Submitted by Little-known intellectual property agency IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation this week became the latest to claim that Apple had abused a patent they hold. Filed April 18th in a US district court in Marshall, Texas the four-page formal complaint purports that Apple has engaged in ‘willful and deliberate’ infringement of a computer control patent by selling its current Tiger operating system. On a related note, Microsoft has similar problems.
I live in Canada but if I could I would live in my own country, where patents wouldn’t mean anything except a waste of paper, ink and time.
You’re missing the point.
Patents are fine (as long as they are actually innovation.)
Software patents are a terrible idea.
Patents are given to encourage innovation and research and to prevent companies from having to keep their discoveries as trade secrects.
The problem with Software patents is that innovation is already happening at a great rate in the software industry, So it doesn’t need encouragement.
But the USA patent system is terribly broken because patents aren’t getting proper review before being granted.
Software patents are a terrible idea.
Patents are given to encourage innovation and research and to prevent companies from having to keep their discoveries as trade secrects.
The problem with Software patents is that innovation is already happening at a great rate in the software industry, So it doesn’t need encouragement.
Anyone expecting me to join in and have a general rant against software patents better sit down.
You make some good points, but I’m not actually implacably opposed to software patents. But I think they should be limited to somewhere between 2 and 10 years, and should – as you have suggested – be awarded only for innovation. Example: Xerox innovated when they came up with the GUI; but neither Apple nor MS innovated when they came up with the minimize button.
Generally speaking the only people winning with this are the lawyers… not the consumers!
In addition to the lawyers, the B.S. companies who do nothing but sue. Fscking ridiculous situation.
So, the window is a metaphore for the paper. We can stack them, move them, take them out of sight, reprint (resize, eh) stuff on smaller/larger sheets…
And we *never* classified paper (or, by extension, windows on a GUI) using tabs before, right? And *absolutely no one* would ever think about that, so it’s gotta be innovation, gotta be patenteable, right??
Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_folder
There are even pretty pictures on that entry for those who can’t get a clue even after severe spanking by The Cluestick(TM).
USPTO, shame on yout! You completely, *completely* lost the very notion of what innovation is!
The suit against MS is just as preposterous as the Kodak one against Sun. The USPTO is granting patents on paradigms, for Divinity’s sake.
This has got to stop.
“People seem to think that by posting in threads and agreeing with other people they are changing the world. They are not. They are posting in threads online. The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. Being outraged online is a form of entertainment, and refreshing a thread to receive a hit of consensus packs the thrill of genuine activism without requiring any sweat.”
Tycho, penny-arcade
If you are an American, and you want this to stop, write to your local congressman, now.
Suffice to say, I am not. But I happen to be affected by it because I’m part of the wrong side of the industry; namely, I’m a computer scientist (BD) and I could well eventually be hired by startups, big companies, or anything in-between. So you see, “all-american” patent trolls will eventually affect me in a way or another. And I’m not alone; see how fast the IT industry is growing in India, China, the whole South America, and the Eastern Europe. We might not be able to sell, in the U.S., products we develop, if they happen to infringe on some obviety the USPTO considered innovative and granted exclusive licensing rights to some random patent troll.
Sorry if I happen to care about the USPTO situation, but if that makes you feel better, quite frankly, I’m also covering my own ass.
Edit: grammar. And there are probably a handful of errors left. It should be pretty obvious by now I’m NOT a native speaker.
Edited 2007-04-22 18:59
USPTO, shame on yout! You completely, *completely* lost the very notion of what innovation is!
From m-w.com:
innovate: “1 : to introduce as or as if new”
There’s a reason market-droids don’t like to talk about invention anymore; they aren’t interested in actually creating new inventions. They introduce old crap with shiny new labels, and call it innovation.
The USPTO ideally has no interest in innovation. Patents protect inventions, which are much less common than the innovations that marketing people crap out all day. Unfortunately, it seems that the patent “inspectors” are quite bedazzled by innovations, and are more than happy to grant an insanely long monopoly on whatever shiny thing happens to cross their desks.
I’m sick of this crap. The whole software patent thing either needs to be thrown out or needs an overhaul.
Perhaps when the big kids on the block are the ones that get bullied around over patents, they’ll be the ones pushing for patent reform.
Except that -instead of pushing for a more sensible patent system- they will be trying to push for a(ny) kind of reform in which THEY are the ONLY ones to benefit from the patent system (especially for what I like to call the “pestering-power” of patents).
Edited 2007-04-23 07:42
If the point behind patents is to encourage people to develop new technologies, then patent reform is sorely needed because patents are being abused.
What can be done? Finding ways to avoid gold-digging would be a huge beginning. If the patent holder didn’t make a reasonable attempt to license or market a product incorporating the said patent within the first five years, then the patent really ought to be invalid because it is not making a contribution to the marketplace.
The patent holder should be forced to file a claim against the offending party within a reasonable period. When it is filed two years after the introduction of a produce or product line, then the patent holder is either negligent in their duties or they are trying to maximise damages to their own benefit. The latter is a blatent abuse of the court system.
There should be some system of determining who is sued in order to avoid cases where the patent holder has underlying motives for suing the offender. Such cases would include those where a patent holder will use legal threat to force a “weak” company to settle out of court, to avoid establishing a test case against an offender who doesn’t have the means to defend themselves, or to avoid patent holders from going after rich offenders to maximise damages. As an example, they may be forced to challenge the first offender.
Language should be specific and, after the aforementioned five year productization period, be identifiable with an implementation.
Another idea would be to avoid the patenting of ideas. Patents should be there to prevent “forgeries” of products and to help companies recoup R&D costs. If there is no product to force or the R&D costs amount to having somebody spend an hour dreaming up potential patents, then there is really nothing to defend.
Patents in their own right, even in the world of software, are not evil. They are government enforced monopolies. As such they should be used judiciously. Currently they are being used judicially, which isn’t good.
Browser: ELinks/0.11.1-1.2ubuntu2-lite-debian (textmode; Linux 2.6.20-15-generic i686; 80×25-3)
Well said. Thumbs up.
Yours is the best post I’ve seen here in months.
If I were a juror in one of these patent trials, I’d first try to find out if the defendant company supported or opposed software patents. If the company supported them, then I’d automatically vote “guilty” regardless of the merits of the case. If they opposed patents, then I’d vote “innocent.”
What could be simpler?
Does anyone know Apple’s position on software patents?
Edited 2007-04-22 18:01
Being honest could be a little simpler. Obeying the law too. Even if I’m a racist bastard, for instance, if I’m accused of murder the only relevant thing is whether I committed the murder or not.
You wouldn’t be much of a juror–you are not suppose to consider anything that isn’t brought up in court.
It’s time to make USPTO employees individually liable for gross negligence and indiscriminate use of official power.
We (in the US) have done it to CEO’s who now are liable for “mistakes” on the financial reports, and heard the collective healthy cringe.
I say Apple, fight this thing in court and sue the Joe Shmoe, rubber-stamper for expense.
The only way to stop the idiocy is to make USPTO employees really afraid of making a mistake.
Edited 2007-04-22 18:10
I mean, anything that can be done to get the UI folks to perhaps rethink the tabbed UI meme has got to be a good thing, no?
Mind, I don’t have an alternative, but, boy howdy, it sure is horribly abused in so many places.
This doesn’t look like it applies to tabs, per se, unless the tabs are just different views of the same object. After all, finder doesn’t even have tabs.
This would seem to apply more to the ability to change between Finder’s three file viewing modes: columns, icons and list, while maintaining a similar interaction model and interface. I might not really understand the legalese, however. Still, it seems stupidly general.
The key word in the article is dubious.
As the McSoft marketing machine has learned and used extensively the reverse engineering of an original patent does not infringe.
If you have IP then you must protect it. Actively. Nearly two decades of no action and silense is a sign of a release to the general public.
If a company uses a `specific method` or `procedure` and then uses that `exact` method to make money which takes money away from the original owner livelihood – then – the person or company is guilty.
It would be very interesting to follow the cash trail on this one. Say ghosts of SCO.
This is part of why Microsoft is trying to limit/end software patents.
Then again, we don’t need small companies being able to compete with large companies. Just Microsoft on one side and the CopyReich on the other — that’s obviously the best situation for all of us.
“This is part of why Microsoft is trying to limit/end software patents.”
And also part of why Microsoft have the screw on Novell.
“Then again, we don’t need small companies being able to compete with large companies.”
Oh, we need small companies alright, just not small companies without skill, talent and a product who’s only mean of income is suing other companies.
If the patents are not abolished now, it will severely damage the computer industry.
Americans, please act now.
If the patents are not abolished now, it will severely damage the computer industry.
I agree and disagree with your statement. It is irritating to see companies patent simple functionality which appears to fall into prior art. As each little snippet of functionality gets patented it creates a minefield of patents one has to navigate through in order to avoid infringing patents. I could see how the cost and legal time involved in this will eventually push out all but the large companies with dedicated legal staff. At the same time though I can see how a company would want to protect their investment in time and capital to prevent others from duplicating their work which is unfair if it causes them financial losses.
Copyrighting would be a better solution than software patents.
But where do you put the limit between “simple functionality” and ‘work that deserves to be protected’.
For instance would it be okay for Opera if they patented tabbed browsing to sue all other browser vendors if they implemented tabbed browsing?
And what about the fact that tabbed browsing existed in other products? I remember an old BIOS of mine, that used tabbed browsing for functional navigation, how does that play into the picture?
“system and method for generating Web sites in an arbitrary object framework.”
And then later:
“Vertical, based in Fort Worth, Texas, describes itself as a global Web services provider. It went public in 2000 but is not listed on a major stock exchange”
Sounds like a money hungry company, however don’t virtually all web application frameworks “generate web sites in an arbitrary framework?” Regardless, .Net has been out for 6 years now, and according to the USPTO link IP Inc’s (or whatever they are called) patent dates back to ’99. Why the lag in filing a suit?
From the patent filing:
“The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately.”
So basically they “patented” the MVC design pattern? Shouldn’t the GOF be suing THEM then? You can’t patent a friggin’ design pattern that’s widely used by virtually all code generation frameworks on the market.
Absolutely ridiculous.
“So basically they “patented” the MVC design pattern? Shouldn’t the GOF be suing THEM then? You can’t patent a friggin’ design pattern that’s widely used by virtually all code generation frameworks on the market.
Absolutely ridiculous.”
It is ridiculous, but sadly, that doesn’t matter. Note that they are asking for at *jury* trial, so they can put this before a group of people that are clueless about the issues involved, and play on the jury’s emotions with “Microsoft is the big evil company that stole from and abused our angelic mom-and-pop shop – please award us two billion dollars”. And it’s a crap-shoot as to what the jury will do. Microsoft won’t want to take a chance on that crap-shoot, so they’ll likely settle for a few hundred million before it gets that far.
The Apple suit is also atrocious.
“The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Nuff’ said!
I appreciate the quote, but how does it apply in this context? Are you advocating a violent solution?
Both these patents are ridiculous. The alleged infringement in the Apple story consists of the following patent claim:
the technique of creating a window on a computer’s screen with controls that switch between views of multiple associated display objects within the window, erasing one view as the user selects another while still giving a spatial frame of reference and the same general interface during the switch
That would include multiple desktops in Xwindows, the taskbar switcher in Windows, tabs in Firefox, and so on and so forth. I think it is an obviously trivial and vague patent considering how many times it has been reproduced in countless ways.
The patent claim against Microsoft is even worse. It consists of the following:
system and method for generating Web sites in an arbitrary object framework
How vague can you get and still get a patent for it? If this patent claim is accepted there goes the web as we know it along with who knows else what.
And ironically, the USPTO’s own website likely infringes that patent with it’s ability to dynamically search patents. Hope they have some good lawyers…
I think they tend to show just how utterly greedy people are. We live in a world which prizes money over sharing knowledge and using that to better all of mankind.
Patents don’t preserve innovation or competition. They do serve to preserve the lifestyles of lawyers and patent holding firms.
As long as money can purchase votes patents will stay and probably only get worse. We sadly live in a country (great as it might be) that is run by greedy spineless politicians who don’t work for the people except during election time. We Americans tend to have short term memories.
…I just sent email to my 2 senators, Kyl and McCain.
It’s easy… go to:
http://[your senator’s last name].senate.gov
Eg.
http://kyl.senate.gov or http://mccain.senate.gov.
They all have contact forms.
Edited 2007-04-22 21:49
That’s funny. I’m in the same state as you (Arizona).
I wrote to Rick Renzi (my rep) last year about this issue and he sent me back a letter saying how hard he was fighting to “make Social Security more secure” and a bunch of other unrelated blather. I’ve always thought the guy was worthless (but a perfect representative of Yavapai County), but sheezus – I would have thought a staffer would have *at least* sent the correct form letter response.
The truth is your US rep (with a few exceptions here and there) could give a damn what you write or think. Now, if Microsoft or Qwest gives the congresscreature THEY own a call, things might change. Ironic that our best hope is from the scum that helped create this mess in the first place – which doesn’t hold out much hope for our future.
Years ago I emailed President Clinton with my views on some issue. I got back an email by an auto-responder telling my what a great guy the president is. Based on that and pundits’ comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that most email to politicians is a total waste of time and bandwidth.
That’s different than mail sent on paper via snail mail, which I still do occasionally. I usually get an on-topic reply, even if I don’t like it.
Software patents stink and it would be best to let Congress know–via the Post Office.
There is, of course, a drawback to writing your senators… I am probably now on some sort of “watch list” kept by homeland security.
:/
It is a little known fact that Al Gore invented in 1980 the original gel button look that is so popular in Apple’s Aqua theme. He is absolving patent infringers of the gel button look if they switch to a hybrid or all electric vehicle by the end of the year.
The look of something is held under copyright. Patents cover the idea of a general piece of functionality; so your example kind of back-fired.
so your example kind of back-fired.
It was just a lame Al Gore joke. relax…
Go fsck yourself, patent trolls!
grrr…. so annoying
you live by the sword you die by it. I have no pity for Microsoft, Sun, Apple etc, they use and abuse the patent systems themselves, it’s just karma coming back to bite them on the ass, and deservedly so.
Yes, the patent system is wrong, blatantly wrong, but until it’s changed, we’re stuck with it. And that means cheering on when the big bastards get screwed by the same system that they’re playing.
I have absolutely NO pity for them.
Dave
“I have absolutely NO pity for them.”
Neither do I but I have even less pity for the kind of companies who’s only in it to sue other companies. *IF* MS and Apple lose it’s bad for everyone, regardless of what you think of them. There’s no poetic justice to be had here, no matter how much I would like there to be.
And they have the ability to lobby the US government to abolish software patents don’t they? And yet they don’t. My heart bleeds for them…
We don’t need software patents, they are bad for business, they lead to anti competitive and monopolistic and abusive business behaviour within the software industry. Until business realises this, and abolishes software patents, we’re going to keep having this shit, and it serves them right. As I said in my original post, you live by the sword, then you die by the sword. Period.
Dave
Microsoft’s always on the recieving end of patent suits. Why do you think SAMBA exists, or linux-ntfs? The only patent lawsuit that I have heard of is the USB-related one against Belkin (I suspect this was due to Belkin’s competitors complaining about licensing the patents when Belkin was just going ahead and infringing).
You may have no pity, but I don’t think it’s fair to ignore the truth.
How so? these companies only file patents because if they don’t, they’ll get screwed over; when was the last time each of these companies sued each other? its never happened.
The source of the patent issues are quite frankly pathetic money hungry companies located in the middle of no where, in some nobody state where they claim they ‘develop’ technology and yet there are no products that are the product of that R&D.
The big companies aren’t at the cause of it; they’ve already signed a truce with the cross patent licencing; the problem are those so-called companies like “IP Innovation LLC” who simply make up broadreaching descriptions of so-called ‘technology’ they’ve developed. Christ, some of it is so broad in nature, you could patent the idea of ‘liquids used for the use of heat transference when used in a variety of manners’ – there you go, just patented every form of cooling using liquid.
And they have the ability to lobby the US government to abolish software patents don’t they? And yet they don’t. My heart bleeds for them…
We don’t need software patents, they are bad for business, they lead to anti competitive and monopolistic and abusive business behaviour within the software industry. Until business realises this, and abolishes software patents, we’re going to keep having this shit, and it serves them right. As I said in my original post, you live by the sword, then you die by the sword. Period.
Dave
Please name one instance where any of those companies have file patent lawsuits.
1) Register something that someone forgot to register (trademark, patent, asteroid or whatever)
2) Implement it in a B.S. application that no-one will ever use
3) Sue as many as possible
4) Get paid off behind the curtains (by a big company that wants you to STFU) and drop your legal claims
Also it seems that you have the right to carry guns, so you could also rob banks.
Your condemnation of the companies mentioned in the article, IP Innovation and Vertical Computer Systems, seems to be on target.
But your comment implicitly condemns America for allowing so much freedom that those companies can exist. That’s a mighty broad brush you’re painting with. You might stop and consider how America’s freedom benefits the free software world.
You’re right that I shouldn’t be saying “America is the problem”. I might have implied that. But I am saying, that the American liberal way of freedom (like the “buy a patent” concept) is usually pretty unlucky.
Hmm …
We have seen what the un-armed students at Virginia Tech were able to do against a looney `green card` carrier.
Back to the subject …
These patent cases are nothing more than the rich and powerful leeching off the tit of companies which are even more rich and powerful.
It will all work out.
Edited 2007-04-22 23:38
Maricopa, here… Yeah, I know it’s unlikely that the senators will ever even see the letter, or that anyone will read it. But… you never know, the senator could walk into his office one day and say “Hey, I think I’ll read a letter from one of my constituents!”
I say the free software foundation should get a couple thousand people to march on the institution that is supposed to keep the monopoly microsoft at bay(continues to strong arm and threaten linux users)
then the next day march on the patent office about software patents
I am probably wrong, but I think that the tabs on a Hypercard stack would predate the 1987 patent filing. If so, then Apple’s own software is prior art.
The problem with the current patent system is that it relies on having a clear definition of what ‘innovation’ is.
And there will never be one.
It’s as broken as a system of copyright that relied on only protecting things considered ‘art’ would be.
Add to that the fact that a jury typically does not consist of ‘persons having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains’, and you have a system that favors those with greater financial assets and skilled in the law as opposed to those skilled in the development of said invention.
Sad thing is though, regardless of the existence of a patent system, the actual inventor always seems to get screwed.