Apple wins
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.
E-mail Print r 11   · Read More · 270 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/kao
Thread beginning with comment 532122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Everybody wins
by kristoph on Sat 25th Aug 2012 04:25 UTC 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[4]: Everybody wins
by Fergy on Sat 25th Aug 2012 05:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Everybody wins"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

the only thing that copyright protects is outright copying

And what do you think a patent does?

Also all patent holders that are not implementing a patent (the patent trolls) need to be forced to license the patent under FRAND terms.

You shouldn't have to license "bounce back" and "pinch to zoom". It is like paying for the same work over and over because that one company was the first to patent it. These ideas didn't come from a vacuum; they were around for years before Apple used them.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Everybody wins
by raboof on Sun 26th Aug 2012 14:48 in reply to "RE[4]: Everybody wins"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

"the only thing that copyright protects is outright copying

And what do you think a patent does? "
A patent also protects against others independently doing the same 'invention' and going to market with it.

You shouldn't have to license "bounce back" and "pinch to zoom". It is like paying for the same work over and over because that one company was the first to patent it.

That's why you can only successfully uphold a patent when it is decided by the Proper Authorities that your invention is really novel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Everybody wins
by JAlexoid on Sat 25th Aug 2012 13:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Everybody wins"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Code is not mathematics.

Ok. 25 years. You may have heard of such a thing as mathematical logic? Thus, you are technically right, code is not mathematics. Code is mathematical logic and a bunch of other subdivisions of mathematics.

express the very same concept in code

So yeah.... We are better off protecting general concepts, that don't bother disclosing the actual algorithms.

Also, there is no such thing as a software patent. We call it a software patent, because it references a process that is performed by a program code. All "software patents" are in their essence vague process patents.

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

I would agree with 3 points:
A) Full disclosure - source code mandatory!
B) Either copyright or patent, not both. The two deal with different types of IP.
C) Software patents don't need 10-20 years to recoup R&D costs, so 1.5 year protection term.(That was 2 years 9 months ago, that is how fast the industry changes)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Everybody wins
by zima on Wed 29th Aug 2012 10:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Everybody wins"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

B) perhaps copyright should also mandate (future) disclosure of source code: placing it in an escrow being a condition for copyright protection - so that PD can have any real meaning.
( http://www.osnews.com/permalink?528221 )

Of course, the way things are going, copyright might become essentially perpetual, hence it wouldn't even matter...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Everybody wins
by looncraz on Sun 26th Aug 2012 15:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Everybody wins"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Code == Logic. Math == Logic. Therefore, Code == Math.

*ALL* software is math.

Write some code that ain't, and SOMEONE can make a mathematical formula to describe it.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Everybody wins
by jabbotts on Mon 27th Aug 2012 18:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Everybody wins"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm not sure how you down-voted. Even as someone who does not agree with software patents, you present a perfectly rational point on why the USPTO is so broken in general let alone with regard to technology.

Reply Parent Score: 2