Just as a composer of music holds the copyright and collects royalties every time his music is played, the inventor of the patent should also collect the royalties every time his patent is used. Companies should not be allowed to own the patents of their employees, only have the right to license them from the patent holders.
The patents being granted are far too broad in scope. For example, Microsoft's 2009 PDA button push patent. Or some of the video compression algorithms that are basically nothing more than Chebychev approximations dating to the late 19th century. A peer review process would help weed out some of this chaff.
Yes. In fact, I believe there should be a peer review process, where the results of the peer review weigh heavily in the PTO's decision making process. This relies on a first-to-file system, of course, since some of those peers will certainly be working for the competition.
I own an iPhone, iPad, Apple server and laptop, but as a software developer, after these nonsense suites against your supplier, they are my last Apple purchases and will be moving to Samsung devices for embedded and Linux (been using Unix/Linux since 1983). Apple's Objective-C is not faster than C/C++, but like Microsoft with C# and Sun with Java, just a form of vendor lock-in without a speed increase. With the iPhone becoming so popular, will the Apple desktop survive? The server range was discontinued a few years back.
Repackaging is not patentable. Web browsers existed before. In fact, the iPod patent should not have been awarded IMO, but Apple "persuaded" the Patent Office that their packaging was unique. Yeah, sure, and for 17 or 20 years depending on when filed.
A better search for prior art would be a starter. Even a simple search through FreePatents Online would pick up things the patent attorneys choose to ignore to get their customers' dubious patents through. Remember MIPS with their unaligned access, sheer BS but a patent that was not invalidated.
Rick, excuse me but my Sony Ericsson feature phone (K750) had Opera browser installed and I had bought it in 2005! No implementing a feature better than its prior incarnations does not make you an innovator.
IF it actually does (and I tend to agree on that as I think that we evolve progressively and not revolutionally) then the whole patent system is a total bullshit. (excuse my language).
Rick, I think you could easily argue that the old Windows mobile platform had a touchscreen with internet explorer before Apple did it. Apple executed the Windows Mobile concept much better than Microsoft did. And now that others are executing better than Apple, they're crying about it.
Because the delta of 3 vs 20 is so great is not a good reason not to change it.
"NEW" technology gets the premium cost of a new idea. Then, the clones and others who can leverage/built-upon the available technology. One can sell low-cost clones long after the features are no longer innovative.
Imagine a brick were patented preventing building homes without paying royalties. The brick was new for a while and those who want the newest homes can get them of brick. But, after a reasonable time (certainly not 20 years) then bricks can be used to build bridges and roads and the public can benefit from the value of this and new things can be made from bricks.
An innovator can design/patent a better brick fetching the high sale price of the new value... repeat.
If the brick cannot be used for 20 years then we cannot get decent roads at a reasonable cost and we cannot create improved ideas based upon a brick for 20 years.
Now for the worst case... obstructive patents.
Patents often obstruct innovation and progress. A large number of companies buy/bury patents that will create a better product. They do not apply these in improvement of the product. If the idea were available in a reasonably short time then progress can occur.
If one does not apply the patent in a reasonable time (~1/2 the life of the patent is my thought) then the patent owner does not prevent use. This allows for application and further innovation based on that foundation.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.