6 ms·

Our patent system is insane, granted. But in this case, at least Apple, ya’ know, actually invented some of the stuff they are using against Android.

by awolf 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
shangaslammi 14y ago
Have you actually looked at the four patents used in this litigation? I think it's highly arguable whether Apple really invented any of those concepts.
- taligent 14y ago
  There is a clear and well understood process for invalidating those patents - prior art. If you don't believe Apple invented them then come forward and provide some evidence. I would imagine Google and the Android OEMs would throw a few million your way for the trouble.
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    But that's the problem, isn't it? Even if Google produces prior art, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did (although I haven't actually looked at the patents so I can't be 100% certain), the injunction would still exist. So yes, there is a well understood process for invalidating patents. And that is, no doubt, going to play a major role in the case. But all that comes after the problem itself--the injunction lasts while people are showing prior art and forwarding any other arguments they have. So my complete understanding is as follows: the fundamental problem here is the patent system. The issue is that Apple was able to get weak patents and then is able to use those patents to get an injunction on a product before the patents can get tested in court. This lets them leverage a weak hand and ~$100m to weaken their competition, regardless of the patents' actual validity. This, combined with a bunch of other problems with the patent system (oh, let's patent math as long as it's run on some computer!) is why there is a call for patent reform. The reason people are annoyed with Apple is that, instead of being nice, they're abusing a broken system to damage their competition. Of course, I'm certainly no lawyer and have been following this case only superficially. This is a good summary of what I think is going on, but could have no bearing on reality whatsoever.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      "...instead of being nice..." There is the problem. Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons. Neither does Google, no matter how vehemently they say that they do. As others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary. Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are.
      - polymatter 14y ago
        > "Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons." While true in a strictly short term sense, not being "nice" is the sort of thing that erodes your brand image. One too many of these sorts of stories stick in a consumers head to create a generally negative image, which can be extremely hard to reverse (see Scoda). And for a luxury company like Apple, brand image is everything.
        sbuk 14y ago
        So it's ok for Google to lie and steal? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pilfering-kenyan-business-directory-in-sting-operation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pil... A far, far worse abuse of trust wouldn't you say? as was a serving member of a board of directors not initially declaring a conflict of interest. This will be, as we say in the UK, tomorrows fish and chip paper.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        Slow down there. First, you're conveniently omitting the part where Google apologized and fired the people involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-mocality-action http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-moca... Second, as for Eric Schmidt not disclosing his conflict-of-interest, it's not like the Android acquisition (and its relationship to Google's mobile ambitions) was some deep, dark secret (like the iPhone was): http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb And that was public over a year before Eric Schmidt joined the Apple board: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric... It seems to me that if anyone had the responsibility of keeping Schmidt off of the Apple board because of a conflict-of-interest between Android and the iPhone, it was Apple.
  - shangaslammi 14y ago
    The problem is that just as there's a lot of room for interpretation regarding whether something falls under a certain software patent or not, whether something get ruled as valid prior art by a specific judge is likewise a crapshoot. Secondly, IANAL and I might be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that the current case is solely about whether Samsung violates the patents or not. The validity of the patents themselves would have to be argued in a separate court case.
Tichy 14y ago
Using a mix of heuristics to rank search results? Sorry, but no.

Our patent system is insane, granted. But in this case, at least Apple, ya’ know, actually invented some of the stuff they are using against Android.

by awolf 14y ago

Our patent system is insane, granted. But in this case, at least Apple, ya’ know, actually invented some of the stuff they are using against Android.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

shangaslammi 14y ago

Have you actually looked at the four patents used in this litigation? I think it's highly arguable whether Apple really invented any of those concepts.

taligent 14y ago
There is a clear and well understood process for invalidating those patents - prior art. If you don't believe Apple invented them then come forward and provide some evidence. I would imagine Google and the Android OEMs would throw a few million your way for the trouble.
- tikhonj 14y ago
  But that's the problem, isn't it? Even if Google produces prior art, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did (although I haven't actually looked at the patents so I can't be 100% certain), the injunction would still exist. So yes, there is a well understood process for invalidating patents. And that is, no doubt, going to play a major role in the case. But all that comes after the problem itself--the injunction lasts while people are showing prior art and forwarding any other arguments they have. So my complete understanding is as follows: the fundamental problem here is the patent system. The issue is that Apple was able to get weak patents and then is able to use those patents to get an injunction on a product before the patents can get tested in court. This lets them leverage a weak hand and ~$100m to weaken their competition, regardless of the patents' actual validity. This, combined with a bunch of other problems with the patent system (oh, let's patent math as long as it's run on some computer!) is why there is a call for patent reform. The reason people are annoyed with Apple is that, instead of being nice, they're abusing a broken system to damage their competition. Of course, I'm certainly no lawyer and have been following this case only superficially. This is a good summary of what I think is going on, but could have no bearing on reality whatsoever.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    "...instead of being nice..." There is the problem. Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons. Neither does Google, no matter how vehemently they say that they do. As others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary. Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are.
    - polymatter 14y ago
      > "Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons." While true in a strictly short term sense, not being "nice" is the sort of thing that erodes your brand image. One too many of these sorts of stories stick in a consumers head to create a generally negative image, which can be extremely hard to reverse (see Scoda). And for a luxury company like Apple, brand image is everything.
      - sbuk 14y ago
        So it's ok for Google to lie and steal? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pilfering-kenyan-business-directory-in-sting-operation/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pil... A far, far worse abuse of trust wouldn't you say? as was a serving member of a board of directors not initially declaring a conflict of interest. This will be, as we say in the UK, tomorrows fish and chip paper.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        Slow down there. First, you're conveniently omitting the part where Google apologized and fired the people involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-mocality-action http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-moca... Second, as for Eric Schmidt not disclosing his conflict-of-interest, it's not like the Android acquisition (and its relationship to Google's mobile ambitions) was some deep, dark secret (like the iPhone was): http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb And that was public over a year before Eric Schmidt joined the Apple board: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric... It seems to me that if anyone had the responsibility of keeping Schmidt off of the Apple board because of a conflict-of-interest between Android and the iPhone, it was Apple.
- shangaslammi 14y ago
  The problem is that just as there's a lot of room for interpretation regarding whether something falls under a certain software patent or not, whether something get ruled as valid prior art by a specific judge is likewise a crapshoot. Secondly, IANAL and I might be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that the current case is solely about whether Samsung violates the patents or not. The validity of the patents themselves would have to be argued in a separate court case.

Tichy 14y ago

Using a mix of heuristics to rank search results? Sorry, but no.