Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Legal And just like that, within a matter of days, the jury has reached a verdict in Apple vs. Samsung. The basic gist is simple: Apple's software patents are valid, and many Samsung devices infringe upon them. Apple's iPhone 3G trade dress is valid, and Samsung's Galaxy S line infringes, but other devices did not. Samsung did not infringe Apple's iPad design patent. Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Apple is awarded a little over $1 billion in damages. Competition lost today, and developers in the United States should really start to get worried - software patents got validated big time today.
Thread beginning with comment 532047
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Everybody wins
by jigzat on Sat 25th Aug 2012 00:14 UTC in reply to "Everybody wins"
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

I agree with you, it should not come as a surprise for some of the commenters since I am an Apple user but if you analyze carefully it will in the future force companies to come to agreements like the Apple-Microsoft one and stop fighting each other. The law is clear, the companies that hold patents are forced to license it under a fair or competitive price.

As I pointed out even Apple has licensed and pay damages for things like one-click-buy, the click-wheel of the first iPods, and the column-view present in every product. It had to pay or came to an agreement with Apple Corp (The Beetles company).

On the other hand is a sad day for start-up development efforts but that is another subject.

Reply Parent Score: -2

v RE[2]: Everybody wins
by Mellin on Sat 25th Aug 2012 00:16 in reply to "RE: Everybody wins"
RE[3]: Everybody wins
by linux-lover on Sat 25th Aug 2012 00:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Everybody wins"
linux-lover Member since:
2011-04-25

You are the brainwashed one. The percentage of the millions of people who use Apple products who even read websites like these or are aware of software patents and the like is minimal. Most people don't know about the smartphone wars or any of this litigation. Plenty of people use Apple products and are not "brainwashed". The "brainwashed" are a vocal minority of fanbois.

It's like calling every windows user brainwashed by microsoft. Saying that is insulting everyone who has ever used a computer. It's a silly joke at best.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Everybody wins
by linux-lover on Sat 25th Aug 2012 00:32 in reply to "RE: Everybody wins"
linux-lover Member since:
2011-04-25

See the thing is patents on software itself is ridiculous.

Code is written, writing is protected by copyright.

Code in many ways is really just mathematics, and math is not patentable.

I am not a lawyer, but can't you only patent methods and implementations? Not ideas? Correct me if I am wrong.

Edited 2012-08-25 00:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Everybody wins
by kristoph on Sat 25th Aug 2012 04:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Everybody wins"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I've been writing code for over 25 years. Code is not mathematics. Far from it. Suggesting that code should only be covered by copyright is stupid because there are limitless ways to express the very same concept in code and so the only thing that copyright protects is outright copying. I could take any piece of code, rewrite it and have it generate an identical result, and you'd never know I didn't write the thing from scratch.

So that said, I've come to believe that software patents in some form should exist.

The issue with software patents, as with patents in general, is that the process by which they are reviewed and granted is fundamentally flawed. Many patents are obvious, have obvious prior art, and are over broad. Also all patent holders that are not implementing a patent (the patent trolls) need to be forced to license the patent under FRAND terms.

That madness needs to stop. If we can't afford to effectively review patents then we should not be granting them.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Everybody wins
by ins0mniac on Sat 25th Aug 2012 16:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Everybody wins"
ins0mniac Member since:
2008-10-01

Patents cover the underlying methodologies embodied in a given piece of software, or the function that the software is intended to serve, independent of the particular language or code that the software is written in. Copyright prevents the direct copying of some or all of a particular version of a given piece of software, but do not prevent other authors from writing their own embodiments of the underlying methodologies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Everybody wins
by MollyC on Mon 27th Aug 2012 00:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Everybody wins"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

See the thing is patents on software itself is ridiculous.

Code is written, writing is protected by copyright.

Code in many ways is really just mathematics, and math is not patentable.

I am not a lawyer, but can't you only patent methods and implementations? Not ideas? Correct me if I am wrong.


Software code is not "math".

Take Excel, for example. How was it created? It was constructed. It wasn't derived like a math formula. Nor is Excel some mathematical equation that existed in the abstract, just waiting to be discovered by a mathematical genius. Excel is a machine that was put together like any machine, only it's made out of bytes rather than steel/wood/plastics/etc. And machines (that is, the ideas behind them) certainly ARE patentable.

P.S.
What is the "you can't patent math" thing based on anyway? Why, for instance, would one be able to patent a chemical formula but not a mathematical one? Is it just because math is totally abstract and doesn't exist in "nature", but only exists in the minds of intelligent beings, and therefore nothing mathematical can be considered to be created/invented, but only discovered?

I ask because it seems that much the same could be said of chemical formulas. Chemistry, unlike math, does indeed concretely exist in nature, but I could see where one might argue that all chemical formulas already exist in the abstract, just waiting to be discovered, therefore chemical formlas can't be patented since they're discoverd rather than created/invented.

Seems arbitrary to say that math can't be patented, and I've not heard anyone actually rigoursly argue that proposition; I've merely heard the proposition asserted as an axiom as if there's no need to back it up at all.

Anyway, as I said above, I don't think the "math can't be patented" argument applies to software to begin with, since I don't see software as "math", but I do wonder about the whole "you can't patent math" thing to begin with. Seems like begging questions to me.

I only care from a philisophical standpoint. I don't really care in a real/practical sense. ;) However, if a company spent billions of dollars on math research and discovered some mathematical formula that solved the world's energy problems, maybe that company would be justified in getting a time-limited patent to reap some return on their investment. Though it's likely that the discovery would be more along the lines of physics rather than purely absctract math. Maybe applied math should be patentable, but not purely useless abstract math? Or maybe math can't be patented, but the way one might apply it is patentable? :p

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Everybody wins
by pgeorgi on Sat 25th Aug 2012 07:06 in reply to "RE: Everybody wins"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

The law is clear, the companies that hold patents are forced to license it under a fair or competitive price.

They're not. You can build a total barrier to whatever market you got covered by patents.

The only exception is when you (or one of the former patent holders) signed away this right - for example in exchange for the patent to be added to some standard. That's what "FRAND" is about.

Reply Parent Score: 3