How can anyone believe that we have a functioning patent system when Apple can win a billion dollar judgment from Samsung in one court in California, while Apple’s very similar lawsuit against Motorola is thrown out of another court in Illinois? Here’s more on that topic:
In a recent case between Apple and Motorola, Judge Richard A. Posner, a prominent federal appeals court judge in Chicago, said in court that the use of patents in the smartphone industry showed a system in “chaos.” In June, Judge Posner dismissed the case, chastising both sides. He heaped scorn on Apple’s broad claims for its user-experience patents and on Motorola’s claim that Apple should pay a rich royalty on its basic communications patents. Both companies have appealed.
[…] “The smartphone patent battles are enabled by lots of trivial patents that never should have been granted in the first place,” said James E. Bessen, a patent expert and lecturer at the Boston University School of Law. “That’s where Judge Posner was coming from in his ruling.”
Remember that Motorola in this case is actually Google, which bought Motorola because of its patent portfolio, so this thing is anywhere but over.
Baud
Different courts produce different results. It’s not a problem unique to the patent system.
khead
They probably realize that the “patent system” is a lot bigger than Apple vs. Samsung or Motorola.
Also, see comment #1.
jdrs0819
Because a lot of patent law is pretty subjective. One of the key statutes, 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is all about how it’s “obvious” for one patent application to be rejected in view of previous patents and published works. Well who says this is obvious to do in view of A,B,C, and therefore the application should be rejected? One person would see it differently than another.
Of course, by the time it makes it to the courts, they don’t use the same prima facie case as examiners do.
mistermix
@Baud: Dismissal with prejudice versus a billion dollar verdict is a little bigger variance than average, don’t you think?
Baud
@mistermix:
Not really. The question of whether there is infringement is logically and legally separate from the question of the amount of damages if there is infringement.
Mino
Maybe Samsung should appeal in Illinois. (Snark)
Cap'n Magic
Software should have never been granted the ability to be patented for the simple reason is that they are mathematical formulas with flow-control adornments. This is nothing more than kabuki theatre to cement future upstarts from entering the marketplace and extract as much monopoly rents as they can. Both Apple and Samsung’s past and current histories aren’t exactly Tier 1 models of corporate ethics, either. Even if Samsung gets hit with the triple damages, it’s still under 5% of their total yearly revenues; and you can bet your bottom dollar that Samsung has been prepped for being able to quicky release a non-infringing version of Andriod (Getting the carriers to certify that new version, along with re-adding all their bloatware and doing regression testing in a timely manner-well let’s not go there.)
RSA
From engadget:
There are huge problems with our patent system for software. Leaving aside my disagreement with the basic idea of patenting user experience designs of this kind, it’s hard for me to see how Apple convinced anyone that these designs are novel enough to be patented. Except the bounce back effect, they’re completely obvious and have a long history in user interface design. So I’m wondering whether the outcomes of the trials differed simply because the people involved were skeptical about the basic value of those patents.
Katharsis
Here is a good article I found on the topic. I was jaw dropped to find this was the SECOND billion dollar infringement case in the last 30 days. Funny how Monsanto didn’t make the news.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billion-verdict.html
Amanda in the South Bay
@RSA:
Well, it was local (in San Jose) so people might have been biased in favour of their home town team, so to speak? Doesn’t help that Samsung is a foreign company too.
RSA
@Amanda in the South Bay: Oh, I didn’t notice that. (It also makes me think about another downside of jury trials for these sorts of disagreements.)
jheartney
I’m a huge Apple fanboi from way back, but ever I’m having trouble seeing anything that novel in these patents. Even the bounce-back just seems like a tweak to animated keyframe easing, which has existed forever, and in any case isn’t fundamental to much of anything.
OTOH at trial they did show that Samsung blatantly copied elements from the interface, which seems a bit shady. I don’t see it as being worth billions of dollars, though.
Dennis SGMM
I’m just surprised that the patent farmers haven’t come up with a 1905 patent for a Hand Held Telephone and sued the crap out of Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc.
And, pity the fool who didn’t patent A Circular Device for Conveying a Vehicle.
Mork from Ork
I think there are 2 problems here. 1) there is no law you can make to say no “copying” , so 2) we’re stuck with protecting things with patents which are ill suited to the task, but that’s what we have.
FWIW: even if you disagree the idea of software patents, the bigger picture here is that no one, not even the most extreme Android supporters, can seriously deny that Android is actually a copy of Apple’s work.
ipstrategist
As a “patent expert” myself, I can let you know that patent wars like these are a business model innovation for these companies. They build the cost of licensing fees and patent litigation, as well as potential litigation damage windfalls, into the cost of doing business and pass them onto us consumers. What Posner is (quite rightfully IMHO) railing against is the fact that they muck up the judicial system doing so. The patent system is broken, but for reasons other than high profile patent cases like these.
RSA
@jheartney:
I hadn’t thought of that connection; thanks.
Jasmine Bleach
As to the original post, one was decided by a judge and the other by a jury? Also, who the hell is Judge Posner? Does he work at the US Patent Office? Why should we accept his decision as to what’s a valid patent and what is not?
Actually, I agree with Cap’n Magic in #7 above, software patents are kind of stupid. But, since they are currently valid, and are currently lawful, companies have to protect their software. (Software should really come under copyright law, I think. It’s more like writing a book.)
I can accept people thinking patents are screwed up. But, I’m amazed at how many folks are down on Apple because of their recent court victory. There are internal e-mails from Samsung essentially showing that they intentionally ripped off Apple. Apple’s iPhone did present an entirely new way of producing phones in 2007–to the extent that when it was introduced, Research In Motion (makers of the Blackberry) thought that it was impossible for Apple to make such a thing (from an engineering standpoint). Apple has been, and continues to be, very innovative. And you know what they also frequently do? License technology from other companies (ever since the Xerox PARC days).
Apple is an American company that frequently has changed technology worldwide for the better (Apple IIs, Macintosh GUI computing with mouse, Newton handheld computers, iPods with iTunes, iPhone, iPad tablets, etc.). They employ tens of thousands of people in this country and pay them fairly well. They support LGBT issues, are pretty environmentally conscious, and make decent products that last for years. I really don’t get why so many Americans want to bring them down. (I’ve been reading a lot of negative articles about it . . . my rant above is not necessarily against those posting here.)
Dennis SGMM
@Mork from Ork:
I’m neither a fan of Apple nor Android and I can seriously deny your statement. The two accomplish similar things but through completely different code. Believe me, if Apple could have found code in Android that devalued or infringed they would have had Google in court within days. See SCO v IBM.
existential fish
Judge Posner is the most influential appeals court judge in the country. Full stop. He’s universally lauded for brilliance, even among people who disagree with him.
He was a former right-wing icon, but his fidelity to actual facts has pushed him effectively to the left nowadays.
He’s probably held in too much esteem by the legal community (including myself, such as I am part of that community having a law degree although I’ll never practice law), but unlike a lot of people, he’s earned that reputation.
edmund dantes
Some of the patents are beyond absurd. They never should have been granted in the first place. Patents have become another cudgel used to browbeat and rent seek as much as possible. Luckily for Apple (and all the other ones playing in the new patent wars), there are a lot of judges and lay people that aren’t really aware of the nuances of software code, design, or looks to realize that many of these patents shouldn’t exist.
Got to give Apple credit though. They are doing the classic “IGMFU” move of trying to pull the ladder up after they climbed it.
NCSteve
@jdrs0819: The word “obvious” has a specific legal meaning under that statute. It means “would have been obvious to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the particular field who knew about all of the relevant technology that came before.” It is an objective standard.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: Oh God. A pox on the SCO house. How I loathe them. The Santa Cruz Operation creates nothing and adds no value. It sits on patents and sues people. It’s singular purpose is to make money by stifling innovation. It’s the kind of outfit that Romney would run if he had his fingers in Silicon Valley tech.
jheartney
Copying the functionality of code is still copying. Perhaps not as blatant, but still a copy. But of course there’s also a very long history of people copying and improving; you could argue that it’s what most artists do, even the great ones. (Shakespeare’s plays, to take one example, are not for the most part original stories.)
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@jheartney: No, it’s not. And if it were, you’d not be using the computer or OS you are using now – and even if that weren’t the case, you’d certainly not be able to interact with the same internet I’m interacting with.
Hell, no two OS’s could have a damned memcpy function.
sublime33
@Amanda in the South Bay: Don’t forget that Motorola headquarters are in Illinois. So both Apple and Motorola worked their home field advantage.
RubberCrutch
@jheartney: It wasn’t the jury’s job to determine whether the patents should have been allowed by USPTO. Their job was to apply the law, as directed by the court, to the facts presented in the case. The bigger issue, to me, seems to be that the patent system is in fact broken, but not for the reason mistermix suggested. There aren’t enough examiners, for one thing, so they’re grossly overworked. Also, I understand that they’re evaluated on how many applications they process, so there is great pressure to move things along fast (even though the process takes a long, long time for any given invention). And beyond that, defending patents is a “rich man’s game,” by which I mean a “rich corporate person’s game.” Money warps this system, like it does any other.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
This entire cluster of fvck speaks to a much larger problem.
Formulas and algorithms can not be subject to patent. Software used to fall under this category until IBM threw a legal army and gobs of money into gaming things so that this was no longer the case. They pissed in everyone’s Wheaties and helped to fundamentally dilute the patent process to where it is the farce which we face today.
Thanks IBM. Assholes.
PeterJ
It’s 9 miles between the San Jose courthouse and Apple’s HQ in Cupertino.
I’m a amazed that a jury , speedily, found in favor of Apple. Amazed. Really.
It’s a bit like putting the trial for a racist accused of murdering a black man in his own, racist, home town.
Acquitted, on all counts, who would have thought! Amazed. Really.
Also.
@Jasmine Bleach:
Just wondering did you at any time sniff the glue that Apple is using to glue together it’s hardware, making it almost impossible to, you know, replace parts? Which from a environmentally conscious standpoint is a really good idea.
Sorry, just had to ask.
Jasmine Bleach
@edmund dantes:
That’s a little disingenuous. They offered to license their patents to Samsung. Samsung refused to take the deal.
Apple has already reached a licensing agreement with Microsoft and their upcoming Windows 8 mobile line.
It’s not like Apple is saying IGMFU. It’s more like they’re saying “Pay me for what I invented and patented or FU.”
PeterJ
@jheartney:
You’re wrong. Reverse engineering is perfectly legal.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: Generally, reverse engineering something can get one in legal trouble.
Independently creating something that performs a similar function can’t, generally.
And they are not the same thing at all.
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
And that’s why you have two teams when you do it.
One team to reverse engineer the item/function/whatever and write a spec, and then one team to create your own item/function/whatever. And you keep the two teams separate.
Perfectly legal.
Jasmine Bleach
@PeterJ:
And I suppose you didn’t bother to read the follow ups that were done with a few electronics recycling centers that said they would have no problem taking the computers apart and recycling them.
And I have an old PowerBook and iBook that have never been opened up. Still work. Even the batteries. Very few people actually replace anything in laptops anymore.
And if something major fails (logic board, monitor, power supply, etc., honestly, almost all computer companies just replace it with a new computer anyway if it’s under warranty.
If you look at the reports, Apple does very well versus other computer companies when it comes to being environmentally conscious.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: I don’t know what kind of shady-assed outfits you’ve worked for. My employers don’t play that way, and if they did, I’d not have worked with them.
Besides, team A is still probably running afoul of the law. In software, this is as simple as reading the EULA. You aren’t allowed to reverse engineer. Creating a derivative work is often not even mentioned. Whatever you are smoking, it makes me glad I quit using drugs.
PeterJ
@Jasmine Bleach:
Did I mention recycling? Personally, just because I no longer have enough RAM in my computer, doesn’t mean that I should ship it off to recycling and buy a new one.
When Apple glues the RAM into the sockets, that’s problematic if you want to upgrade the RAM…
I get a new computer when my monitor or power supply fails? That would make sense of Apple’s prices, wouldn’t it?
Replacing the entire computer, that’s, you know, not very environmentally conscious…
Motherboard fails, I can replace it and, most likely, keep the RAM, CPU etc.
If my power supply fails, I just buy a new one, no need to replace the rest of the computer.
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
You probably should read up on reverse engineering, and then inform whatever company you’re working for…
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: No, I don’t plan to do that. It’s a lot easier to read the LICENSE AGREEMENT that ships prominently with nearly any software package under the sun. Each one will refute your stupid supposition in black and white, quite clearly.
Furthermore, I do not plan to engage in a wild goose chase on the suggestion of some random dolt on the Internet, but thanks for playing.
Cap'n Magic
@danah gaz (fka gaz): And memcpy is itself an artifact by virtue of it being a subroutine in most U*ix implementations, which is little more than loading up a source address, loading a target address, loading the byte/word count, and then issue a multiple-byte move command.
Marduk
@NCSteve:
The word “objective” has a specific meaning in the english language. The use of a “hypothetical average person” necessarily makes the standard subjective.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Cap’n Magic: right. I know what it is. I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything.
Cap'n Magic
@RubberCrutch: So the patent court doesn’t allow for jury nullification?
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
You probably should read up on the enforceability of EULAs.
It’s not settled in the US, and in a lot of other countries, they aren’t legal, at all.
Which brings us back to the two teams. Move the first or both teams to a country that isn’t the US.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
I’m not likely to buy an Android in the foreseeable future.
I’m not likely to buy an Apple product ever.
That said, none of this effects me personally.
What DOES effect me, and each of you, is the ham-fisted, corrupt software patent rulings that should never have made it onto the books in the first place.
Now, patents are corrupted, and software is years behind where it would otherwise be thanks to stifling of innovation.
In the end, not even the patent holders have arguably benefited. I mean sure, in the short term they get a licensing fee or maybe even some royalties, possibly win a lawsuit – but in the long-haul they’ve hamstrung themselves because they’d be building more desirable, more valuable products were it not for software patents gumming up progress.
IBM and SCO are two of the major villains. Apple and Microsoft have done more than their fair share of fucking things up for all of you as well.
Sometimes I just want to throw a brick through their windows and loot the place.
The only real winners in all of this are the fucking lawyers.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: Have fun with that.
Generally, reputable companies don’t like to expose themselves to liability like that (whether or not there is precedent)
Now stop trolling me, asshat.
BTW – I’ve worked for a company that successfully sued another org for reverse engineering our technology and creating a derivative work. namely, afarsitebetter was my employer – realzoom was the subject of the lawsuit. we won.
MikeBoyScout
Patent “law” and patent t rolling is the new CDO casino.
Dennis SGMM
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
Although there was certainly some patent-farming before SCO turned it into a business model I can’t help but think that they were the ones who perfected the notion. The threats that they leveled at Linux users “Buy a SCO license or else,” were simple extortion. Their lawsuits against Daimler-Chrysler and Autozone would have made any protection racket mobster green with envy.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: Yeah. They are bastards. So was SBC communications – particularly for filing frivolous lawsuits regarding an HTML based static menu bar and going after non-profits that were too poor and scared to defend themselves.
Again, I think it speaks to the larger problem of software patents in general. We now have the type of arena where this type of bullying is commonplace.
Keith
@Cap’n Magic: Because the position is taken that programs are not so much mathematical formulas than they are logic machines, and machine mechanisms can be patented.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: Adding, the irony of SCO vs. IBM is that IBM arguably opened the door to this type of lawsuit in the first place. A bit of poetic justice, perhaps.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Keith: It’s funny what gobs of money can do to alter someone’s position. There’s very little merit to the position that software is a machine mechanism. Also, it’s telling when looking at the legal hell which this wrought.
Roger Moore
@RubberCrutch:
Actually it was. They were asked to decide if prior art submitted by Samsung invalidated Apple’s patents, and according to quotes from some of the jurors they skipped that part of the process and jumped straight to deciding if Samsung had infringed.
Dennis SGMM
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
LOL! That fine old phrase “Hoist on his own petard,” comes to mind.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: Karma is a fucking bitch. =)
azlib
@Cap’n Magic:
As a software engineer I agree completely. I was once asked to patent some software I developed and I refused for the simple reason that what I did was not new. I built on other software engineers which came before me to solve a specific problem.
Anyone who has been in a software shop knows software engineers beg borrow and sometimes steal from what other programmers did because they are inherently lazy and do not want to reinvent or code a new wheel when an old wheel will do nicely.
Apple and Samsung are simply rent seeking with all this software patent nonsense.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@azlib: cosigned
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
asshat? You’re funny.
I’m not trolling, I believe this was an argument. But since you’ve started calling me things, are you out of arguments?
What was the name of the company being sued?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: again, you ARE trolling. the merits of the case were based primarily around REVERSE ENGINEERING and COPYING OUR CODE. Both, because there were client and server side components involved.
It was not due to it being similar functionality. You’re moving the goalposts again (like you did with your stupid “move the illegal party offshore” nonsense).
I’ll call you names you deserve no better. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you do not wish to argue in good faith. You’re a troll. So fuck off.
Roger Moore
@Dennis SGMM:
Actually, SCOG* was attempting to cash in on copyright, not on patents. They claimed the right to restrict IBM’s distribution of its own, in-house written code because it had at one time been combined with SysV code in AIX. Some of the code, notably Read-Copy Update, was patented by IBM. There were other problems with SCOG’s claims, like they didn’t actually hold the copyrights they were claiming to enforce, but their basic claim was ridiculous on its face.
*Note that there is some deliberate confusion of names. The old Santa Cruz Operation was a Unix developer that created Xenix and Unixware, and managed the SysV licensing business for Novell. They sold their Unix assets to Caldera, previously a Linux distributor, and changed their name to Tarantella. Caldera then changed its name to SCO (and later The SCO Group) and started the Linux lawsuits.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Roger Moore: Interesting. I had no idea about that SCO re-branding you mentioned.
ETA: Admittedly I may have even read it somewhere before and simply forgotten. It’s been a long time since I’ve delved into that whole cluster of fvck.
? Martin
This might be the dumbest fandroid post you’ve put up. Samsung lost and Motorola didn’t because Samsung phones are different than Motorola phones, and Samsung had internal documents going point by point through what they should copy while Motorola didnt.
This is like wondering out loud why people spend more money at Saks than at Target.
Keith
@danah gaz (fka gaz): I don’t think it’s too far-fetched, but in terms of practicality and application (machines typically cannot be replicated without material limitations). That being said, I would have rather seen the industry go towards copyright protection instead of patent protection.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Keith: On that, we can agree.
Copyright laws are perfectly adequate for protecting software IP.
Patents are problematic(*) as it is. It gets *really* ugly when you start trying to shoehorn something as ethereal as software into it. We have a huge mess now.
(*) As far as material limitations, that can only become more of a problem as technology advances, removing much of these barriers. When the concept of patents were invented, nobody had even conceived of the day when we’d see 3d printing, and such widely available ability and affordability to machine things. But that’s another ball of wax. =)
Dennis SGMM
@Roger Moore:
Thank you for the clarification and for the details. I’m an Old Guy whose induction to computing was COBOL, FORTRAN, and PASCAL. The idea of patenting or copywriting code seems odd to me because there are often several routes to get to the same place.
Side note: Knowing those now-antique programming languages provided me with a temporary bonanza in Y2K.
Roger Moore
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
The rebranding thing was used in a lot of the legal filings to obscure the code history and make it look like there was more continuity than there really was. I think it was also intended to hide the company’s history of distributing Linux as Caldera. Since Caldera had distributed the code in question, both source and object, under GPL v2, that was probably enough to get the lawsuit tossed and hence was something SCO Group desperately wanted to avoid talking about.
And yes, I was an obsessive Groklaw reader for several years back when the suit looked as if it might have a chance of succeeding. It’s still an interesting place to get some information about suits related to Open Source, including the Apple v. Samsung litigation.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: heh. yeah Y2K was funny like that. You codgers( =P ) were revered as gods for a time. =)
Pascal is still a decent language. Just sayin’ (Not my choice by any means, but it’s weathered time far better than COBOL or FORTRAN – then there’s C. heh)..
arguingwithsignposts
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
Maybe you can print one out for us on one of those fancy 3D printers. ;)
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: Oh, one small nitpick… while we agree on patenting, copyright would suggest that only one of the “roads” leading to said place would be under IP protection. As far as that goes, I don’t see how that’s a problem. my $0.02
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@arguingwithsignposts: I wish I had one. I used to love legos when I was small. When I got older I used to repurpose them to build things (like an electric deadbolt for my bedroom door when I was a teen)… such devices were medieval compared to what a 3d printer would allow me to do. I’d love one. =)
Brachiator
Well, because it’s Apples and Oranges?
As others have pointed out, different courts can produce different results. Aside from that, this has been a very interesting thread, especially the comment from one poster that a case involving US law should be tried in a different country to be fair to Samsung. Hmmm.
One thing that I have found fun is the view of some Repiublican leaning and infantile libertarians in the tech community who hate Obama and the Democrats for being redistributionist and sozhulists, but who have screamed at Apple:
“YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT. All your supposed innovation is built on the work of others. There shouldn’t be ANY patents or intellectual property laws and everyone should be able to freely innovate.”
In other words, for these stooges, software and hardware development should be free, open, available to the commons. Sozhulist.
Coming back to Apple vs Samsung. I just don’t have a big problem with the verdict. Samsung is a big company that can take care of itself. The ruling does not affect Samsung’s latest products, especially their newest smartphones, which seem to be inducing even many Apple fans to defect.
Also, I disagree with a lot of the “such and such a feature is obvious” stuff. Yeah, a lot of shit is obvious in retrospect. But RIM, for example doggedly held on to its view of what a Blackberry should look like until they became obsolete. And many smart people predicted that Apple’s iPhone would be a flop, even after they saw it.
Lastly, I love the geeks who insist that software patent law should be reformed, but who then dismiss all lawmakers and judges as incompetent, and imagine a panel of geek high priests somehow being assembled to devise the rules.
Also, too, reporters have tracked down some of the jurors. Turns out that they were not just confused lay people. One in particular was an engineer who had applied for a patent himself.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Brachiator: “Lastly, I love the geeks who insist that software patent law should be reformed, but who then dismiss all lawmakers and judges as incompetent”
I hold the view that patent law (as it applies to software) should be reformed.
I disagree with your suggestion that I hold all lawmakers and judges as incompetent. Far from it. Aside from the legislators (I won’t get into lawmakers because this mess arguably started in the courts, not in congress) I believe that there was an initial bad ruling that software should be treated like a machine. Bad rulings happen all the time, but that doesn’t necessarily suggest an incompetent judge or jury. Unfortunately, that bad ruling became settled law, and so since then, it’s just been a snowball effect.
Cap'n Magic
@? Martin: Uh, Motorola didn’t lose but they didn’t win, either-same thing for Apple as Posner spiked the suit – with prejduice, no less.
Roger Moore
@Dennis SGMM:
And I would tend to say that the existence of several ways of getting to the same place is justification for allowing copyright. If you see code as being as much about communicating with future programmers as about instructing the machine, there’s likely to be enough expressive content in the code to justify copyright. But that also means that somebody else who gets to the same place can prove that he’s not infringing by showing that his code gets there by taking one of those different routes. There’s apparently a lot of legal precedent on exactly how the comparison is supposed to take place, and as a moderately well informed layman, it looks reasonable to me.
The big thing to me is that I think that the availability of copyright ought to invalidate a lot of the things companies try to do with EULAs. EULAs were a reasonable approach to protect a company’s rights to the software it wrote as long as the legal status of copyright on that software was questionable. But now that the copyright is clearly enforceable, I think it ought to be enough to protect the authors’ rights and EULAs should be seen as unenforceable contracts of adhesion.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Roger Moore: cosigned =) – also you can usually use a variant of single longest subsequence/substring algorithm to determine if code has been copied, even post compilation.
? Martin
@RSA:
Ok let’s look at double tap to zoom. Prior to Apple, this worked by increasing zoom by 50% and centering on the tap. That’s how Google maps zooming works. You’ve all seen this in action.
Apple patent implementation is nothing like that – and that behavior above doesn’t infringe.
Apples implementation analyzes the content that you tap on. On this iPad I did it when selecting your comment to paste above. iOS saw that I tapped in a nested block element of the page. It concluded that it was a block of text and assumed that I wanted to read it, and set a zoom range based on what would take to get it up to roughly 12 pt text. It looked at the orientation of the iPad, determined what space was available or display (the viewport) and then worked through the block elements contained in the tap area to figure out how few or how many it could accommodate in the zoom range in the viewport. It then selects what content I likely wanted, scales it to the viewport and centers it. It’s smart enough to see a long comment and not try to cram the whole thing on screen, or to zoom to a given level center it and cut off the top. Instead it’ll zoom to the width of the device and show the top so you can start reading.
It was so obvious that every browser prior to Apple just cranked up text size 50%, blew out the layout, and shoved the content you were after off the page. Yes, Apples solution seems obvious, but all real innovation is that way. The more groundbreaking it is, the more obvious it seems – because the outcome is obvious. But the path to tat outcome is anything but obvious. In fact it can be damn difficult and expensive. Multitouch seems obvious. But its really fucking hard to do.
Dennis SGMM
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
I found it hilarious; companies which because of my age wouldn’t hire me to do desktop support were suddenly offering me a ton of money and catered lunches with a blowjob for dessert to make sure that the apps that they’d been too effing cheap to upgrade would still work after the Date of Dread. My mind was opened because even those companies which had corporate officers for IT/IMS were still stuck in It’s Worked So Far.
I took their money and their lunches. Eschewed the bjs because I was still in love back then.
jdrs0819
@NCSteve: I know what it means. I work at the USPTO. But it’s not always clearcut. I can make an argument for obviousness, and someone could disagree with me. It’s why the lawyers always tell me why I’m stupid when I reject their applications.
About software’s patentability, software is not patent eligible. Attempts at patenting software violate 35 U.S.C. 101. They’re not patenting the software. They’re patenting “computer readable mediums.” So they patent a compact disk that has the software on it. Technicality, but just making the record clear.
ABL
@Jasmine Bleach: Posner is the father of law and economics. Very influential.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Dennis SGMM: hehehehe. I know a lot of little I.T. boys that would have poured over 70’s era COBOL manuals if they knew it meant free blowjobs.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@jdrs0819: On software patent-ability: By identifying the weaselly underpinnings of software patents, I think you just underscored why they are counter-productive and problematic.
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
I’m sorry, I’m stepping back a bit, since while we have an argument over the legality of reverse engineering, there’s a lot that you’ve written in the thread that fully agree with, including the legality of stealing code.
There’s also this:
this:
this:
this:
this:
That I totally agree with.
And I asked about the name of the other company since I’m actually interested, I’m not trolling.
Brachiator
@danah gaz (fka gaz): @danah gaz (fka gaz):
RE: “Lastly, I love the geeks who insist that software patent law should be reformed, but who then dismiss all lawmakers and judges as incompetent”
My remarks were not directed at you personally.
But I absolutely stand by them as a summary of the disdain that many geeks hold for non geeks. And tech journals and tech podcasts have been full of fear and trembling over this court case, including an odd assertion by the guests on a recent episode of Leo Laporte’s This Week in Tech podcast that Apple should never have sued Samsung because it would create a bad feeling about tech companies among geeks and consumers.
I agree with you that patent law probably should be reformed.
Cap'n Magic
@danah gaz (fka gaz): In the bad old days of pre-IC discrete logic computers, real programmers had to worry about rotational speed of the drum in order to minimize overlay loading latency. Some of these CPU’s didn’t even understand binary – their ALU’s and addressing were BCD.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: Honestly, I’d have to look, and my ability to do so is severely limited by the fact that I haven’t worked there for some time, and the fact that I was never directly privy to the lawsuit itself. I’ve presented the information that was relayed to me when I worked there, and of that – what I remember. I do know that the org in question was some craptastic drop-selling retailer that had very little customer base, and is almost certainly no longer in business. I *do* specifically remember the nature of the lawsuit, if only because the nature of it was central to a discussion my coworkers and I had had on protecting our IP. The nature of the lawsuit itself was central to the discussion, which was about our ability (or lack thereof) to hide our code, in order to avoid or at least limit future court battles over our technology – something we did not wish to repeat.
jdrs0819
@danah gaz (fka gaz): Then you have to tell Congress to get off their ass and re-write the statute. As it stands now, we cannot reject these patents just because they’re ducking the spirit of the law. When the computer programs/software are in conjunction with a physical structure, such as a computer memory, it’s treated as something structural.
I’m not sure how you would even re-write the statute to say, “Except software.”
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Cap’n Magic: So I’ve been told. =) This reminds me of the XKCD “real programmers use butterflies” comic. =) http://xkcd.com/378/
Roger Moore
@Dennis SGMM:
Having been through a few corporate IT upgrades, I’ve started to side with the dinosaurs who are too cheap to upgrade. Not only are they saving money by not paying for an upgrade, they’re also saving a lot of trouble by not forcing everyone to deal with a new system that does everything differently and imposes needless changes on the way they do things. I’d much rather that ITS delay upgrades until they’re pretty much unavoidable than force them on us too early.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@jdrs0819: Currently, we’re subject to the law we have, not the law we would want. I’m not saying otherwise.
What I’d like to see (and no, I am not sure how this would happen) is for software to be reclassified as it was originally – not a machine, and thus not subject to patent protection, but instead subject to copyright protection.
I think that would clear a lot of things up. Unfortunately, organizations like SCO (SCOG?) and an army of lawyers would probably take issue with that. It’s a livelihood issue at this point, and is thoroughly entrenched. That said, changing the status quo seems nearly impossible, as much as I’d like it to change.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Roger Moore: Yeah. There are a lot of good reasons to keep an old system in place that don’t have to do with expense (at least directly).
Generally the best way to handle this kind of thing is through incremental upgrades. IOW, you slowly roll out a new system, although this usually means using both side by side for awhile.
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
Ok, there’s no need to spend any time looking it up. Thanks.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
User interfaces used to be protected by Copyright (as IMO they should be).
Then Apple got badly burned by Microsoft & the courts back in the 90s, when they lost their lawsuit. So now they use patents.
Regarding this iPhone patent in particular: Imagine if Henry Ford had patented “Use of Steering Wheel and Foot Pedals to Operate a Four-Wheeled Horseless Carriage”, and think about what that version of the 20th century would have looked like.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Brachiator: “But I absolutely stand by them as a summary of the disdain that many geeks hold for non geeks”
I am certainly guilty of that myself – particularly when it comes to “non-geeks” making stupid security decisions that could be easily decided if they’d just ignore the tech aspect of it. That usually gets me riled.
However, I share your view in general, and is a large part of the reason I’ve stepped away from working in I.T. The kindest thing I can say about that is I just got sick of dealing with predominantly male, aspergers suffering guys with no class and no social chops who tend to think that they are far better equipped to handle reality than those around them. Hint: They’re not, and the opposite is usually true.
I have a hypothesis that there is a correlation between aspergers and libertarian ideology and I think that’s why you’ll find so many randroids in I.T.
RSA
@? Martin:
No argument from me that it’s hard and expensive to do. I’m an academic computer scientist working in the area of human-computer interaction, and experimentation is one of the most time-consuming aspects of my work.
On “smart” zooming–I think that everything you describe actually is obvious to someone who’s read Bederson et al.’s 1995 paper, “Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical Sketchpad For Exploring Alternate Interface Physics”, and related work on intelligent/contextual zooming/magnification. (Your mileage may vary.) Just because tech transfer is problematic and a lot of ideas don’t end up in commercial products doesn’t mean that when they do they’re novel.
Roger Moore
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
My big problem with upgrades is that it seems as if IT people want to change the user-facing business logic every time they need to replace the back-end. Maybe the change really is big enough that it requires a redesign once in a while, but they should at least try to keep the changes as small as possible. Instead, we get a completely different system that, as far as we can see, doesn’t do anything better. So we wind up going through a lot of work to learn the new system but don’t gain any benefit. Is it any wonder we see this as a bad thing?
? Martin
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God: That would have been fine. The model T arrangement of pedals and gear shifting was shit. Mercedes had a much better arrangement, and indeed they did patent it. Somehow we survived.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Roger Moore: I think superficial changes are not in and of themselves, a good reason to upgrade. Aside from serious flaws that destroy productivity – and should have been caught prior to deployment, I agree with you. It’s fluff that leads to a lot of bad churn and expense.
Architectural improvements, OTOH are a great reason to update. Who wants to use a DB designed in 1983?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Roger Moore: I’d add that at least half of what you are talking about is due to fundamental incompatibility with the new backend + old front end.
Usually (in my experience anyway) it’s simply not possible to reconnect the two, without rebuilding the front end as well – or if it was, the result would be a stovepipe system, and unstable.
So people tend to rebuild both from the ground up. Unfortunately (and this is where things can be improved) feature-creep + the desire to gold-plate everything leads to an entirely new UI and workflow, and as you rightly said, this tends to piss people off.
Amanda in the South Bay
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
is what your post reminded me of, when you mentioned DBs.
Here in Silicon Valley, its imperative that you stay trendy with with the various SQL alternatives (which is really just alternatives to MySQL). There’s a trendiness to data (like the annoying phrase “Big Data”) just like there is with languages (the legions of RoR scripters working on their MBAs in coffee shops for some silly social networking startup). Gotta stay on top of the trends!
Brachiator
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God:
I don’t know. It might be illuminating to look at the actual patents that were given, and how they affected the development of the automobile. And of course, many of these people were just as ruthless in trying to protect their companies and market share. You might look at how Ford went after the Dodge Brothers, who had been among his original partners.
And imagine if the early auto industry had been dominated by software geeks. Every car you bought would be bare bones. You would be expected to push it to the auto app store to get a better engine. There would be no standard equipment, since any real auto buff would naturally want to customize the car with the best widgets, from seats to steering wheels to those foot pedals.
And every auto would become totally obsolete after two years and you would be expected to junk it and buy a new one. And the new cars wouldn’t even fit existing roads, requiring new highways to accommodate them.
Some Loser
@Brachiator:
Did you lose your spouse to a geek or something. You seem to have a hate boner against them or something.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Some Loser:
I think the problem with people here in Silicon Valley is that
sometimes, geeks here take themselves too seriously. I agree totally with gaz’s take on geeks as being self absorbed, douchebags who hide behind their aspie status.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Amanda in the South Bay: Oooh. I wish I had seen that when AFSB wanted me to evaluate Mongo DB.
Personally, I dislike MySQL, and I would agree that it doesn’t scale very well. I wouldn’t say that Mongo DB is much of an answer. It’s lack of ACID properties is among my biggest criticisms of it.
I liked that video, and I definitely lean heavily on the the RDBMS side of that argument, even if I have several criticisms of MySQL. I’m more a fan of SQL Server, MSDE, Oracle, and even at points, Postgre, than I am of mysql. That said, I see No-SQL as something of a fad – for starters there are already MANY DB-like systems that are in-memory and can expose their API without relying on SQL. Python even has such a mechanism baked into the language. That said, I do think there is an upside to the No-SQL fad because I’m guessing that it will force some rethinking of RDBMS systems, and DB offerings in general.
ETA: I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that I find MySQL to be perfectly adequate for many applications where scalability is not a large concern.
Some Loser
@Amanda in the South Bay:
I met plenty of geeks who met both [s]your[/s] Gaz’s and Brachiator’s description. I just think the guy is being a little obsessive about his irritation with these assholes.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Some Loser: It does seem that way. OTOH, I left the industry because he’s right – in general, even if he’s being a bit obsessive about it.
Brachiator probably just needs to take a deep breath.
Even if he’s right. =)
I’m often guilty of the same thing, so I have more than a little sympathy for him, though.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Brachiator: This reminds me of a brilliant press release that GM put out in response to Bill Gates’ criticism of the auto industry (and GM in particular)
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought “Car95” or “CarNT.” But then you would have to buy more seats.
6.
Macintosh[ Apple ] would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single “general car default” warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say “Are you sure?” before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car’s performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You’d press the “start” button to shut off the engine.
Brachiator
@Some Loser:
Yawn.
@Some Loser:
I don’t write that much about geeks. I just am not overawed by most of them or some of their sillier obsessions (Apple vs Android, open vs closed source, etc.).
I have worked with software developers for a healthy chunk of my working life. I have seen the best and the worst of them. I have seen a guy fired who insisted on ignoring user requirements and writing code the way he thought it should be. But some of the most spectacular and creative people I have ever met have been software developers and IT people. And this is especially true of some women developers I have known, many who did superior work compared to their male peers, but who oddly rarely got the same degree of credit, praise or promotion. But that’s another story for another day.
So no, I don’t hate geeks. Not at all. And the more observant among you will note that I was slamming a pernicious geek attitude toward patents and innovation more than I was slamming geeks themselves.
I do, however, hate marketing managers.
But not sales reps.
Some Loser
@Brachiator:
If that is the case, then I apologize to you. I was mistakenly believing you were attacking all geeks and not just that specific attitude.
PeterJ
Back to the judgment and the jury:
The jury actually rewarded Apple for things they had ruled didn’t infringe….
Best jury ever. For Apple.
Facepalm.
Actually, it’s beyond facepalm.
Read the full post at the link.
Pinkamena Panic
@danah gaz (fka gaz): Sorry, not true. Have some pie. (Not the pie filter, mind you, but just pie.)
? Martin
@PeterJ: So out of 700 things they were ruling on, they got two extremely minor ones wrong, which the judge caught and corrected within half an hour.
Indeed, a travesty of justice was committed. Clearly everything the jury ruled on was completely biased.
Brachiator
@danah gaz (fka gaz): Very funny stuff. Thanks for this blast from the past.
@Some Loser:
Not a problem. I am in awe of many geeks, and have even loved a few. And the last thing I intended was sparking a pointless flame war. And the general discussion here about the patent case has been very enlightening.
PeterJ
@? Martin:
It’s a bit more than that, read the full post.
Now, I do understand that you are perfectly happy with this kind of “trial” in Apple’s backyard.
Pen
@? Martin: This is a legal case, not kindergarten. They have a responsibility to do due diligence. If the jury can’t even get alltheir findings right why should it stand, at all? From everything I’ve seen I wouldn’t be surprised if this is overturned on appeal or forced into a retrial.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Pinkamena Panic: oops. Okay, so it wasn’t GM who released that. I stand corrected. Also, it’s still funny – so at least there’s that. =)
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Pen: This is what happens when you try to rule on ill defined, ill conceived rules. I don’t agree with the jury’s ruling, but I sympathize with them. They don’t have much to work with. The software patent scam is made of sand. It’s very difficult to gain solid footing when the underlying foundation is lacking.
These types of cases nearly always involve casting the bones. I don’t expect much at this point. *sigh* In a just world they’d not be tried in court. In a just world, Software IP infringements would be settled under the domain of copyright law, which is much clearer, much more coherent, and thus, much easier to adjudicate.
PeterJ
From the same link:
The jury foreman:
From the jury instructions:
Apple’s backyard indeed.
khead
Fascinating thread.
So, the patent system is broken because:
1) Waaaaaaaahhhh, software patents suck;
and
2) Lawyers know how to forum shop.
Awesome.
Pinkamena Panic
@khead: Well, gee, O Wise One, you’ve managed to break down an incredibly complex discussion into a couple points that show how Awesome And Wise You Are, while we scum-licking plebes must stand in awe of you.
Or maybe it’s more than just this one case. In which case, you’re not a wise person, but a trolling ass.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@khead: You’re a fucking moron, despite (or perhaps because of) what you think of yourself.
@Pinkamena Panic: This. Pretty much, this exactly.
Roger Moore
@? Martin:
Yes, they ruled on 700 things in 3 days. That means they spent an average of around 2-3 minutes on each item in their list. Do you think they were actually able to give due and careful consideration in that amount of time? One of the jury members has already said that they blew off Samsung’s evidence of prior art because it was taking too long. Does that sound like the kind of jury you’d like ruling on your case?
khead
@Pinkamena Panic:
While I appreciate you deferring to my Awesomeness – I am pretty awesome – I have to tell you that being an actual patent examiner doesn’t actually warrant that kind of respect.
But I do appreciate it. Really.
Still, all it really means is that I’m pretty well versed on the subject and tend to think that most folks crying about software patents are whiners.
Software, genetics and business methods are controversial. BFD. If anyone here thinks they know so fucking much about the process that they want to play MMQB on software (or other) patents then I suggest they come on down and apply. We could use your expertise.
Otherwise, how about you shut the fuck up and let me make fun of people who think they know something about the patent process.
khead
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
See comment @ 120.
Texas Dem
Question for the thread: I just bought a Galaxy S3. If Galaxy S3 sales are banned, what happens to all of us who own one? Is my phone going to stop working? What about updates and the operating system?
Some Loser
@Texas Dem:
I don’t know what the procedure for this kind of thing would be. I’m drawing this from basically nowhere, but I figure that they’ll just stop updating your phone and offer to trade your device with another phone of comparable pricing, so you’ll have a choice between keeping a non-updating phone or get something of which you didn’t pay for.
That is just a possibility. The result may not be as harsh to the costumer as the above, but ultimately, I think you and other Galaxy S3 owners are going get screwed. Our resident tech or business experts could fill us in on how Tech companies deal with this?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@khead: Being a patent examiner hardly gives you license to free respect, especially when you make an unsubstantiated and ludicrously general claim about the positions of the many people who have posted on this topic.
Also, it’s an appeal to authority fallacy.
You failed high-school debate class, didn’t you Mr. Awesome?
Pen
@khead: Ah yes, the smug superiority of an Internet troll. Tell us, oh genius, what exactly the purpose of patents is?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Texas Dem: (assuming you weren’t being snarky).
I wouldn’t worry about it. The worst case scenario is that samsung will probably have to pony up some cash to Apple. Your galaxy is probably safe.
PeterJ
@Some Loser:
He’s not going to get screwed, and Samsung isn’t going to abandon him even if sales are banned (which I seriously doubt, considering the news about the kangaroo jury). Even if it’s banned in the US, the Galaxy S3 will still be sold in the rest of the world and there will still be updates. A ban doesn’t mean that Samsung won’t be allowed to update phones that have already been sold.
Honestly…
khead
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
Tell me more about the hamfisted, corrupt software rulings of the PTO.
PeterJ
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
That’s a troll! (points at khead)
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@PeterJ: i think a ban is far-fetched in any case. Fines and fees are infinitely more likely, but that’s Samsung’s worry, not it’s customer base so much.
khead
Y’all are funny as hell.
I’m smug? A troll?
I’m just not as nice as the last examiner to come through here.
The patent system is fine. Warts and all.
Texas Dem
@danah gaz (fka gaz): It was most definitely non-snarky. I have a legal background but I spend most of my time dealing with criminals; I know nothing about patent law and even less about tech stuff. I know the Apple software police aren’t going to break down my door, but I’m wondering about product updates, etc. And additional costs that might get tacked on to product support, because of the verdict or injunctive relief granted to Apple.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@khead: Actually, I wasn’t criticizing the patent office. My criticisms are largely directed at the Federal Circuit courts that ruled on software patent-ability.
Maybe you should spend more time reading the thread and less time criticizing it. All directed criticisms I made were at courts. I’ve never once mentioned the patent office on this entire thread.
ETA: And yes. You’re trolling. The fact that you are unaware of that does not negate your actions. It simply illustrates your blistering lack of self-awareness. Maybe you should find a constructive hobby.
Pen
@khead: The fact that you can look at the news coming out of the tech sector for the last decade and say that says something. I’ve no quarrel with the patent office, they’re working under a bad pretense. But to say the system is fine? Hell no, that’s about as valid as saying that ebooks are killing the book industry.
From one perspective both statements are true, but from anything but the position of the entrenched industry insider? Not so much.
Some Loser
@PeterJ:
Oh, then pardon my ignorance. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut instead of saying something so unsubstantiated.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Texas Dem: My grandmother used to tell me “don’t borrow trouble”. If I was a galaxy owner, I’d say that’s good advice. Again, I think the odds are that you’ll be fine. Of course, Samsung may decide to try to screw you, but I doubt that anyone here could really offer anything other than crystal ball gazing in that respect. It’s entirely up to them, of course. =)
khead
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
I read the thread. So I know that, yes, you were criticizing the office. Albeit indirectly.
See comment #27.
And comment #43.
khead
@Pen:
So, tell me which parts of the patent system isn’t working fine aside from the software patents.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@khead: My mistake. Clearly, the problem is not that you haven’t read the thread. It’s that you have the reading comprehension of a child.
Sorry. There’s not much any of us can do to help you with that.
I criticized rulings. A few times, I’ve criticized IBM and SCO
Making statements about how software patents are untenable and broken is not making a criticism of the patent office, mr. zealot – as much as you’d like to read that into what I have said, that’s simply not the case.
I’ll state, one final time (since I’ve already expressed this point repeatedly on this thread) that I believe that software IP should NOT fall under the purview of the patent office. THIS is in no way a criticism of the patent office, which is simply performing the function that it was charged with. It is a criticism of the COURTS which allowed software IP to fall under the purview of the PTO in the first place. Is that clear enough? – because really, I’m growing very tired of holding your fucking hand at this point.
khead
I just wanted to highlight this for its sheer awesomeness.
Pinkamena Panic
I think our dear little friend’s name is missing a few letters.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@khead: Just like patenting an algorithm would be inevitably untenable – which is why it’s not done, outside of software IP.
/pats you on head
Some Loser
@khead:
Why are you getting up in arms about this?
You haven’t tried to refute her points or defend software patents; you displayed anger at Gaz for criticizing the Patent Office. Gaz explained she wasn’t criticizing the Patent Office; she felt they have been saddled with a job that is, frankly, impossible to preform competently. As far as the Patent Office goes, Gaz, and most people here, has been understanding and forgiving.
Why the outrage? Are you just afraid to admit you were wrong?
RareSanity
@Texas Dem:
You’re fine.
This case only applied to pre-Galaxy S3 products. Short of some of the software shared with those devices, the hardware was designed specifically to avoid challenges from Apple.
Even in regards to the software, I’m sure Samsung has already “coded around” any patents that they may found as infringing, and will just be included in whatever the next software update is. Apple is going after Samsung for the S3 as well, but to this point, I believe it only involves the S-Voice application.
Apple is not going anywhere, Samsung is not going anywhere, neither iOS or Android are going anywhere either.
P.S.
I was shocked to see this discussion still going on when it popped up in my RSS.
? Martin
@PeterJ: I didn’t realize that faith in our legal system made me such an irrational asshole. When Samsung wins, can I also assume the legal system is useless?
Triassic Sands
Some things Steve Jobs (thinks he) invented and patented (not an exhaustive list):
Air
The Sky
Rectangles
Electrons
Curves
Three dimensional objects
Space
Time (not the magazine)
Patents
Inventions
Things he failed to discover during his lifetime:
Integrity
Humility
Common Sense
The difference between stealing an idea and thinking of it oneself
RareSanity
@Brachiator:
Who are the “geeks” that you are referring to? Do you mean software developers? Gadget people? IT people?
Here’s why it’s important…
We all giggle at Paul Ryan budget, in doing so, we like to reference Paul Krugman as the “go to” guy on things economic. Well, what is Paul Krugman, other than an economics “geek”. We deride Mitt Romney for his lack of foreign policy experience, which candidate Obama was also criticized about…until he named Joe Biden his V.P. What is Joe Biden (among other things), but a foreign policy “geek”?
The people you are referring to, are expressing no less than the same relationship between policy makers having some sort of knowledge, regarding in underlying subject they proposing to legislate.
When they call judges and lawmakers as “incompetent”, it is no different than saying Paul Ryan is incompetent for pushing his budget, or Mitt Romney offering his “analysis” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Judge Posner is actually an exception to that rule, which is why he is so highly regarded by both the law and technology communities. Mainly because…gasp…he actually writes programs and understands when something should be “obvious” to a person in field, with basic knowledge related to it.
They can, but the same rules an protections for hardware “machines” cannot be extended to software “machines”. The engineering effort, investment and time needed to develop, are orders of magnitude larger for hardware, than software.
It would take someone years to develop something like the cotton gin, or an automobile, or means for the long transmission of electricity. However, a “bounce-back effect” can be developed, by an average software developer, in a matter of weeks.
Therefore, if the concept of a “software machine” is going to be kept, the scrutiny as whether the software being submitted, actually constitutes a “machine”…then, if it does, decide if that “machine” is, in fact, novel and innovative. Then, if it passes all of those tests, a patent can be granted…for the term of 1-2 years after the date of issue. With an idea that takes weeks of effort, how is the world should 7 years of protection be considered “fair compensation” for that idea?
Seven years is TWO lifetimes in software with the pace technology progresses. Just think about the phone you were using in 2005.
However, I’m of the opinion that most issues of software and user interface, are handled more than adequately by copyright laws.
PeterJ
@? Martin:
I’m sorry, I have as much faith in this ruling, being 9 miles from Apple’s HQ, as in having a racist being tried in his racist hometown for a racist murder (I’m not implying that Apple is racist), and I would have the same view about Samsung winning a trial, in this way, 9 miles from its HQ.
Did you read the groklaw post? Do you still think the errors are “extremely minor” as you put it? But maybe you’re all ok with it? 700 questions in less than three days? The bit about how they skipped the prior art? And on and on.
Pen
@khead: Read the news asshole. if you can’t figure it out after that, inyour position, you’re part of the problem.
BillinGlendaleCA
@PeterJ: Samsung won it’s case in Seoul.
General comments, since this thread won’t seem to die.
1. Why was Samsung and not Google the defendant in this case? I have a Samsung phone and a non-Samsung android tablet, both have the “bounce-back”.
2. How the hell could a jury decide such a complex case in 3 days? I’ve been on juries that have taken a day or 2 to decide simple matters. The comments that they relied on jury members who had legal and engineering backgrounds doesn’t give me much confidence in the verdict.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@RareSanity: Psst. he *did* go a little more specific in a follow up post to “Some Loser”
Taken as a whole however, I have to cosign what you wrote. In so many ways, your post hit the mark.
RareSanity
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
I saw where he said something about the specific “pernicious” behavior of “geeks”. But again, he seems to be attributing that behavior, to a specific group of “geeks” he has in mind. Which seem to be a combination of software developers and/or IT people and/or gadget people.
However, my my main point was that those same “pernicious” attitudes abide in any group where those included, are considered “experts” in their fields. In economics, for every K-Thug, there is at least one Friedman. For every Biden, there is at least one Romney.
He said himself that he had encountered many, of the same group, that he liked. My point was there are assholes in every field, not just technology. That includes sales and marketing. I’ve meet quite a few in both of those fields.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@RareSanity: Well, as I said, I agree with your post. I was just offering up some defense of Brachiator, and only because he was called out before, and clarified – for which I give him credit. None of this detracts from the points you have made, both above and in your previous post. As I said, spot on.
RareSanity
@danah gaz (fka gaz):
No, I definitely get what you were stating, and really appreciate your compliments. They are few and far between here at good ole Ballon-Juice. :-)
Brachiator is a seasoned vet around these parts, he knows the routine. When you make generalizations, be prepared to defend them.
PeterJ
@BillinGlendaleCA:
It did, but from what I’ve read, the ruiling was nowhere near as loopsided.
Compare that to how and what the jurors in San Jose decided.
RareSanity
@BillinGlendaleCA:
Because Samsung is actually implementing it in a commercial product and selling it. Google doesn’t charge for Android, nor does it actually make an Android device, so it would be hard to sue Google directly, because they don’t have a product that allegedly infringes.
They’re also going after Samsung because they are are the top selling Android manufacturer in the world, and actually represent “competition” to Apple’s product. I would be a huge waste of money to go after the “no-name” tablet manufacturer…first because they’re probably in China…secondly because the potential damages would probably be lower than the legal fees needed to go after them. IF Apple could prove that the particular manufacturer harmed them in the market.
IANAL, but as a layman and someone that has also served on juries before, this verdict stinks. I’m just not really sure if there are grounds to set it aside. I just hope for a re-trial after an appeal. There have been some dubious actions taken against Samsung at almost every point in this trial.
I know it’s all “law and order” of me, but I wonder if Samsung could have filed for a change of venue for the case. I just don’t see how they could have received a fair trial, by people that are so familiar with Apple. Not just because of commercials, but because the campus was less than 10 miles from the courthouse.