5 ms·

The verdict was a monumentally stupid decision and I hope it won't prove to be too harmful in the long run. One way to look at innovation and progress is that

The verdict was a monumentally stupid decision and I hope it won't prove to be too harmful in the long run. One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity. Something which is novel, hard, expensive and rare today must become a cheap and ubiquitous commodity tomorrow. It is this process that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and easily leverage past technologies to produce newer, better ones. Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process. None of these parties want touchscreen smartphones to become cheap commodities available to everybody - there's a lot less money to be made this way. Android is Google's attempt to commoditize the smartphone and is probably responsible for erasing tens of billions from the market caps of other companies, the flipside of which is that today tens of millions of people all over the world have access to technology that would otherwise not have. This is why I think Android is ultimately a force for good and I hope it's simply too late to put the genie back in the bottle and that this verdict won't have a lasting impact.

MaxwellKennerly 14y ago
The patent system is supposed to encourage the commoditization of inventions by using a trade-off: if you invent something novel and useful, you can get a patent that gives you a complete monopoly for a limited amount of time, but in return you have to completely disclose how your invention was made, so that, first, others can see if the intention would be useful for them right now (and thus negotiate a license with you) and, second, once you're patent expires society can easily reach for and utilize your invention. Unfortunately, that process has been turned on its head, so that patents are routinely granted for designs, devices, and methods that are already effectively commoditized or simply don't work patent protection. The iPhone's design is undeniably visually appealing and user-friendly, but it is by no means an "invention." It is a form of user interface, something that has already been held to not be patentable, and it is a form of branding, something that is protected, but through trademark law, not patent law. I find this situation disturbing for the same reason I find it disturbing that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on research and the belt. Consumer electronics companies should not be investing the bulk of their resources playing legal games with one another over non-disruptive "inventions" like the idea to use asynchronous processing to make sure video and audio lines up. They should be using their resources making phones that are better and more alluring than one another.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  I love how people like to forget about that, software patents never carry the actual code in the patent, so I can't see how they are really divulging how everything works without the code. As it stands when a patent for software finally does expire, no one gets how it worked except for those who had already re-engineered it. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this seem a bit strange?
- doktrin 14y ago
  I'm glad to see someone highlight the fact that design patents are inherently illogical, and in fact run altogether counter to the purpose of the patent system. Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished. Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles and UI elements in rows of 4 are simply not inventions.
  - cheald 14y ago
    To be really pedantic about it, it's arguable that they are inventions (someone had to be the first to put four rocks in a row), but it's such a blindly obvious "invention" that it's insanely laughable to afford it any kind of protections at all.
    - bmuon 14y ago
      And that's because design, when done right, is obvious.
      - veemjeem 14y ago
        I think it's only obvious in hindsight. The massively popular Ugg boots are not seemingly "obvious design".
      - option_greek 14y ago
        Which is the reason design should not enjoy patent protection. No one says transistor when done right is obvious.
timr 14y ago
"One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity" Yeah. They do. Patented inventions become a commodity in 14-20 years, depending on the kind of patent. "Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process." Call me crazy, but I think we're seeing Apple using the process to defend their inventions, which is exactly what the system was set up to do. Patents aren't intended to ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest consumer gadgets; they're intended to provide inventors with incentives to produce non-trivial inventions, by granting them temporary monopolies on their ideas. To argue that Apple (and Microsoft, et al.) are wrong because they're artificially inflating prices on their patented products is to miss the entire point of the debate.
- martythemaniak 14y ago
  The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less. I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream. More broadly, I often see people decrying that the poor have access to LCD TVs, ACs or decent smartphones, with the point being that they should stop being so demanding. But this is exactly what technological progress looks like - innovations which are expensive and exclusive are useful demos, but they don't become world-changers until they become widespread. So yes, the patent system should ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest gadgets, and any other technology. Otherwise, it is simply stifling innnovation.
  - timr 14y ago
    "The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less." The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the verdict is consistent with the patent laws, then your objection to the case is irrelevant -- your proper complaint is with the system, not the actor. "I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream." Again, you have complaints about the patent system, and I empathize. I don't like many aspects of the system, either. But I also don't begrudge Apple for acting rationally within the rules established by the system. In this case, in particular, I believe that the patent system is being used in a legitimate way, to protect a company that has made some true marketplace innovations. It's decidedly sub-optimal that Apple has to resort to patents on rubber-band scrolling to protect something as core to their business model as "look and feel", but that's the system that we have. I don't think it's fair to make Apple a villain (and Samsung a hero) just because the laws are flawed. Said another way: don't hate the player, hate the game.
eddieplan9 14y ago
I am all for all inventions must eventually become a commodity. However, if you look at the long term instead of just getting innovation to become cheap commodities available to everybody as soon as possible, some protection should be provided to the inventor so while cool new progressive "stand on the shoulders of giants" changes can keep coming, risky groundbreaking innovations can also emerge once in a while. Without effective patent protection, everybody will resort to do safer small-step improvements instead of spending years and billions to build (and market) something vastly different from what people are familiar with. In other words, with zero patent protection, you will still see cars getting better mileage, but you won't see an electrical car. If we want to argue for patent reform, we need to focus on the true patent trolls. Apple is not a patent troll and arguing against this will push many people to the other side of patent reform debate.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  I'm all in for revolutionary changes. Unfortunately, that's not what Apple did in this case. The iPhone is outstanding design. And that is the extent of their work: with enough computing power, they made the first smartphone that didn't suck. Sooner or later, it was bound to happen.
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  Apple is not a patent troll, but patent trolling is merely one facet of patent abuse. We need to focus on patent abuse, and Apple most certainly is abusing the recent flaws in the patent system, by patenting things which do not deserve patent protection (because patent protection for these things does not benefit society at large, discourages innovation, and is contra to the original intent of the patent system). The problem, fundamentally, is the system, not Apple, but because they are benefiting from its flaws, it's very likely they will defend them. Unfortunately this will be quite hard, because Apple (along with other abusers) is also extremely, extremely, rich, and the rich tend to get their way...

MaxwellKennerly 14y ago

The patent system is supposed to encourage the commoditization of inventions by using a trade-off: if you invent something novel and useful, you can get a patent that gives you a complete monopoly for a limited amount of time, but in return you have to completely disclose how your invention was made, so that, first, others can see if the intention would be useful for them right now (and thus negotiate a license with you) and, second, once you're patent expires society can easily reach for and utilize your invention. Unfortunately, that process has been turned on its head, so that patents are routinely granted for designs, devices, and methods that are already effectively commoditized or simply don't work patent protection. The iPhone's design is undeniably visually appealing and user-friendly, but it is by no means an "invention." It is a form of user interface, something that has already been held to not be patentable, and it is a form of branding, something that is protected, but through trademark law, not patent law. I find this situation disturbing for the same reason I find it disturbing that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on research and the belt. Consumer electronics companies should not be investing the bulk of their resources playing legal games with one another over non-disruptive "inventions" like the idea to use asynchronous processing to make sure video and audio lines up. They should be using their resources making phones that are better and more alluring than one another.

jeremyarussell 14y ago
I love how people like to forget about that, software patents never carry the actual code in the patent, so I can't see how they are really divulging how everything works without the code. As it stands when a patent for software finally does expire, no one gets how it worked except for those who had already re-engineered it. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this seem a bit strange?
doktrin 14y ago
I'm glad to see someone highlight the fact that design patents are inherently illogical, and in fact run altogether counter to the purpose of the patent system. Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished. Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles and UI elements in rows of 4 are simply not inventions.
- cheald 14y ago
  To be really pedantic about it, it's arguable that they are inventions (someone had to be the first to put four rocks in a row), but it's such a blindly obvious "invention" that it's insanely laughable to afford it any kind of protections at all.
  - bmuon 14y ago
    And that's because design, when done right, is obvious.
    - veemjeem 14y ago
      I think it's only obvious in hindsight. The massively popular Ugg boots are not seemingly "obvious design".
    - option_greek 14y ago
      Which is the reason design should not enjoy patent protection. No one says transistor when done right is obvious.

timr 14y ago

"One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity" Yeah. They do. Patented inventions become a commodity in 14-20 years, depending on the kind of patent. "Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process." Call me crazy, but I think we're seeing Apple using the process to defend their inventions, which is exactly what the system was set up to do. Patents aren't intended to ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest consumer gadgets; they're intended to provide inventors with incentives to produce non-trivial inventions, by granting them temporary monopolies on their ideas. To argue that Apple (and Microsoft, et al.) are wrong because they're artificially inflating prices on their patented products is to miss the entire point of the debate.

martythemaniak 14y ago
The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less. I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream. More broadly, I often see people decrying that the poor have access to LCD TVs, ACs or decent smartphones, with the point being that they should stop being so demanding. But this is exactly what technological progress looks like - innovations which are expensive and exclusive are useful demos, but they don't become world-changers until they become widespread. So yes, the patent system should ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest gadgets, and any other technology. Otherwise, it is simply stifling innnovation.
- timr 14y ago
  "The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less." The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the verdict is consistent with the patent laws, then your objection to the case is irrelevant -- your proper complaint is with the system, not the actor. "I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream." Again, you have complaints about the patent system, and I empathize. I don't like many aspects of the system, either. But I also don't begrudge Apple for acting rationally within the rules established by the system. In this case, in particular, I believe that the patent system is being used in a legitimate way, to protect a company that has made some true marketplace innovations. It's decidedly sub-optimal that Apple has to resort to patents on rubber-band scrolling to protect something as core to their business model as "look and feel", but that's the system that we have. I don't think it's fair to make Apple a villain (and Samsung a hero) just because the laws are flawed. Said another way: don't hate the player, hate the game.

eddieplan9 14y ago

I am all for all inventions must eventually become a commodity. However, if you look at the long term instead of just getting innovation to become cheap commodities available to everybody as soon as possible, some protection should be provided to the inventor so while cool new progressive "stand on the shoulders of giants" changes can keep coming, risky groundbreaking innovations can also emerge once in a while. Without effective patent protection, everybody will resort to do safer small-step improvements instead of spending years and billions to build (and market) something vastly different from what people are familiar with. In other words, with zero patent protection, you will still see cars getting better mileage, but you won't see an electrical car. If we want to argue for patent reform, we need to focus on the true patent trolls. Apple is not a patent troll and arguing against this will push many people to the other side of patent reform debate.

rbanffy 14y ago
I'm all in for revolutionary changes. Unfortunately, that's not what Apple did in this case. The iPhone is outstanding design. And that is the extent of their work: with enough computing power, they made the first smartphone that didn't suck. Sooner or later, it was bound to happen.
snogglethorpe 14y ago
Apple is not a patent troll, but patent trolling is merely one facet of patent abuse. We need to focus on patent abuse, and Apple most certainly is abusing the recent flaws in the patent system, by patenting things which do not deserve patent protection (because patent protection for these things does not benefit society at large, discourages innovation, and is contra to the original intent of the patent system). The problem, fundamentally, is the system, not Apple, but because they are benefiting from its flaws, it's very likely they will defend them. Unfortunately this will be quite hard, because Apple (along with other abusers) is also extremely, extremely, rich, and the rich tend to get their way...