of the "Apple V. Samsung" case. My comments are, in turn, about a specific case.

    Soma

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    O_o

    Is your memory really that bad? The comment you made is still, at this time, on the board. You can just read it again if your memory is that bad.

    I'll explain what happened for you. What you are referencing in this paragraph is a comment I made about a specific case related to a comment you made about a specific case which was related to comment someone else made about a specific case.

    What part of this don't you get?

    The comment I responded to is about a specific case. The comment you made is about a specific case. You specifically mentioned the nature of the "Apple V. Samsung" case. My comments are, in turn, about a specific case.

    Soma
    I see what you are saying, but I'm not interested in discussing any particular case. But if I must, for example if SlyMaelstrom bring it up out of the blue. I will speak my opinion about it. These megacorporations play the game to their advantage like any other megacorporation does. This particular case is over, they both played the game, one won, the other lost, so what.

    My original comment:


    Quote Originally Posted by Subsonics View Post
    Most megacorporations have large patent portfolios only to be able to counter sue, and come to a cross license agreement if they are sued themselves. It's a cost of doing business basically. In practice the validity of a patent is tested in court when ever it goes that far, that's how I see it at least.
    Has nothing to do with any of those companies or this particular case.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Proprietary patents stop MS word
    By MK27 in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 12:27 AM
  2. Microsoft Patents Breakthrough Technology!
    By Sebastiani in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 06:36 PM
  3. The best software
    By Hugo716 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-14-2006, 03:46 PM
  4. No software patents in yurop
    By xErath in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-06-2005, 08:34 PM
  5. Microsoft patents clicking
    By caroundw5h in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-04-2004, 04:59 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21