So did the judge actually say...
Now kids, just go away and grow up OK.
Friday saw two new rulings in the ongoing Apple v Samsung patent squabble in Germany. Slide to unlock, iPhone screengrab Judge Andreas Voss handed down one ruling in Samsung's favour (kicking out a claim by Apple over the slide-to-unlock patent) and one in Apple's favour (quashing a claim by Samsung that the iPhone had …
"FOSS Patents is always a bit dubious when away from purely factual reporting; it's as well to remember that Florian Mueller is on the Microsoft payroll."
Would you please post links that support your assertion that Florian Mueller is on the Microsoft payroll, and, more importantly, and cite some of his "factually dubious" reporting.
Uhh - Florian himself in his blog. From the wikipedia entry for him:
In October 2011 Müller announced on his blog that Microsoft had commissioned him to conduct a study on patents.
... and you can follow the link to his blog. I'd say this puts him on the Microsoft payroll -- at least for the duration of their commission.
It still beggars belief that one can even patent 'slide to unlock'. Why has that not been utterly obliterated by the deluge of prior art (sliding locks on gates, the binding on the diary, the stall on the latrine....) I can only put down to justices that are utterly out of their depth.
And while on a related subject, Apple's "distinctive look". Really? Last I heard, that came about in the 1930s. It was called "international style" architecture, characterized by simple, clean lines, often with extensive use of metal and glass.
Guess it's like they say, everything old is new again...
>>It still beggars belief that one can even patent 'slide to unlock'
No, because of the "with a computer" thing. Anything obvious plus "with a computer" means you can get a patent on it. Propped a door open with a computer? Have a patent. Found a way of picking your nose with a computer? Patent it. Worked out how to unlock something with a computer? The patent office is just waiting for you.
No you can't. Software patents are not permitted in the EU except in the narrow circumstance of the software being an integral part of the machine (software control of a carburettor for example or 3G wireless transmission hardware).
Since software can ONLY run on a computer your argument leads to the conclusion that all software is patentable which it manifestly is not. Slide-to-lock (or any other trick) is not an integral part of the hardware as the hardware will function perfectly well without it. I don't read german so I'm not able to read the ruling but I'd bet it was tossed out for exactly the reason that slide-to-lock is just a software tool and locking a computer can be achieved by any of a number of other software operations.
What about his claims Google owes Oracle "billions" of dollars in the current Java patent case? Currently, most of the patents have been ruled invalid and the Oracle expert in coming up with the damages has had his report thrown away twice by the judge (and is on attempt number 3). Even the judge has said questioned Oracle's strategy by stating : "Given that the examiners have issued final rejections on patents ’720, ’702, ’476, and ’205, and Oracle has only withdrawn the ’476 patent [... snip .. ] would it be better to postpone trial until after final decisions by the PTO on administrative appeal?"
Paris, because I believe she knows more about patent law than Florian.
Er......we are - as customers and as taxpayers. That's the way it works. BigCorp's directorati have their fun and we (by one means or another) pick up the bill. Marie Lloyd expressed it thus:
"It's the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the blame,
It's the same the whole world over, ain't it all a bloomin' shame."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019