Frenemies for life ... Apple vs Samsung

[Valerion]

Do you believe that slavishly copying your competitors is innovative? I won't say I agree with the lawsuits, but the definition of innovation is doing something that nobody has done before. If you're being sued for it, it means there's a chance you aren't being highly innovative.

No, but there are patents that are absolutely crap. The USPTO approved patents that were obviously not innovative. It's not automatically innovative, just because there's a patent issued for the item.

Examples:

One-click ordering
Electronic shopping cart
The wheel (Aus)
Dereferencing pointers
Having 4 icons in a row on the screen

Sun got into deep trouble because their developers didn't patent the software they wrote. Got sued for it by people that wrote the same software later, but then subsequently patented it. And they lost - big time. The engineers then went and made a game of it - who can come up with the silliest patents. Just to make the patent attorneys at Sun happy. These all got patented, and the results of this was used by Oracle to sue Google. Google was at the time accused of "slavishly copying" too.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/why-software-patents-are-a-joke-literally/2039

This is the same system you want me to have respect for? No thank you.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Silly_patents

 

[cerebus]

Lol ok I concede that point, it is completely abused

 

[Valerion]

Lol ok I concede that point, it is completely abused

Change the patent system so that they are really awarding patents for true innovation, and I will support it. Then I too will agree with "slavishly copying" and "beeeelions in damage awards". Until then - don't expect me to pay much attention to how much company A is "slavishly copying" company B's products.

Each and every patent should be examined at the time of the suit for validity. Unfortunately, this usually doesn't happen in jury trials. Once company are seen as the hero and one as the villain, and the damages go overwhelmingly to the hero. Not depending on who has the better products, or who did it first, or how similar they are, but about how well the lawyers can outmanoeuvre one another in a courtroom. Hire better lawyers? Win the case. Get better media coverage? Win the case. Technical merits seems to have nothing to do with it any more. And I don't like popularity contests.

Pure software should not be patentable simply because it is software. What should be patentable is ideas. That can then be implemented via software. Of course, you will have to show that the idea itself is innovative, and by innovative, I mean "A skilled person in the field would NOT have thought of that if given the same restrictions". Also, it should not be so broad that no other software in the same field can ever be written. Then yes, it would deserve a patent.

Putting icons in rows on a screen - not innovative. Making a software phone that duplicates a landline phone? Not innovative. Actually - come to think of it - I can't think of a software idea that is not completely obvious to a person skilled in the art of writing software. Perhaps it is just me.

</rant off>

 

[icyrus]

Change the patent system so that they are really awarding patents for true innovation, and I will support it.

So close. The change we need in the patent system is the complete removal of it.

 

[Valerion]

So close. The change we need in the patent system is the complete removal of it.

In the US it will not happen. The concept of patents and copyright is written into the US constitution. I do believe that the laws that govern the interpretation thereof can be written better though. Patents should be hard to get, not routinely assigned just because you wrote a nice essay on it.

The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;