Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Legal "One of the exhibits Samsung has now made public tells an interesting tale. It's the slide presentation that Apple showed Samsung when it first tried (and failed) to get Samsung to license Apple's patents prior to the start of litigation. While some of the numbers were earlier reported on when the exhibit was used at trial, the slides themselves provide more data - specifically on the difference between what Apple wanted Samsung to pay for Windows phones and for Android phones. The slides punch huge holes in Apple's FRAND arguments. Apple and Microsoft complain to regulators about FRAND rates being excessive and oppressive at approximately $6 per unit, or 2.4%; but the Apple offer was not only at a much higher rate, it targeted Android in a way that seems deliberately designed to destroy its ability to compete in the marketplace." Eagerly awaiting the 45 paragraph comment explaining how this is completely fair and not hypocritical at all. Bonus points if it includes something about Eric Schmidt being on Apple's board, and, double bonus point if it mentions one of the QWERTY Android prototypes. Mega Epic Bonus if it somehow manages to draw a line from Edison, Tesla, to Jobs.
Thread beginning with comment 539693
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A thing that should NEVER be patented
by acobar on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 11:21 UTC
Member since:

Usually, I am against software patents. First and foremost, because I see them causing more harms than good. On a fast paced industry that extend its tentacles to virtually all human activities today, it is, at minimum, counter productive to give to any player a right to block others from be also players.

User interactions should NEVER, EVER, QUALIFY for patents!. They constitute a language! These define-meaning, take-order things like one-click buy, slide-to-unlock and all gestures are components of LANGUAGE by all standards. Bum! Magically 9x % of all these frivolous lawsuits are kaput! Other elements of user interfaces are already covered enough by design protections and copyright. This also would give to examiners of USPTO more time to do their job and look for prior art. Also, the main loophole would be closed to free ride from suckers to abuse the law system.

Last, even though I said that I am against software patents I do see them as valid on many cases. Lets take for example the infamous *FAT* case. On its complexity, it is no different to project a machine, one that takes bytes and arrange them on a convenient way. What the law should contemplate is to make illegal to block any initiative to get things from one format and put it on another. The implication should be the following on *FAT* case: it would be legal to read a *FAT* file system, but not to read and write, on the last case, you would be obligated to buy a license. Also, there should be an automatic threshold on market usage, get over 50% and it is not FRAND or get over 90%, you already got the rewards for your invention, no more fees on that for you. Guess what? People would start very fast to think about using FRAND terms to avoid the multitude of converters from mp3, h264, quicktime and all others private formats that exist today. One more nail on bad practices coffin.

OBS.: forgive me if someone already said that here, I am kind of busy and do not have the time today to take a look on them all.

Reply Score: 3