Breaking News
Blog

Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case

NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
mr88cet
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
mr88cet   8/20/2012 6:47:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Not to diminish the valid points you're raising here, but does the Apple-Samsung case really have much to do with Engineering? I think these are mostly, if not entirely, Design Patents rather than Utility Patents, right?

sethmilman
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
sethmilman   8/20/2012 7:15:23 PM
NO RATINGS
I am a patent attorney and experienced engineer. I don't understand how the patent system hurts the macro-level economy, as stated by pcsalex. At its best, the patent system promotes innovation. It encourages inventors to innovate by offering them a time-limited monopoly on their invention. In return, the inventor must make the invention public. This often creates a financial incentive for the inventor to make his or her technology public, so that the inventor can reap financial benefit from his or her invention and so that the invention can be used by anyone after the patent term expires. Because of this, the U.S. Patent Office has become one of the largest and most comprehensive organized libraries for freely-available technology. At its worst, the patent system hampers innovation by granting patents on so-called frivolous inventions. This can overcrowd a particular industry with lots of little technology monopolies so that no one can innovate without infringing someone else's patent. This tends to happen in industries where there are a lot of players and heavy competition - like the cell phone industry. For most industries the patent system operates somewhere in the middle, but generally provides a macro-economic benefit. Additionally, patents can be extremely beneficial to small companies, especially to start-ups that need to carve a technological niche and attract investment. (But you usually don't hear about these stories in the news). So I am confused by the statement that the patent system hurts the macro-level economy and serves only individual companies.

sethmilman
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
sethmilman   8/20/2012 7:22:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Mr88cet: That's correct. The main issue in the Apple-Samsung case seems to be design patents - protection on industrial design. A lot of articles analyzing the case criticize design patents because they are easy to get and the innovation they protect is frivolous, and because the legal protections they create are overly strong.

Stanley_
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
Stanley_   8/20/2012 7:25:56 PM
NO RATINGS
Apple stock is record high now due to the rumor of ipad mini that has 7 inch. If this is true, then is it also a copy of other android devices that has similar "look and feel"? I see why ipad mini news is exciting, but at the same time, I wonder how Samsung and other 7inch tablet maker would react...

mr88cet
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
mr88cet   8/20/2012 7:56:16 PM
NO RATINGS
Chanj, I *think* the patents involved primarily are "Design Patents" rather than "Utility Patents." Loosely speaking, "Design Patents" cover visual shapes, to prevent, hypothetically, New Balance from creating a shoe that looks exactly like a Nike shoe. So Design Patents don't usually have much to do with engineering.

casner
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
casner   8/20/2012 8:05:05 PM
NO RATINGS
I was using Palm products with web browsing on a fine screen before the iPhone ever came out.

DONALD.RUSS
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
DONALD.RUSS   8/20/2012 8:06:06 PM
NO RATINGS
As the iPhone was coming out I purchased my second smart phone, the AT&T Tilt made by HTC. It had a full web browsers (I used Opera until they jumped ship to Apple), the office suite, SD card, media player and thousands of apps as well as some things that Apple has yet to implement. I had to put up with the iSheep proclaiming how Jobs had invented the smart phone and it was perfect. Now I have to watch as Apple claims to have invented rounded corners and oval slotted speakers that were in my pocket years before. A big problem is that we are allowing people to patent the obvious. Prior art. Boxes. The Altoids company should litigate the ass off of Apple for stealing its tin box shape. I think that there should be a multi-level screening process to design patents and the burden of proof should be on the applicant. Show the iPhone housing to the first level and the reply should be "Prior art, rejected" and then Apple would have to show an appeals panel how this shape was unique to the function of the product and that it wasn't just another case. Patents should be unique and hard to get. Apple should be careful who it sues because there are some critical utility patents that they have infringed on that could be taken out and used against them. Look at Google and its acquisition of Motorola Wireless. I believe that was a tactical move to say to Apple “Go ahead, we dare you”.

giuann
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
giuann   8/20/2012 8:52:32 PM
NO RATINGS
An English court as condemned apple on the same patent. My old palm was working fine with the internet, also the screen was the top of the line for those times. How may times have you looked to a Hunday side way and thought it was a BMW. I thing Hunday was the originator of the style. Apple did not invent the computer, it not invented the GUI, it not invented the mouse and did not invent the cell phone. Patent law were written by big boy lobbyists so they do not defend the little guy against the powerful.

dave148
User Rank
Rookie
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
dave148   8/20/2012 8:55:23 PM
NO RATINGS
DONALD.RUSS is correct, "A big problem is that we are allowing people to patent the obvious." The solution is not to further complicate the USPTO, but instead realize it's limitations and streamline it. Patent examiners can't be expected to assess obviousness, so this is best left for litigation, if a claimed infringement ever gets that far. The best job for the USPTO at this point is just to be a recording facility. The bottom line is that the patent system was meant to keep one entity from stealing the intellectual property from another, but it has turned in to some sort of game show where the first to claim a certain arrangement of objects wins the prize. There are good reasons why history is filled with cases where independent entities have come up with an idea at the same time, and I don't see a reason the patent system should accuse one of these two entities of stealing. With the USPTO, the government has become a barrier to entry to the market for innocent small companies in the name of some "invention" that is really some arrangement that has not been published before, or a "design" that has nothing radically new about it.

moelar
User Rank
Manager
re: Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
moelar   8/20/2012 9:04:10 PM
NO RATINGS
"The patent system is stuck in old, arcane language. It’s deluged by a daily tsumani of applications and old patents, many of which were granted by examiners who lacked the expertise, time, systems—and budget--to conduct thorough reviews." How would you know? Have you ever filed and prosecuted a patent appln? Have you ever invented anything? All this talk of bad patents is but a red herring fabricated by a handful of large tech firms as a diversion away from the real issue...that they have no valid defense against charges they are using other parties' technologies without permission. It’s not about reforming the system. It’s about legalizing theft! The objective of these large firms is not to fix the patent system, but to destroy it or pervert it so only they may obtain and defend patents; to make it a sport of kings. Patents are a threat against their market dominance. They would rather use their size alone to secure their market position. Patents of others, especially small entities, jeopardize that. For example, the proposed change to eliminate the use of injunctions would only further encourage blatant infringement. Any large company would merely force you to make them take a license. They would have little to lose. Everything would be litigated to death -if a small entity can come up with the cash to pursue. That's what these large multinationals are betting against. Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a different and informed view on the patent system. http://docs.piausa.org/

<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
kfield
 
antedeluvian
 
kfield
 
Max The Magnificent
 
Max The Magnificent
 
Max The Magnificent
 
elizabethsimon
 
antedeluvian
 
rick merritt
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week