The rules on obtaining a patent might be BS, but the patent its self is just as "valid" as Amazon's 1 click ordering. Neither should have been allowed in the first place, but since the courts have decided that software patents are fair, you have to take the good with the bad.
So basically, Apple fully supports software patents so long as it benefits them. When another company wants money for a BS patent, it's a travesty. You gotta love the way business works.
Hardly. Apple isn't claiming the patents are invalid or that software patents in general are invalid - they're simply claiming that Lodsys is trying to get iOS app developers to pay for something that Apple has already bought (and been given rights to license to the iOS developers).
You seem to believe Lodsys patents are as unavoidable as the taxes you pay. That's a funny idea.
They are not. Apple could have taken Lodsys to court for their patents were, in fact, quite feeble.
Now, thanks in part to Apple, Lodsys has enough money to litigate. The only way to crush a troll is if everyone refuses to pay extortion for worthless patents. Without a source of easy money, the troll dies.
Apple’s lawyers seem to believe that licensing those patents is unavoidable or at the very least that not licensing would cost more than licensing them.
You might disagree with that interpretation of the law but you should never claim that it’s an endorsement of software patents.
I do not know Apple’s stance on software patents but I simply cannot see how Apple’s actions in this case can be interpreted as revealing Apple’s stance on software patents in any way.
I do not disagree that crushing Lodsys forever would have cost more than enabling it by paying their racket. OTOH, it will cost more to the market as whole not having crushed Lodsys when it was easy and, by helping it grow, Apple has done a disservice to us all.
And yes. They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?
> They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?
Apple is a corporation. That is exactly how corporations behave: they do not take a stand unless they see material benefit in doing so. If you want to claim that something is revealing about Apple's view of patents, perhaps you should consider the number of patents Apple has.
Also, an analogy: if someone mugs me and I hand over my wallet, that does not mean that I'm endorsing the process of mugging. It means that I've decided that the known cost of complying (the contents of my wallet) is less than the potential cost of any injuries I might sustain in the process of fighting back.
Why wouldn't they support software patents? The dispute here isn't some silly ideological pissing contest about whether software patents are valid or not. This is Apple saying they bought these licenses to be used in the App store and the same patent can't then be applied to their own customers.
What irony? Apple licenses thousands of patents in both directions. As does Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and anyone other major player in the tech industry.
Apple has a long history of supporting patents. In fact in a keynote that Jobs gave a few years back one of his lines was something like, "And we've patented this up and down" which was followed by loud cheers. Apple is a very strong believer of HW and SW patents.
He said that when announcing the iPhone because Apple failed to properly patent the iPod when it was first released, and subsequently got tied up in a lot of litigation and licensing fees when other companies started trolling them. If anything, Apple hates the patent system, but is forced to play the game.
A lot of people believe Apple used its patents, for example, to block Android from getting certain features. There's also speculation that MS spent a lot of time dealing with legal issues before WP7 -- which is why WP7 has different design decisions in so many places Apple has patents -- and one reason it was so late after WM6.1.
It's speculation, but it sounds like Apple may have used its patents as a way to stop competition on other carriers. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but it's legal.
And note that having patents doesn't protect you against trolls. Trolls don't care as they usually don't have product. Patents are only defensive against other actual product companies.
I haven't read anything about Apple proactively blocking other companies, but it's believable that post-iPhone Apple is less shy about pushing the competition around a little. I know they did protect their multitouch gesture patents, which is why Android couldn't have pinch to zoom for a while.
Regarding the accuracy of my comment, see http://www.macworld.com/article/46460/2005/08/ipodpatent.htm... for a quick summary of how Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Apple ended up settling for $100 million. This is an actual product company.
The article that you linked to, while interesting, is purely opinion. Its argument hinges on the assumption that exclusivity with AT&T was a bad business deal for Apple, which I would strongly disagree with. I didn't like the lock-in as a consumer, but the deal was excellent for Apple because it gave them control over the carrier in a way other phone manufacturers had only dreamed of until that point.
This article seems to say that MS patented this BEFORE Apple did:
"Last month the United States Patent and Trademark office denied Apple a patent for some user interface elements of the popular iPod MP3 player, citing a patent submitted by Microsoft developer John Platt five months BEFORE Apple’s claim."
Whereas you say Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Obviously MS couldn't patent something used in a product months after release (and if they did it would be overthrown in court).
Yes, that was my point. Microsoft patented aspects of the iPod BEFORE Apple did, but AFTER the introduction of the iPod. Should it have been allowed? Probably not. I can't find any articles about the settlement, so Apple may have managed to appeal and get it overthrown eventually. I don't remember. Regardless, the reason patenting the crap out of the iPhone was a big deal was that Apple was basically showing it had learned from past mistakes.
> A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.
Apple couldn't file for a patent after it released the iPod. You have to do it before public disclosure. And of course MS couldn't have gotten the patent if Apple had released the iPod.
To bring in the Groklaw quote mentioned:
"The rejected Apple application is not exactly a critical one. It also doesn't appear that the Microsoft patent covers the subject matter of the Apple application, rather it was used as an example to deny the Apple application because it isn't an original idea.
Platt's application covers a way to automatically generate playlists from songs similar to one or more song manually chosen by the user. As an example of usage, Platt described a portable music player that uses a menu hierarchy for navigation. The menus aren't really the invention though.
The Apple application, on the other hand, is all about hierarchical menus. Yes, seriously, that's what they were trying to patent, the idea of using a tree of menus to operate a portable music player. Can you believe it? (I knew you could.) I'd chalk this rejection up to an example of the USPTO doing some good.
The rejected Apple application is 10/282,861 - Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player
The Platt application is 10/158,674 - Auto playlist generation with multiple seed songs"
This makes a LOT more sense. The Apple patent was rejected because it wasn't an invention. And the MS patent went through because it was actually patenting something that wasn't in the iPod.
I don't think I've ever seen Apple gloat about software patents. They mostly talk about hardware patents, things like the MagSafe connector, which is a really good invention and they deserve to keep the credit for inventing it.
Their software patents too are always very specialized, with no real vague areas that can be used for patent trolling. Not that they need to make a habit of patent trolling when they can print money with their sales anyway.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but really anyone who wants to get into this game has to play by the rules.
Even a tiny startup company full of web 2.0 rockstars who hate software patents will be advised to patent as much as they can, because if they don't, some other count will come along and patent their stuff from under them and force THEM to pay.
Pretty much nobody likes the software patent system except for software patent trolls, and as such we have to deal with it. Software patents won't go away until bad people go away.
I can't say anything to tablets with flash just yet, but it works fantastically on my G2. Every site I've ever tried works perfectly, and quickly, even with the g2 having a previous gen CPU (single core). I can't imagine why it would not work on a tablet as well as it does on my phone.
I read the article, and it's kind of annoying that the OP makes this judgement based off of facebook games. It doesn't sound like he made much effort at all. It sounds more like that he's trying to reinforce or convince himself that the lack of flash on ipad isn't a shortcoming. I guess this goes well with the Apple religion articles I've seen lately.
Now that many high quality grow lights sport LED bulbs and do not consume nearly as much power or put out a lot of heat, how will the gestapo decide who to raid? I guess they can always knock randomly and claim they hear a noise on the other side of the door...
They can try and work out who purchased multiple top-end graphic cards. Maybe raid Amazon for a customer delivery list or ATI for a warranty registration database.
Just because the social aspect of reader sucks, doesn't make the service useless. I use it extensivly to keep track of posts from dozens of sites. I really couldn't care less about the social aspect of reader, personally. I find it to be a useful aggregator of stories.
Apple isn't really known for rushing vital security patches on its own products, so how can anyone expect them hurry up with products from other vendors? Apple makes decent products, but they really should hurry a bit more when flaws are discovered.
...which is why it will be made illegal soon. Governments aren't interested in granting liberties. It tends to make law enforcement more difficult, and law enforcement tends to be lazy in the first place.
You are hedging your entire startup on the government not getting involved and freezing your accounts, by the way. Smart move! (Clever promotion, might I add, especially with that little footer.)
USD accounts can, and his startup will need those to operate and pay salaries. Apply a miniscule amount of logic instead of considering me an outright moron.
If you read my original post (good to see you didn't!), I mined Bitcoins for a while. How do you feel about that? I participated in the community you are defending and grasp its potential. Your binary "everyone who speaks out against Bitcoin has clearly never used it and doesn't know what he's talking about" attitude is hilariously stupid.
Actually I went to West Point and served in the Army, so I've dealt with the government. Bitcoins would not likely be a big, significant part of any income anyway.
I would recommend taking a look at the pyramid again.
A lot of times when I talk to people, I don't maintain eye contact the whole time. I'm sure that it leads to all kind of different pseudo-psychiatric theories about me, but I don't care. With video chat, you just have to sit there and stare at the other person's face the whole time, which I find to be a little weird. That, and I find video chat to be pretty unnecessary. In most cases it doesn't add much to the conversation.
i think this is a big factor that people tend to overlook. when you're in a convo w/ someone in person, you can look around briefly, pause to think, etc.
i feel like in video chat you have to be very comfortable w/ the person you're talking to or understand that you CAN look away, etc.
