3 ms·

I'm not the person you responded to, but I did read the article. The article kind of highlights the OP's point IMO. eg. (from the article): "Bose alleges that

I'm not the person you responded to, but I did read the article. The article kind of highlights the OP's point IMO. eg. (from the article): "Bose alleges that Beats has infringed on 50 years’ worth of research, development and engineering of noise cancelling tech" Well, the whole point of patents is supposed to be to publish the implementation details of inventions so that technology is available for all (the public commons) to use freely after the initial (14/17/20 year -- depending upon what year the patent was issued) patent period is up. This whole concept of incrementally improving a technology with amendment patents to keep the protection going virtually indefinitely is a very modern concept, and one that the "forefathers" who wrote patents into the Constitution would have been dead set against. Far be it from me to defend Beats or Apple since they are both IP-abusive companies themselves, but I'm not going to defend Bose either; the patent system and the lawsuit industry that has exploded around it in the past decade is completely out of control.

wfjackson 12y ago
If the technology is covered solely by expired patents, I doubt any judge would call that infringement. Is there even a concept of amending a patent and getting it extended as a result without filing for a new patent?
- neltnerb 12y ago
  Yes, but it's not so bad as to get you 50 years of protection. It sounds to me like they're accused of infringing on specific fairly recent patents relating to enhancements to noise-reduction techniques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application Bose has certainly been doing a lot of R&D for 50 years, I think the point of that statement is to make clear that they are not a patent troll, not to suggest that they're trying to hold Beats liable for 50 year old inventions. In fact, if Bose had come up with the ideas 50 years ago being claimed in recent patents, their own earlier patent would be prior art against filing a recent patent.
diminoten 12y ago
The whole purpose is to spur innovation, not allow for blatant copying. The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied. And please, for the sake of intelligent discourse, don't say "the forefathers would have". It's so alarmingly meaningless and just strikes the conversation with a weird cultish vibe.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied. Have you heard of derivative works? Are you aware of how derivative works have contributed to innovation throughout the course of human civilization?
  - wtallis 12y ago
    What's your point here? That all derivative works are of equal value regardless of where they fall on the copying—innovation spectrum?
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  The "forefathers" in the US weren't mystical, but real people (like Thomas Jefferson) who wrote real documents describing their concern with the potential negative impact of patent law abuse due to the harm monopolies cause. People who, while they eventually accepted the idea of patents as being positive if highly restrained, were vocally outspoken against many of the ways patent law could potentially be twisted (as it now has become at the hands of the modern corporation and IP law firms). See, for example: http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html

wfjackson 12y ago

If the technology is covered solely by expired patents, I doubt any judge would call that infringement. Is there even a concept of amending a patent and getting it extended as a result without filing for a new patent?

neltnerb 12y ago
Yes, but it's not so bad as to get you 50 years of protection. It sounds to me like they're accused of infringing on specific fairly recent patents relating to enhancements to noise-reduction techniques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application Bose has certainly been doing a lot of R&D for 50 years, I think the point of that statement is to make clear that they are not a patent troll, not to suggest that they're trying to hold Beats liable for 50 year old inventions. In fact, if Bose had come up with the ideas 50 years ago being claimed in recent patents, their own earlier patent would be prior art against filing a recent patent.

diminoten 12y ago

The whole purpose is to spur innovation, not allow for blatant copying. The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied. And please, for the sake of intelligent discourse, don't say "the forefathers would have". It's so alarmingly meaningless and just strikes the conversation with a weird cultish vibe.

briantakita 12y ago
> The point in contention is whether or not Beats innovated, or just copied. Have you heard of derivative works? Are you aware of how derivative works have contributed to innovation throughout the course of human civilization?
- wtallis 12y ago
  What's your point here? That all derivative works are of equal value regardless of where they fall on the copying—innovation spectrum?
georgemcbay 12y ago
The "forefathers" in the US weren't mystical, but real people (like Thomas Jefferson) who wrote real documents describing their concern with the potential negative impact of patent law abuse due to the harm monopolies cause. People who, while they eventually accepted the idea of patents as being positive if highly restrained, were vocally outspoken against many of the ways patent law could potentially be twisted (as it now has become at the hands of the modern corporation and IP law firms). See, for example: http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html