Going nuclear
Going nuclear
Posted Aug 26, 2012 10:02 UTC (Sun) by tcourbon (guest, #60669)In reply to: Going nuclear by dashesy
Parent article: There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)
Posted Aug 26, 2012 15:05 UTC (Sun)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (12 responses)
To be honest it will be mostly sad to watch, as this whole swpat farce has been so far.
Posted Aug 27, 2012 1:34 UTC (Mon)
by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 1:50 UTC (Mon)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 2:06 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Aug 27, 2012 17:15 UTC (Mon)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 17:37 UTC (Mon)
by dashesy (guest, #74652)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 21:19 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (4 responses)
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.
Posted Aug 28, 2012 10:58 UTC (Tue)
by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 28, 2012 11:25 UTC (Tue)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 28, 2012 12:49 UTC (Tue)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Aug 30, 2012 18:25 UTC (Thu)
by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
[Link]
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... ;) )
Posted Aug 28, 2012 7:50 UTC (Tue)
by jezuch (subscriber, #52988)
[Link] (1 responses)
> 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.
Posted Aug 28, 2012 11:02 UTC (Tue)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Most of us euro-geeks we have not suffered the evil consequences of software patents yet. Or at least not in full force. If this nuclear winter scenario develops, we will be able to watch the evil consequences of software patents from a distance, without suffering. Then we will have a solid argument against them when they try to reenact them once more via some sneaky EU directive. We have not won the war against them, you know.
Going nuclear
Most of us euro-geeks we have not suffered the evil consequences of software patents yet.
Going nuclear
If I understand this correctly, this case was not (primarily?) about software patents but about design patents, a very different kind of beast.
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
Going nuclear
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:
Going nuclear
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 items
Disgusting. Interesting article, by the way.
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
Going nuclear
Going nuclear
Going nuclear
It was not personal use but corporate use, in fact developers using the product. Here is an example.
Going nuclear
Going nuclear
Going nuclear
https://plus.google.com/114476892281222708332/posts/246sr...
> Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"
That is a good one: at the next WWDC Apple is going to present the iPaid 2 Much.
Going nuclear