Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Judges tosses Apple v. Motorola


24 Jun 2012   #11

W7 X-64 W8.1 X-64 Opensuse 13.1 W2003 Server
 
 

Hi everyone

So if say I'm waiting at a bus stop in London on a rainy winters day and I want to know when the next bus will arrive - I'm not allowed to design something just because a youngster has showed me a complicated application on his mobile.

I might say -- the application he has is great but if I can get the same data myself from Tfl (transport for London) --and it's freely available -- I can write a lot better one.

Now where does "Intellectual property" start and end in this case -- Until I'd seen the original application I wouldn't have had a notion about it -- but once I'd seen it I KNEW I could do a zillion times better with PUBLIC domain data.

A lot of the so called "Intellectual Property rights" are just a bunch of "Horse Sh--E".
We aren't talking here about apps like adobe photoshop or whatever.

Cheers
jimbo


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

24 Jun 2012   #12

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 7600
 
 

id just look at the time table at the bus stop .
Name:  24-06-2012 21-41-23.png
Views: 11
Size:  571.4 KB


My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Jun 2012   #13

Windows 7 Home Premium 32bit
 
 

Quote:
Sorry, but you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Please read PParks' excellent post and you may understand.
Then be more explicit about your point other than a patent is only a concept. However, the law as it has been amended by congress and administered by the Patent Office permits such things - even pure software patents vaguely written. Hence they are legal even if not satisfactory according to your opinion. The complaint should be against congress who made the law and not the companies complying with and using the laws as written.

My patents and my technology have been attacked in a court of law and they won. It has also been examined by quite a number of companies with thousands of times more resources than I. My patents and technology has held up under their investigation. The reason being was that I was very careful to found my patents on the old form of Patent law: new and useful additions to the state of the art, specific, material, and conceptual with a clear and active intent to commercialize it. I even wrote some critical sections of one particularly critical patent. It was accepted by the patent office with only one amendment that actually made it stronger.

I would join your fight if it were against issuing patents of do the same old same old thing but do it on a computer or on the Internet kind of thing. I would even support a requirement of having to present clear a persuasive evidence of intent to commercialize rather than just sitting on it.

I too object to those who simply collect patents to be used as covert torpedoes to shoot out of submarines at anyone who dares to create value for the market. If, after so many years, you cannot show an earnest attempt to realize its potential value, you should lose it. This is not what you argued and this is not how the current law is written.

Either work and get the law changed or figure out how to live with it. I have done the latter.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.


24 Jun 2012   #14

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

For example,

The software giant (MICROSOFT) applied for a patent in 2005, and was granted it on August 19, 2008. US patent number 7,415,666 (United States Patent: 7415666).

In this patent, Microsoft patented the use of the PageUp and PageDown key to scroll a document either 1 page up or 1 page down. Now, keyboards from 1981 came with Page UP and Page Down keys. I wonder what this button did back in 1981 prior to those fabulous Microsoft engineers who managed to invent and then protect the concept in 2005?


And here, in 2004, Microsoft invented the double click and patented it;
http://100777.com/node/820

And here is another one, if you see an email address and click on it, and email will be sent via some application.
http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.ph...t-thunderbird/

I think this is very vague and none of these are intellectual properly which should be protected.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Jun 2012   #15

Windows 7 Home Premium 32bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
I think this is very vague and none of these are intellectual properly which should be protected.
They are not vague. They are quite specific. There is also massive prior art. That should have been sufficient for their claims to be dismissed. However, the fault is in the hands of congress for amending patent law so that it allows the patent office to accept such previously faulty patent claims as valid.

The built in idea is that such claims will be validated or dismissed in court rather than judged by an unaccountable patent examiner. On the surface that might sound fair but the courts have no competency to judge anything other than the application of written law. They specifically have no competency to judge science, engineering, or the process of invention. This is why I say the primary fault lies with congress. They amended the law. Change congress and change the laws but don't blame corporations that follow the law as written. Either that or live with it as I do.

The bottom line is a patent is only a pretext for law suits with a slight presumption of right on the side of the patent holder. However, the holder has to prove infringement and damages. The alleged patent violator can show prior art in defense. The internet age makes finding prior art rather easy.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Jun 2012   #16

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lkgriffith View Post
[They are not vague. They are quite specific. There is also massive prior art. That should have been sufficient for their claims to be dismissed. However, the fault is in the hands of congress for amending patent law so that it allows the patent office to accept such previously faulty patent claims as valid.
Exactly true. But to hear something like, "woah, somebody violated 35 patents" sounds downright awful. But then you find out that 30+ patents were all prior arts and thus not enforceable just makes this whole concept of software patents silly.

Apple need not worry, they have a cult like following of people who love their products. They don't need patents to protect themselves, they simply need new versions of their products.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Judges tosses Apple v. Motorola




Thread Tools



Similar help and support threads for2: Judges tosses Apple v. Motorola
Thread Forum
Motorola 6412 DVR 64 bit driver Drivers
Motorola sues Microsoft News
Judge tosses Microsoft's 'Psystar' antitrust defense. News
Motorola P2K driver Drivers
Motorola Sb5101e Network & Sharing
Motorola SurfBoard Drivers
Motorola SB5101... Drivers

Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 AM.
Twitter Facebook Google+



Windows 7 Forums

Seven Forums Android App Seven Forums IOS App
  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33