Thread: Software patents

Originally Posted by Subsonics

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.

Hardly "out of the blue." The original post in this thread references specifically a patent application by Apple and every major discussion about this topic lately has centered around the Apple/Samsung case which cause quite an uproar among tech sites that tried to remain impartial throughout the entire thing. Not to mention the fact that the entire thread's discussion was shifting towards the point that many of these large corporations buy and create patents for no other purpose other than to put themselves at a legal advantage over their top competitors only to be played as trump cards when their competitors start to get close financially and not as soon as they feel they're being intellectually infringed upon.

As for the trade dress aspect of the case... nobody brought that up but you. In fact, that's the one part of the case that I did agree with as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Samsung made deliberate attempts to mimic the iOS appearance in it's TouchWiz UI. This discussion is purely about the patents.... the multi-touch patent, the bounce back patent, etc. It's not to say that Apple is the only one guilty of this... they're all suing each other over nonsense patents. However, you're really avoiding the fact that the circumstances of that case down to the jury foreman to the errors made by the defense in explaining how the patents differ from the product being accused. The legal system in the USA is broken way beyond just patent law suits, this is almost undeniable these days. That said, I think people have made good points as to why it's a problem that these patents are just being approved and letting these things get disputed in a broken court system when the patent never should have existed in the first place.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Hardly "out of the blue." The original post in this thread references specifically a patent application by Apple and every major discussion about this topic lately has centered around the Apple/Samsung case which cause quite an uproar among tech sites that tried to remain impartial throughout the entire thing.

Well, if by "this topic" you mean software patents in general then you are wrong. I thought it was meant to serve as an example of a weak patent. And how did you derive that I support this practise from my first comment? That was not my intention at all. Anyway, what are the chances of that patent standing up in court you think? I would guess that as soon as something new is created in any of the larger corporations, a patent is filed as a matter of principle, better to be safe than sorry. Here are some other examples: Patent US7028023 - Linked list - Google Patents

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Not to mention the fact that the entire thread's discussion was shifting towards the point that many of these large corporations buy and create patents for no other purpose other than to put themselves at a legal advantage over their top competitors only to be played as trump cards when their competitors start to get close financially and not as soon as they feel they're being intellectually infringed upon.

That practice is far from the largest problem with software patents in general, as it's practiced by these corporations against each other. The larger problem is, so called patent trolls in my opinion. A simple adjustment of the law could get rid of that problem, for example, an acquired patent needs to be used in a product before x amount of years or the patents become public domain or something like that.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

As for the trade dress aspect of the case... nobody brought that up but you. In fact, that's the one part of the case that I did agree with as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Samsung made deliberate attempts to mimic the iOS appearance in it's TouchWiz UI. This discussion is purely about the patents.... the multi-touch patent, the bounce back patent, etc. It's not to say that Apple is the only one guilty of this... they're all suing each other over nonsense patents.

The mutli-touch patent got thrown out.

The bounce back patent serve a purpose (look up the expert witness testimony), and it's one of those things that gives iOS it's personality, hence it can be seen as being part of the trade dress. The problem it aims to solve is also possible to solve in numerous other ways.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

However, you're really avoiding the fact that the circumstances of that case down to the jury foreman to the errors made by the defense in explaining how the patents differ from the product being accused. The legal system in the USA is broken way beyond just patent law suits, this is almost undeniable these days. That said, I think people have made good points as to why it's a problem that these patents are just being approved and letting these things get disputed in a broken court system when the patent never should have existed in the first place.

Samsung is now counter suing btw, look at these patents. Some FRAND patents, and the rest is just ridiculous to the point that it's clear that this is a case of revenge rather than actual infringement, look at #3 for example.

FOSS Patents: Samsung asserts eight more patents against Apple in California, including two FRAND patents

My point is that all these lawsuits between corporations are largely a concern for them only. I'm more concerned about consequences for indie developers and small firms, lonely inventors and so on.

I'm aware of the rage on the internet, but most of that is silly.

Originally Posted by Subsonics

And how did you derive that I support this practice from my first comment?

Where did I derive the you support what practice? Sorry, I don't know what sentence you're referring to. By multi-touch, by the way, I should have said pinch-to-zoom which from what I recall was found to be infringed upon.

Anyway, I never meant to take away from the small developers and, in fact, I made this point in my first few posts... however, as you said, they have bigger problems whether they can get the patent or not. Most small developers simply can't handle the legal fees required to defend a patent that they own if they can ever afford to get it. ... and even if they can afford some legal fees, the nature of our court system pretty much dictates that the better your lawyer, the more laws you can afford to break because it's not law it's a game of who can fool the ignorant jurors. If I'm ignoring the little guy at all, it's simply because changes have to go beyond the patent office in order to get their problems fixed. The big developers, however, are only hindering their own and each other's progress and tying up the courts with frivolousness. It's not good for the consumer and it's not good for the country.