| |||||||||||||
Going nuclearGoing nuclearPosted Aug 27, 2012 1:34 UTC (Mon) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375)In reply to: Going nuclear by man_ls Parent article: There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)
Most of us euro-geeks we have not suffered the evil consequences of software patents yet.
(Log in to post comments)
Going nuclear Posted Aug 27, 2012 1:50 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Oops, I stand corrected. Suddenly it is not funny anymore! Design patents are valid in Europe, and seem to be even a bigger mess than software patents.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 27, 2012 2:06 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
They're easy to work around, though.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 27, 2012 17:15 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I have found information clearer than Groklaw's massive document collections from Glyn Moody: apparently the patents include several software items, e.g. one covering:touchscreen interactions, including dragging documents, multi-touch, pinch-to-zoom, twist-to-rotate and that nifty little scroll bounce when you’ve reached the end of a list of itemsDisgusting. Interesting article, by the way.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 27, 2012 17:37 UTC (Mon) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link] Software patents are disgusting and these iTouch, iPinch ones in particular are even more so. It is funny how software patents are worded starting with "method and apparatus" as if it is a machine they describe.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 27, 2012 21:19 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I am a bit shady on the details and could quite easily be wrong...
I believe that 'pure' software patents technically are 'illegal' in the USA also. Just like in the EU they are not patentable. However the combination of 'software' and 'hardware' creates a patentable invention.
So to get around this limitation every single 'software patent' references many times to the fact that it involves running on actual hardware. Since software is nothing without hardware then this means that pretty much any software algorithm is patentable as soon as you try to actually use it.
The key thing is that you can't try to make sense of it. Patents and what is patentable and is not patentable is completely arbitrary. People try to draw lines about physical inventions or algorithms and such things, but that isn't really relevant. It's purely 'decide by committee' law that is not based on any naturally occurring concept or natural practice by human beings... therefore common sense doesn't apply.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 28, 2012 10:58 UTC (Tue) by HenrikH (guest, #31152) [Link]
No, I think that pure software patents are allowed in the US. Just look at the various compression patents: mp3, gif etc. A Microsoft SQL _user_ in the US got hit and lost a patent case due to a function in MSSQL.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 28, 2012 11:25 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
Do you have a link? I was under the impression that US patents, like our patent law here in Brasil, did not apply to personal use.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 28, 2012 12:49 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It was not personal use but corporate use, in fact developers using the product. Here is an example.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 30, 2012 18:25 UTC (Thu) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
I think what drag means is that the MP3 algorithm is safe to use as long as you don't use it in a device that compresses or decompresses digital audio samples.
So doing the computations mentally or on paper is okay, doing it in any device is supposedly covered by the patents. Which is totally absurd, of course, but unfortunately it is how patent law is interpreted currently.
Personally, I think a general computation device that can be programmed by its user to do many different things should not be covered by such patents, as the computer is only used there as a help to do the computations faster. (And of course "general" means that you can run on it whatever you want, not a locked down & restricted system... ;) )
Going nuclear Posted Aug 28, 2012 7:50 UTC (Tue) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
From Glyn Moody's article:
> An optimist would say that it has enjoyed some of the best global advertising in recent years, and that $1 billion is a fairly low price to pay for that. After all, there can't be many potential buyers of smartphones who are not now aware that Samsung is a rival of Apple, and in many respect highly similar. Some of them might well take a look at Samsung's offerings, and might be pleasantly surprised at the lower price of many models compared to Apple.
And it looks like he's exactly right:
> Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Looks like Apple has blown off its own foot.
Going nuclear Posted Aug 28, 2012 11:02 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is a good one: at the next WWDC Apple is going to present the iPaid 2 Much.
|
|||||||||||||