When you file a patent the patent office only does the most basic of checks, this is primarily a patent search looking for key words selected from your patent in other patents. They then ask you to justify why your patent is different than the other patents that they found. There role is not to do an extensive background check or to check if the patent is plausible; people regularly file patents for perpetual motion machines for example. The reason that the office only does minimal checks is to keep the costs down. This seems at least half reasonable since the vast majority of patents are never disputed.
The real action happens in the court and there how original the patent is is assessed and in particular the test of "was the innovation claimed obvious to someone skilled in the art" is applied. This test does indeed throw out many patents or parts thereof. However you are unlikely to win a patent case if you are a large company working in the area by claiming the innovation is obvious if a new product hits the market and is very successful, since the obvious repost is that if it was so obvious why didn't you do and make all the money. Particularly if your product incorporating the innovation follows a number of years later. the court might well rule that the innovation is only obvious in hindsight. Also note that a patent can be a combination of existing ideas applied to a new application; hard to argue that this innovative since if it was obvious people would have joined the ideas already. It is also possible that the court decides that there was simultaneous invention even if one party has patents and the other doesn't provided that the 2nd party can document that they were working in the same area. With regard to Google and patents I don't see them offering to make page rank available free of charge. If their position really was that you should have patents then surely they would make this patent and all their others available (actually page rank is held by Stanford, I think, but you get the idea). Similarly if they thought intellectual property, IP, should be free they wouldn't have employee confidentiality agreements and would make all their code open source under a public licence. You really can't have it both ways and I am sure Apple lawyers won't be shy about pointing this out! On Aug 22, 6:25 pm, Kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote: > And while we're at it.. an iPad is a portable computer with a design that > well.. already existed on the desktop for quite some time.. so they just made > it small enough to easily cart about and well, that touch screen thing again. > Something we had in Newton, Palm and a number of other devices pre-iPad. It > suggests an evolutionary advancement has taken place that Apple has been the > beneficiary of yet now they want to just trim that evolutionary branch but > poisoning it with patents (from a broken patent system). Like I mentioned and > before the Google Oracle evidence suggests that more than 75% of all patents > probably shouldn't have been issued in the first place. The problem is, once > issued, it's difficult for a large company to have them struck down and > almost impossible for a small one or an individual to do so. > > As for trolling, my final comment is, I doubt that it was the intention of > those that setup the patent system that companies would or could create a > business model out of awards from the courts for damages for patent > violations. I have to admit it's a brilliant business model in that awards > for damages are not taxable as it's not income.. it's compensation for > damages.. so even better. And face it, the real reason everyone here is > annoyed is because we're not able to troll ourselves. No????? > > Unless groups (like this one) start taking action, demanding the system be > fixed, this is just whining and quite frankly it's kind of boring. > > Regards, > Kirk > > On Aug 22, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Kevin Wright wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 August 2011 08:52, Kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My question is, what is new and innovative about touch screens. I seem to > > recall using them prior to the iPhone's existance. OH. I see, someone > > married and already existing technology with an already existing > > technology. So un-obvious !!!! > > > Regards, > > Kirk Pepperdine > > > Quite! The LG Prada[1] predates the original iPhone[2] by a good year. > > > Apple is frequently held up as the company that everyone else copies, but > > they're really not as unique and innovative as seems to be claimed in such > > discussions. > > > [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850) > > [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(original) > > > On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:12 AM, hlovatt wrote: > > > > I agree with Carl (Posse) and Karsten (forum), the iPhone was > > > revolutionary when it came out and the other phones have copied far > > > more from the iPhone than Apple have copied from other phones. There > > > are plenty of ways people could make a phone that isn't like an > > > iPhone; so the obvious question is why don't they? The answer is that > > > finding something that is different and is at least as good takes > > > time, talent, and energy and hence copying is cheaper. Therefore I > > > think Apple are perfectly entitled to defend their investment in all > > > that design and engineering talent they have. > > > > You may not like the current Patent/Copyright laws, but that is > > > irrelevant, these laws are all anyone, Apple included, have to work > > > with and hence they use them as best they can. I think the laws need > > > updating, Apple may well also think the laws needed updating, but the > > > law is the law and everyone has to abide by them. This isn't a case of > > > Goliath Apple crushing the little guy, it is a far fight with both > > > sides well resourced and therefore the court is the proper place for > > > the dispute to be settled. > > > > I should disclose that I have a number of patents and two of these > > > have earned my employer a few, 2 or 3, million dollars over the years, > > > therefore I am an indirect beneficiary of patents since they have > > > added to the financial stability of the company I work for and I have > > > used the licence fees obtained from these patents as a point in favour > > > of promotions I have applied for and received. I have not received any > > > direct benefit, i.e. I have not received a cut of the fees > > > (unfortunately :( ). > > > > On Aug 22, 7:03 am, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Tor: "Android didn't copy the iPhone" > > >> If we can believe Gizmodo, then the first Android prototypes looked > > >> like Blackberries before Android started following the iPhone (http:// > > >> random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and- > > >> after-the-launch-of-iphone). To me, there's nothing wrong with being a > > >> "fast follower" as Google is - and Apple certainly copies from other > > >> sources, too (iOS 5 is full of this). Bonus point: Tablets didn't all > > >> look like that certain tablet either (http://twitpic.com/67ykpa). > > > >> Dick: "How many different ways are there to present icons and buttons > > >> and pixels on a screen" > > >> Look no further than Microsoft Zune music player / Windows Phone 7: > > >> That does look unlike anything else on smartphones > > >> (http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487). Of all companies, Microsoft with > > >> a > > >> innovative UI - the irony! > > > >> Dick: "Apple started the smartphone patent wars" > > >> Nokia started it - they sued Apple in October 2009 > > >> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/22/telecoms-nokia). Apple > > >> "only" > > >> sued HTC in March 2010 (http://technologizer.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues- > > >> htc/). > > > >> Logitech Revue > > >> More Revue units were returned by customers than being sold in the > > >> last quarter (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File? > > >> item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTAxNTAzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1, top of page 7). > > >> So lowering the price seems like a firesale to me to clear out > > >> inventory. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "The Java Posse" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > -- > > Kevin Wright > > mail: kevin.wri...@scalatechnology.com > > gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com > > quora:http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright > > google+:http://gplus.to/thecoda > > twitter: @thecoda > > vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright > > steam: kev_lee_wright > > > "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not > > regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current > > conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side > > of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
