Am I the only one
who is starting to get a bit bored with this?
Samsung has responded to Apple's California-filed patent suit with a fat bundle of its own patents, including a couple that fall under the much-discussed FRAND rules. The countersuit accuses Apple of infringing eight Samsung patents, including two which Samsung claims are "essential" to the telephony standards laid done by …
who is starting to get a bit bored with this?
no, your not the only one...
In the past i have got a fresh batch of popcorn and a large drink to sit back and watch the entertainment, but it is indeed getting a bore...
The whole patent business appears to only benefit the lawyers.
patents and copyright were supposed to protect the interests of inventors and creators after they have invested time and money in research and development. but all it does these days is to make fat & rich lawyers fatter & richer...
its a sad day when the lawyers have a bigger budget than the R&D and marketing departments !!
Totally agree, with apple and its dubious patents on design (who would grant them, and what idiot judge thinks the Galaxy tablet could be mistaken for an ipad)
Then samsung, who is using FRAND patents...
Personally I don't like iphones, I think iPads are OK for kids, but their macbook airs are quite nice..
on the other hand, I love the SGS & SGS2, and their tvs are damn good...
Who wins? who cares as long as samsung and apple keep making products for consumers to buy... in the end it will only be licensing or slight changes in design that will happen...
we learn today is now employed by Oracle as well as Microsoft (see GROKLAW) so is it any wonder he is being gleeful over anything against Android?
Not sure why you got a downvote for that. Here's the link from Groklaw about it anyway...
Now is there any chance that we'll stop getting articles about what Mr Mueller says since he seems to be spouting biased crap?
Guess I'll be downvoted for this too :-)
On the other hand, lots of places — such as El Reg — seem to consider it worth reporting without being particularly invested in either side, so you shouldn't just write off the factual content of the story on account of the person that broke it.
My god, I what does someone have to do around here to have no credibility?
The only good outcome that could result from this fiasco would be a general acceptance that far too many trivial and bad patents are allowed (many of which would fall foul of prior art provisions in the eyes of anyone except a patent lawyer).
Patents should protect truely innovative and creative works for the benefits of the innovators and creators, not act as restraint of trade instruments to prevent competitors from including obvious and necessary features.
To be honest, I am slightly surprised that no one has patented the use of fingers on touch-screen devices, thus forcing the development of nose and tongue controlled devices to prevent infringement.
"only good outcome... general acceptance that far too many trivial and bad patents areallowed" - yes, but when have judges ever said 'such and such is a bad law, so I'm gonna ignore it'....
But fully agree - there is 'an inventive step, non-obvious to someone familiar with the art' in the UK at least... (I thought) so that would rule out 90%...
As for Frand - that was supposed to be for everyone in at the beginning taking part in standards doing the real reseach work. Its not so fair or resonable if new guys come in and get access to those patents at the same terms as the originators. Especially if all they can come up with is cutting a bit more off the SIM card.
Not sure about that, I have a feeling there was something about using several fingers.
Granting patents for "what so ever" remind me of indulgences granted by the Catholic Church some time ago.
> there is 'an inventive step, non-obvious to someone familiar with the art' in the UK
The US is *beginning* to get its act together in that department.
If you look at the patents Oracle went to trial against Google with, they all fall into the "you patented *what*?" category. And the USPTO has now rejected almost all of them, with the others now far more narrowly focussed (so that they will probably not trouble any else in the future).
But the problem is that these duff patents were issued in the first place. That means there's going to be a trial. And under the US court system, just being a defendant can be fatally expensive, even if you win the case.
Thus the patent troll business.
Given what the Supreme Court did a few weeks back in the Myriad case, we *might* have turned the corner...
Well, more or less.
Apple is being sued for using a touchscreen for more than pressing virtual buttons:
"As for Frand - that was supposed to be for everyone in at the beginning taking part in standards doing the real reseach work. Its not so fair or resonable if new guys come in and get access to those patents at the same terms as the originators"
That's not what FRAND is for at all, it's to encourage the take-up of the standard in the first place and prevent artificial barriers to entry.
Or do you really think that only one company researches each piece of technology that goes into a standard?
The whole point of standards are to lower the barriers and costs of entry into a market and prevent constant re-inventing of the wheel.
I understand that you despise Apple, but you need some perspective.
Pot, kettle &c.
Which equally means their claims may turn out to be upheld, also.
It ain't done till it's done
If FRAND patent owners are being mean surely it is reasonable to expect a company to take them to court first rather than just use their patent and then complain that the FRAND patent holder isn't being fair.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017