Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Oct 2010 21:30 UTC
Legal And we have another interesting development in the ongoing and ever-expanding idiocy that is the War of the High-Fiving Lawyers Mobile Patent World War. Motorola, now a central player in this worldwide conflict that is hurting consumers' wallets and clogging legal systems all over the world, has come to HTC's rescue by seeking to invalidate the patents Apple sued HTC with earlier this year.
Thread beginning with comment 445405
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Motorola...
by mrhasbean on Sun 17th Oct 2010 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Motorola..."
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

And here's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. You on one hand don't think companies should be able to benefit from software or UI developments, while I believe they are just as important and significant in the usefulness of a device as the hardware that powers it.

I don't believe Apple are afraid of them at all, and I don't believe they (Droid devices) will or are in any way affecting Apple's plans for their iOS devices. The fact is that Apple popularised smart phones because they created an interface that made them easy to use and non-threatening. Others have since followed suit, and therefore profited from the developments Apple bought to that industry. And it's not just smart phones that are employing these interface developments, many devices both in and apart from the communications industry are using UI components and techniques that were introduced on iPods and iPhone. Again, companies profiting from Apple's developments.

This is no different to companies profiting from hardware developments that power some of these devices. You are I can sit and look at UI components and say "well that was just obvious though", but the point is that until it was done it WASN'T obvious because nobody had done it. In the same way I can look at the first Motorola flip phone and say it was obvious because Gene Roddenberry did it in Star Trek, and the functionality of many of the hardware components that make up these modern devices are also "obvious" because they had to be created to achieve the overall goal of the device.

Motorola are no longer anywhere near as significant a player in the global mobile industry as they once were, and many of their other exploits have also dwindled over the past few years. They and many of the other once big players have taken a beating from Apple and are like the kids who didn't like losing the football match on the weekend so ganged up and beat up the star player from the other team.

My point though was that if the whole patent system was significantly cut back to provide a small window of protection for the developer of both hardware and software components we could get rid of this shit altogether and force the hand of these companies to be continually innovating. Don't you think that would be a good thing?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Motorola...
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 00:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

A programmer patenting his code is the same as an author patenting his book; completely superfluous as both are already protected through copyright.

If you are in favour of software patents, you are basically saying that it is okay for CNN to patent their report on a news event, and then suing the BBC because the BBC also reports on that news event.

Software is protected by copyright. That's more than enough.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[4]: Motorola...
by lemur2 on Mon 18th Oct 2010 01:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Motorola..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A programmer patenting his code is the same as an author patenting his book; completely superfluous as both are already protected through copyright. If you are in favour of software patents, you are basically saying that it is okay for CNN to patent their report on a news event, and then suing the BBC because the BBC also reports on that news event. Software is protected by copyright. That's more than enough.


Agreed.

As long as software providers are required to "do their own work" (i.e. in this case, write their own code), then each provider is not directly copying the work of any other software provider.

Each provider will have to employ programmers to write their code, they won't be able to simply copy (i.e. steal) the code from someone else.

If a given feature from one provider is an attractive, innovative new feature, then the first one to market with such a feature will be rewarded for producing it. Subsequently allowing other software providers to produce a similar feature will provide more employment and it will stimulate further innovation, becuase the newcomers to the market will need to have a better-than-the-original feature.

Without software patents there is still profit for innovators, there is more innovation, there is a lot less wastage and unnecessary costs through litigation, and there is more employment for programmers.

Where is the downside in dropping software patents, and protecting software only through copyrights?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Motorola...
by RichterKuato on Mon 18th Oct 2010 00:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola..."
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

I'm of the opinion that patents, copyrights and other intangible property rights fundamentally diminish natural property rights. Also, I bet we'd have a more competitive market without their existence.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Motorola...
by tuaris on Mon 18th Oct 2010 00:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola..."
tuaris Member since:
2007-08-05

I'm sorry, but Apple did not invent the smart phone interface, nor did they popularize it as much as you state.

The touch screen phones/devices that we have today are all derivatives of Palm.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Motorola...
by tyrione on Mon 18th Oct 2010 09:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Motorola..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I'm sorry, but Apple did not invent the smart phone interface, nor did they popularize it as much as you state.

The touch screen phones/devices that we have today are all derivatives of Palm.



The Palm engineers are ex-Apple engineers.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Motorola...
by Tony Swash on Mon 18th Oct 2010 13:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Motorola..."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I'm sorry, but Apple did not invent the smart phone interface, nor did they popularize it as much as you state.

The touch screen phones/devices that we have today are all derivatives of Palm.


Of course Apple didn't invent the smart phone and Palm had a crude stylus touch screen before the iPhone. But what is true is that the iPhone version one in 2007 looked and functioned like no other smart phone available at the time.

And what is also true is that almost all smart phones now look like the iPhone.

This is what Android looked like in 2007.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/

Here’s an actual hardware prototype from then.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/android-hardware-in-the-wild/google-andr...

It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple would ever be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone — hardware keyboards and non-touch screens.

Now compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/19/droid-incredible-review/

The iPhone has completely reshaped the design and UI of smart phones.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Motorola...
by vivainio on Mon 18th Oct 2010 07:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

You are I can sit and look at UI components and say "well that was just obvious though", but the point is that until it was done it WASN'T obvious because nobody had done it.


Mod parent down.

Not having done something doesn't mean it's not obvious. It may just be that the enabling technology (like cheap touch screen) was not there previously.

Let's say I patent "pure virtual functions in object oriented languages" right after first implementation of OO language (with "normal" virtual functions) was published (by someone else - possibly someone I know, so I had the time to prepare the patent application). By your logic, this would be a non-obvious patent.

Edited 2010-10-18 07:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5