4 ms·

> These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified S

> These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection. Wasn't "Slide to Unlock" invalidated in the process against HTC?

w1ntermute 14y ago
And didn't Google devise a workaround for Unified Search in a week or so?
- lelibertaire 14y ago
  I was under the impression that the patch removed universal search altogether.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    That was a temporary stopgap to circumvent the injunction on sales until they came up with a permanent solution.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  That's the thing: It doesn't really matter. Take any given software patent and throw a research team at it, chances are you'll find invalidating prior art. Take any given software patent and give it to a CS major, chances are you'll have a work-around inside of a few days. But that's not the problem. The problem is that you never know which patents will be asserted against you, and by that point the horse is out of the barn. You've now got to spend millions of dollars on lawyers for years to invalidate their improvidently granted patents. And the work-around doesn't do much good when they're asking for damages for past infringement on the millions of devices you've already shipped or suddenly having your trucks stopped at the border (and interrupting your business and straining your relationships with retailers) during the period before you can retool your supply chain to incorporate the work-around. Especially when the second you release a new product with a new set of work-arounds, they come at you with a new set of patents. Software patents have got to go.
  - chii 14y ago
    I think there is a middle ground - patents, if done "properly" is useful. Perhaps, firstly, you have to have a more vigorous application process that is peer reviewed (where peers are basically your competitors!). Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. The valuation of the patent determines the damage payment. This combination means that you can't just keep a patent indefinitely, waiting for someone to infringe and then extract money from them. Peer review means that you can't patent something that will stop your competitors from continusing business. Real innovation will get thru because your peers will have no case of prior art, but "bad" patents won't get thru as your competitors will search hard for prior art to stop you (aka, incentives are aligned amongst the parties).
    - cageface 14y ago
      Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. I'd rather just see software patents thrown out entirely but I think this is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen for fixing the current system. If that tax were rolled back into funding real scrutiny of incoming patents the whole system might not be the cancer it's become now.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      Clever. Especially if you charge some of that tax up front and use that to put up a bounty for invalidating the patent.
    - dodo53 14y ago
      I love this idea (there would have to be careful thinking around patent resell/value restating to avoid sneaky shell company tricks). It means you don't have the problems of special-casing software (no software patents) or vice versa special-casing like big pharma stuff (only patents on drugs - which most people seem to think is a needed case for patents) - big pharma would be much happier to claim up front that drug patent is worth millions on pay tax on that. It also means that you'd get lots of press around big stated-value (and so big potential claim) patents, so people in the same industry would know which patents to avoid infringing, hopefully much reducing risk of accidental infringement.
huxley 14y ago
The HTC case was in the UK: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232
- fpgeek 14y ago
  It was also tossed out in the Netherlands (Apple's attempt at a pre-holiday ban of the Galaxy S II and other Samsung products last year). Sadly, these results mean almost nothing in the US.

w1ntermute 14y ago

And didn't Google devise a workaround for Unified Search in a week or so?

lelibertaire 14y ago
I was under the impression that the patch removed universal search altogether.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  That was a temporary stopgap to circumvent the injunction on sales until they came up with a permanent solution.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
That's the thing: It doesn't really matter. Take any given software patent and throw a research team at it, chances are you'll find invalidating prior art. Take any given software patent and give it to a CS major, chances are you'll have a work-around inside of a few days. But that's not the problem. The problem is that you never know which patents will be asserted against you, and by that point the horse is out of the barn. You've now got to spend millions of dollars on lawyers for years to invalidate their improvidently granted patents. And the work-around doesn't do much good when they're asking for damages for past infringement on the millions of devices you've already shipped or suddenly having your trucks stopped at the border (and interrupting your business and straining your relationships with retailers) during the period before you can retool your supply chain to incorporate the work-around. Especially when the second you release a new product with a new set of work-arounds, they come at you with a new set of patents. Software patents have got to go.
- chii 14y ago
  I think there is a middle ground - patents, if done "properly" is useful. Perhaps, firstly, you have to have a more vigorous application process that is peer reviewed (where peers are basically your competitors!). Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. The valuation of the patent determines the damage payment. This combination means that you can't just keep a patent indefinitely, waiting for someone to infringe and then extract money from them. Peer review means that you can't patent something that will stop your competitors from continusing business. Real innovation will get thru because your peers will have no case of prior art, but "bad" patents won't get thru as your competitors will search hard for prior art to stop you (aka, incentives are aligned amongst the parties).
  - cageface 14y ago
    Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. I'd rather just see software patents thrown out entirely but I think this is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen for fixing the current system. If that tax were rolled back into funding real scrutiny of incoming patents the whole system might not be the cancer it's become now.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    Clever. Especially if you charge some of that tax up front and use that to put up a bounty for invalidating the patent.
  - dodo53 14y ago
    I love this idea (there would have to be careful thinking around patent resell/value restating to avoid sneaky shell company tricks). It means you don't have the problems of special-casing software (no software patents) or vice versa special-casing like big pharma stuff (only patents on drugs - which most people seem to think is a needed case for patents) - big pharma would be much happier to claim up front that drug patent is worth millions on pay tax on that. It also means that you'd get lots of press around big stated-value (and so big potential claim) patents, so people in the same industry would know which patents to avoid infringing, hopefully much reducing risk of accidental infringement.

huxley 14y ago

The HTC case was in the UK: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232

fpgeek 14y ago
It was also tossed out in the Netherlands (Apple's attempt at a pre-holiday ban of the Galaxy S II and other Samsung products last year). Sadly, these results mean almost nothing in the US.