Several days ago when Apple hinted at legal action against Palm, we held our breath to see just what would happen. Now Palm has stepped up to the plate boldly and hinted that they'd fight whatever legal action is thrown at them.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-12
Apple didn't "start" it. They responded to a question in the way they had to.
Did you expect them to brush off the question? Of course not.
Besides, Apple isn't interested in most of the GUI Palm is using. But there are parts of it that could violate some of Apple's IP.
I just wish people would actually understand what a patent is all about, and not make silly statements.
A silly statement is that Apple isn't the first to use gestures. Well, it doesn't matter!
A patent isn't about ideas. This has been stated over and again, and most people still don't understand it. It's about process. That means that the WAY an idea is implemented is what the patent is all about.
If Palm implemented their finger swipes and such, in the same way internally as Apple has done, then Apple SHOULD sue. It's Apple's technology.
But, if they found a different way to do so, then Apple CAN'T sue, as it's Palm's technology.
This is a pretty simple principal, and people should understand it.
If a third company does the same thing, both Palm AND Apple might be able to sue, or either, or neither. It all depends on HOW this is being done. What is the code doing? How is it doing it? How is the touchscreen responding? Etc.
The result is the gesture. The gesture is likely not patentable, but how they get there is.
Member since:2006-12-28
I'm sorry, but what you are saying, although in theory true, never works out that way.
Software patents, unlike physical patents, patent a concept. The idea is that if I describe what my software does, be that in a precise or more often than not vague manner, I can then patent that idea; thereby protecting something I may not even have created.
A physical patent provides me with a limited monopoly on technology actually invented, thereby rendering physical patents infinity more useful to industry and innovation by not only protecting an individual's or company's investment but also by encouraging those same people to continue innovating in the knowledge that any investment they make will be protected. Physical patents protect small and large entities alike without favoritism, either inadvertently or otherwise.
Software patents, on the other hand, encourage companies to amass large portfolios of them just to protect themselves from predatory patent trolls and competitors. It forces companies to come to patent deals and favors large companies who can afford large portfolios. Small time software houses have to be very careful when treading the legal minefield that is the modern patent system.
How can software patents possibly be a good thing when it stifles innovation, especially from smaller software houses, thereby achieving exactly the opposite of what patents where designed to do in the first place?
Copyright has been more than enough to protect other forms of creative works. Why would software need two?
Member since:
2005-07-06
It is disappointing (though, of course, expected) that although we've very recently witnessed the damaging consequences of people making nebulous statements with no real meat to them (regarding CEO privacy issues etc.), people still continue to do so. I wish they'd stop posturing and get on with the business at hand, which ought to be competing on product quality, reliability and features. (As Apple apparently "started it" my "they" above applies to that company too, but really this happens with many tech companies and I just wish they'd grow up!)
Total agreement with others about how rubbish the patent system is nowadays to allow such nonsense. Luckily in the EU we don't have software patents (yet) but I fear it's only a matter of time. (I'm not saying this is a software-patents issue; I don't think anyone knows what the actual issue is here, as so far nobody has admitted there is one.)
Slightly tangential but I'm also worried that the status quo in the EU regarding SMEs providing most of the wealth will be drastically altered by the current economic crisis. I can imagine a lot of them going bust, to have their market share replaced by the potentially a-lot-less-ethical, yet stronger, multinationals (and we all know how much they love patents and would like the EU to be more friendly to them...)