|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 04:18 PM EST |
The editorial opinion may not be impartial but it is clearly opinion, and not
dressed up any other way.
Instead of tearing down a view, how about you propose demonstrate the flaw in
the opinion with some real examples, rather than just more opinion.
Provide some example patents other than those at issue, that used in consumer
devices that you think ARE worth $50 a device!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 04:31 PM EST |
In short, you're saying my article is a great
success in expressing exactly what I intended
to say. Thank you for the praise. Because what
I intended to say is that what Apple is asking
for is obscene, overinflated, and stupid. It's
why I stopped buying their products, even though
I love them.
Also, design patents are worse, because damages
are the victim's entire profits. For a rectangle
with rounded corners, Apple would like all of
Samsung's profits. Sounds fair to you, I guess.
But it lacks proportionality to me.
Here's why: once something is what everyone in
the public expects a phone to look like and do,
there should be equivalent restrictions on patents
just like with FRAND. Otherwise you tilt the
playing field unfairly. Not that Apple seems to
mind doing that. Or Microsoft.
But we the people are watching and we are throwing
up.
In a perfect world, none of the utility patents
would be worth a patent, being unpatentable subject
matter, to me. Software is mathematics. That's all
that is in there, plus data being manipulated, and mathematics is unpatentable
subject matter and so is data.
It a crime to issue these patents
and then let folks harrass one another, the bill
for which jostling ends up being paid by us hoi
poloi when we buy your products.
Here's my message loud and clear: I despise anyone
using patents as an anticompetitive weapon. Compete
with products. And stop misusing the courts. Because
that is what it is to me.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BJ on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 05:02 PM EST |
Apple is not the one that invented rounded corners.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Charles888 on Monday, January 14 2013 @ 06:27 PM EST |
To respond to your 3 points:
First, it puts all of the patents
asserted at
the level of "rectangle[s] with rounded
corners[.]"
What other asserted patent has better legs to stand
on?
4 icons in a row? Have you ever measured the width of your
fingers? I bet
you will find that 4 is the most logical
number for that that size phone
(Notice that the Note 2 has
5 in a row being a wider phone)
How about edge
bounce or pinch to zoom, none of which is
novel at all?
Second,
the preceding paragraph delineates the
difference between the asked-for price
for Samsung's SEP
patents (FRAND) and Apple's patents.
If you
believe that software is patentable subject matter,
for the purpose of
providing a value, any rational analysis
would lead to the technologies that
are central to making a
cellular phone what it is are more valuable and
important to
making a phone.
Third, the infamous "rounded
recatangle" patent
is a design patent. Sort of like the ol' trade dress (but a
little different, and which was also asserted) and the
associated trademark.
Design patents are not the same as the
usual patents for software that most
people have so much
trouble with. If people want to research on how cases have
examines design patents, trademark, and trade dress in the
context of a less
controversial field, I suggest looking at
decisions involving bottles (often
alcohol) where one can
assert that "there's only so many ways to make a
bottle",
yet successful actions have been maintained by companies for
a
particular expression of their design associated with
their beverage. Put in
more regular terms- Absolut spends a
lot of money making sure you know what
their bottle looks
like.
What Apple's design patent is asserting
is far from
Absolut's bottle design - not even in the same universe.
Absolut
is protecting their distinctive styling and
ornamentation, which is what the
law intended it to do, not
the functionality of the bottle. I am not aware of
any other
company trying to effectively claim that the LACK of
ornamentation
IS ornamentation in itself.
So, why is it shocking to Apple that somebody else
makes a
consumer device revolving around a rectangular screen using
a
rectangular shape, and features rounded corners so their
users don't poke
themselves, and features a bezel so their
users can reach the screen from edge
to edge? All of these
features are functional requirements and unprotectable by
Design patents.
PJ could have used any other example of the asserted Apple
patents in this case, to the same effect. They are all just
as absurd as the
"rectangles with rounded corners" missive
you objected to.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 11:07 AM EST |
I appreciated your honest critique, and would like to
address the
following...
What do I mean (specifically). For example,
"Are there any patents in this world that are worth such
amounts, let along
Apple's 'rectangle with rounded corners'
nonsense patents?" This one sentence
(variants of which have
been seen in various posts) does so much!
First, it puts all of the patents asserted at the level of
"rectangle[s] with rounded corners[.]" Maybe you think
that all of the
patents asserted are ridiculous, but
choosing the one that you think is
most inflammatory as the
baseline obfuscates, as opposed to
illuminates.
I would like to assure you that just about
all of us
here, and especially PJ, are very familiar with "all of the
patents
asserted" in this case, having studied them in the
court fillings and discussed
them at length. I would suggest
that most of us here are very well qualified to
hold a well
considered lay-person's opinion on the merit of the patents
being
asserted by Apple, and we find no merit in them.
While the number of
lawyers that participate in the
discussion thread can be counted on the fingers
of one hand
(or maybe just on the thumb of that hand), many of us are
software
engineers and by that very much more qualified than
most to arrive at a
considered opinion. As a software
engineer myself, I can tell you I would sum
up Apple's
patents with one word, "bogus". These are patents that
should never
have issued. As far as the design patents go,
they too are so broadly written
and lacking in
distinguishing details that they should never have issued
either.
I understand that design patents are an important way for
a
company to distinguish itself in the market place, and
perhaps have a place in
this world. However, when they
become overly broad like Apple's, and don't
really offer
anything unique that hasn't been done before, they are an
abomination.
If there was sanity and balance in patent law, it
wouldn't be helpful for folks like us to opinionate on
things best left to the
courts to work out. Unfortunately,
the US patent system has become totally
corrupted. We do
think that all of the patents asserted are ridiculous, and
choosing the one that we think is most inflammatory as the
baseline
illuminates the corruption.
You summarize your post as
follows...
None of this has to do with the merits of the
case, or even of the validity of the particular design
patent asserted (that
becomes a factual claim, and I don't
know enough about it).
Anyway,
most of this is likely to be decided by the Fed.
Cir. anyway. I have a feeling
that Judge Koh has had enough
of *both* parties in this
litigation.
While this doesn't reveal much of your
personal point of
view, it think it suggests that for you the "merits of the
case" remain undecided, and perhaps you would leave it to
be decided by the
Federal Circuit. I hope you continue to
follow discussion on Groklaw. In time,
you may come to
realize why we feel so strongly there is no merit to Apple's
actions. It is not just the "bogus" patents in themselves.
The USPTO and the
Federal Circuit are completely corrupted.
Here in this comment I don't use that
word "corrupted" in
the usual moral sense but rather, as a software engineer
talking about a corrupted file on my computer. Perhaps when
speaking to
non-technical people I should just say "the
patent system is broken". I hope in
time you come to
understand that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 12:12 AM EST |
Wow, at least someone here has a brain.
PJ doesn't even consider the consequences for her undying love of SEP
abuse.
There are thousands of patents in a Smartphone. If just 50 SEP owning
companies want the same 2.4% as Samsung, then no company could
afford to produce a Smartphone.
Patent license fees would cost more than the price phone regardless of
cost to build bc it's 2.4% of the final sale price.
50*.024*x > x
1.2x (license fees) > x (sale price of the phone)
This has nothing to do with profits you silly kids.
Please go back to Maths class.
Why do the people here refuse to understand this simple idea. If Samsung
gets 2.4% for their SEPs, then every other SEP Smartphone related
company will want their 2.4%.
What happens when Samsung and Google have to pay 2.4% to Nokia,
Ericsonn, ZTE, Cisco, Alcetel, etc....
Then our beloved Smartphone Industry is in real trouble.
Why PJ or any readers here support this view is beyond my
comprehension. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
