The IT industry’s ongoing battle to outlaw itself with intricately cross-linked patent-driven bans on device sales continues, with Google-owned Motorola Mobility winning an International Trade Commission investigation into Apple over yet more infringement. Back in August, the Chocolate Moto asked the ITC for the probe. At the …
Couldn't happen to a nicer buch...
... but I still believe that software patents are bad for everybody except patent lawyers. And several of these patents seem to have lots of previous art.
Some did a latex-glowed inspection, pulled out patents
Well, we know this is not about protecting revenue streams of "valuable intellectual property."
"The IT industry’s ongoing battle to outlaw itself"
Yep, Prisoner's Dilemma. With a secondary matrix in which lawyers win on the diagonal but never lose.
Steve may have decided to go thermonuclear but clearly forgot that nobody wins a thermonuclear war. Just end up with survivors eaking out an existance in a radioactive wasteland.
Kinda like fallout except the mutant monsters eating the survivors are actually lawyers
That's a low blow, there's no need to go around insulting mutant monsters like that.
I particularly liked this bit in a different write up:
In addition to alleging infringement, Motorola says banning all Macs and most iOS devices won't have much impact on US consumers. "With so many participants in the highly competitive Wireless communication, portable music, and computer market, it is unlikely that consumers would experience much of an impact if the requested exclusion orders were obtained," Motorola wrote. "Even if the exclusion order caused an increase in the price of wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof—an unlikely event—a price increase alone is insufficient to warrant preclusion of a remedial order."
Apple have finally agreed to sit in the same room as Google to talk about patents.
Only cos they can see they're plainly in the wrong even to the most patriotic of juries
those look like proper technical patents not just ones saying how a window should bounce and the like so are probably too complicated for the ITC to figure out if they have a case or not.
well the patent system in the US is going to change starting the 16th of March 2013. The 3 important changes are going to be:
- Patent to be issued to the actual inventor (this should take care of patent trolls). "The new proceeding will ensure that a person will not be able to obtain a patent for an invention that he or she did not actually invent. If a true inventor is not the first to file, the true inventor may challenge the first applicant’s right to a patent by demonstrating that the first application is claiming an invention derived from the true inventor" (USPTO 12-56)
- Obviousness of the patent will be checked (Finally!)
- the removal of :prior public use or sale be "in this country” (Finally! They will allow claims of prior art from other countries to be considered!)
USPTO Press Release 12-56, http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-56.jsp
not sure these'll have much effect
a) issuing to inventor only. Don't they do that already? Most contracts of employment state that IPR generated is assigned to the company issuing the contract. It also doesn't state that patents can't be bought/sold, so nothing to stop accumulation of war chests of patents.
b) obviousness is already a test - just not rigorously applied. Does this "change" mean they'll fund better searches?
c) removal of "in this country" is somewhat spurious for products that are sold globally. Will this now mean that patents will only get filed in the cheapest country to host a patent DB to get initial protection before filing in the US (something that sortof happens already as Korea and another country have different patent protections that allows a patent to be filed (but not granted) before an attempt is made to insert the IPR into standards - or something like that)
I do feel they could possibly get to a situation where initially a patent is not thoroughly tested for 'obviousness' and that this is stated as such in the patent. Anyone who disagree''s with the obviousness of a patent should be able to say to the patent office "I believe this patent is obvious and should not have been granted" and in that situation the patent office should investigate thoroughly. That way they would only have to do in depth investigation of disputed patents rather than a limited depth on all patents.
Something is at least happening in the patent reform world. This article is signs of a good step:
Patent system changes
well the patent system in the US is going to change starting the 16th of March 2013. The 3 important changes are going to be...
You skipped a big one: the US will retire the last first-to-invent patent system in the world, and join everyone else in using a first-to-file.
That means the first person to file a patent application for a given invention will have a prima facie right to the patent. Someone else can challenge that, claiming they conceived of the invention first and have been working to put it into practice (what the patent system calls "reduction"), and they may win ownership of the patent if they can convince the courts. But with first-to-file the USPTO starts from the assumption that the first filer is indeed the inventor.
The main effect, as I understand it (IANAL), is to makie it easier to identify prior art (because simply conceiving of an invention no longer gives you the right to patent it - you have to show reduction). In practice it should clarify some kinds of patent challenges and make the system a bit more predictable, as well as aligning the US with the rest of the world in this regard.
Anyone who disagree''s [sic] with the obviousness of a patent should be able to say to the patent office "I believe this patent is obvious and should not have been granted" and in that situation the patent office should investigate thoroughly.
What patent wouldn't see such a challenge? You've set the bar so low that it's nearly inevitable that an application would be challenged and the PTO would then (under your rule) be obliged to "investigate thoroughly". You've put all the burden on the patent applicant and the PTO, and while "thoroughly" is impossibly vague, under any reasonable definition this would be infeasibly costly and would delay patent processing past the point of usefulness.
I had always said well before Google bought Motorola that Apple and Microsoft would be best leaving them well alone as they might come out on the wrong side of a patent battle with them.
They practically invented the mobile phone so hold a lot of patents in this area.
Forward this to Mr Cook
1) You got what you wished for.. WAR.. USUALLY casualties on BOTH sides( YOU end up GLOWING TOO!!! )
2) The OUTCOME is NEVER guaranteed... ie VietNam.... Which proved, the BEST funded CAN loose ( BADLY )
3) KARMA...... It IS reciprocal.... REMEMBER Apple screwed over XEROX.... BADLY... Sr Jobs admitted to doing in XEROX... SOooo it is only fair...
Re: Forward this to Mr Cook
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of BLOCK CAPITALS!
Content playback across different devices
Will this one affect the Kindle's Whispersync?
Why don't apple innovate instead of just copying other people's stuff?
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64
- Apple 'fesses up: Rejected from the App Store, dev? THIS is why