The verdict was a monumentally stupid decision and I hope it won't prove to be too harmful in the long run.
One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity. Something which is novel, hard, expensive and rare today must become a cheap and ubiquitous commodity tomorrow. It is this process that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and easily leverage past technologies to produce newer, better ones.
Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process. None of these parties want touchscreen smartphones to become cheap commodities available to everybody - there's a lot less money to be made this way. Android is Google's attempt to commoditize the smartphone and is probably responsible for erasing tens of billions from the market caps of other companies, the flipside of which is that today tens of millions of people all over the world have access to technology that would otherwise not have.
This is why I think Android is ultimately a force for good and I hope it's simply too late to put the genie back in the bottle and that this verdict won't have a lasting impact.
The patent system is supposed to encourage the commoditization of inventions by using a trade-off: if you invent something novel and useful, you can get a patent that gives you a complete monopoly for a limited amount of time, but in return you have to completely disclose how your invention was made, so that, first, others can see if the intention would be useful for them right now (and thus negotiate a license with you) and, second, once you're patent expires society can easily reach for and utilize your invention.
Unfortunately, that process has been turned on its head, so that patents are routinely granted for designs, devices, and methods that are already effectively commoditized or simply don't work patent protection. The iPhone's design is undeniably visually appealing and user-friendly, but it is by no means an "invention." It is a form of user interface, something that has already been held to not be patentable, and it is a form of branding, something that is protected, but through trademark law, not patent law.
I find this situation disturbing for the same reason I find it disturbing that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on research and the belt. Consumer electronics companies should not be investing the bulk of their resources playing legal games with one another over non-disruptive "inventions" like the idea to use asynchronous processing to make sure video and audio lines up. They should be using their resources making phones that are better and more alluring than one another.
I love how people like to forget about that, software patents never carry the actual code in the patent, so I can't see how they are really divulging how everything works without the code. As it stands when a patent for software finally does expire, no one gets how it worked except for those who had already re-engineered it.
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this seem a bit strange?
I'm glad to see someone highlight the fact that design patents are inherently illogical, and in fact run altogether counter to the purpose of the patent system.
Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished.
Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles and UI elements in rows of 4 are simply not inventions.
To be really pedantic about it, it's arguable that they are inventions (someone had to be the first to put four rocks in a row), but it's such a blindly obvious "invention" that it's insanely laughable to afford it any kind of protections at all.
Design patents aren't for inventions. They are like trademarks, ornamental figures that are protected from impersonation, sort of like a policemans uniform.
Anything functional is expressly out of scope for a design patent.
What types of protection do you suggest a country implement to protect design/form? Trademark, copyright, and trade dress protection will not cover "design objects". If Louis Vuitton were to come out with a new fall handbag, what would they use to protect Gucci from duplicating their design and selling it under Gucci's brand?
Fashion items, along with things like recipes and the plots of novels, are categorically excluded from patent protection, including design patents. You can copy that handbag all you want, as long as you don't violate the trademark on the label.
Software, being a fundamentally creative enterprise, should be included. It doesn't fit into the patent system for the same reason that granting a monopoly on a plot twist makes no sense.
Also, the evolution time of tech is remarkably fast. 10-20 years (I'm not sure how long these patents are valid) is an incredibly long time in computing to hold a patent on a small feature. Look at where tech devices/interfaces were 20 years ago. Prototyping something digital is far faster, and things can be changed and refined at a rate that physical objects just can't match.
>so that patents are routinely granted for designs, devices, and methods that are already effectively commoditized
You are confusing utility patents and design patents. They are very different things, and design patents are intended for "designs" and the designs of devices. This is not a perversion, this is just you not understanding what patents are!
Secondly you guys constantly claim that these things are not novel, yet you are never able to provide good prior art. Yes, here, 11 years later, this stuff is commoditized. Mostly because android ripped off the work Apple demoed in January 2007 and brought it to market.
That doesn't mean in January 2007 it wasn't novel. I have constantly seen you guys claim that other people did this before, but I've never seen a single instance of genuine prior art. You guys cite movies (not understanding what prior art is, or what patents are) and you cite demos of completely different technologies (like microsoft's surface which uses cameras.)
So, you're projecting a completely false characterization of the situation and then saying its "bad" or has been perverted.
This feels like political propaganda to me. I notice that the anti-Patent movement started with google's lawyers letter and in defense of android which is a blatent ripoff of Apple technology.
So, lets see google donate Pagerank to the public domain, eh? They only have 6 years or so left on it anyway.... why haven't they?
There's been ample citation of prior art, everything from prior working and publicly shown prototypes to actually shipping devices. Apple was not the first company to show a capacitive multitouch screen (LG Prada was), they were not the first to show pinch-to-zoom (numerous examples, Jeff Han, Diamond Touch, 20 years of research prototypes), they were not the first with double-tap to zoom (there's 2 decades of ZUIs, zoomable-user-interface work that predates this), they were not the first with software to detect phone numbers in text and make them clickable, they were not the first with an uncluttered rounded corner flat, face-plate design (see disallowed Samsung F700 face), they were not the first with universal search (PalmOS had it first on the original palm pilot) and on and on.
And don't give me that crap about "it's not about the idea, it's about the implementation". Apple's pinch to zoom patent, for example, covers implementations on ANY kind of touch surface. It claims are vague like "That gesture adjusts an image in some way", covering not just zoom, scale, and rotation, but any transform of the image.
When someone makes such an absolute claim, that they've never seen any genuine prior art, even though tens of thousands of engineers in forums are pointing to research and devices that are at least arguably prior art and cast Apple's patents in a grey area, to have such an absolutist assertion indicates to me that that person is not interested in fairness, or truth, but on banging the drums of tribalism.
There are for sure, people in the Android camp that are rooting for Android in this case because they like Android devices. I'm not one of them. For me, the issue is about software programming freedom.
Whether it is SOPA/PIPA, or patents being used against open source, attacks on computing freedom in general are more important than Samsung, Android, or Apple. We should not assign away the future of software or networking by granting monopoly power to the largest corporations in the world.
Not when the whole edifice was started by Homebrew hackers to begin with.
I love how people think Apple woke up the day before the iphone demo and threw it all together at the last second anything before that day is ironclad prior art.
The light bulb was invented over 120 years ago and they still hand out patents for light bulbs, imagine that.
But people aren't patenting lightbulb interactions, they are patenting specific manufactured implementations.
Look at it this way, there were definitely people doing pinch-to-zoom that looks absolutely identical to the way Apple is doing it from the user's point of view. Jeff Han's demo is a perfect example of it. For years, many people have been doing demos like this, but they've been doing it on big bulky setups like projected-desks, or in Han's example, using total internal reflection.
Apple just made a different implementation, using the same interaction gestures, on a capacitive screen. From a software point of view, the implementations are rather trivial and don't differ much except via how you obtain the input (e.g. capacitive, FTIR, cameras, etc) The main difference is shrinking down the whole thing so it fits on a phone.
The reason why this was possible in 2007 had nothing to do with Apple's software and everything to do with the ability to manufacture a capacitive screen that has the right sensitivity, accuracy, cost, weight, and power to fit into a phone.
Apple deserves engineering props for this. But they do not get credit for inventing pinch-to-zoom nor the capacitive screen. Both of these inventions came prior.
If Apple invents an entirely new kind of touch screen and an entirely new way of manufacturing it, you could argue they deserve a patent.
But taking what existed before, pinch-to-zoom on projection displays, and implementing it on a different screen does not deserve patent protection, anymore than taking an existing business method (e.g. 'selling flower bouquets by phone', adding the text 'via web site' or 'via mobile app') and slightly tweaking the medium in which the business is done to obtain another monopoly.
Should 'internet shopping cart' be allowed a patent when real world shopping carts already existed? It's crazy absurd.
If Apple's patent had even been more specific like "pinch to zoom, but on this particular kind of screen" I'd even have more sympathy for the argument, because at least other people could do the same thing Apple did: copy an existing idea and apply it to a new circumstance. Samsung and others could innovate by creating new types of displays, maybe using microscopic cameras to track your hands like minority report or something.
But granting a patent to Apple for pinch to zoom on any kind of screen? Sorry, it goes too far.
I'm sure several commenters will soon note, the LG Prada was not multitouch, the Prada II was multitouch, but it came out after the iPhone. The Prada's "touch" was a really fake touch... like it would show buttons but you would have to press elsewhere to act on it. The iPhone was the first multitouch phone according to Wikipedia.
It's not that difficult to read the claims. Apple's patent covers distinguishing between pinch-to-zoom and scroll gestures based on whether one or two figures are touching. Prior art on pinch-to-zoom seems to show scrollbars for scrolling instead of single-finger-to-drag.
The simple workaround to apple's patent: allow two-finger drag. One or Two fingers close together (or moving in parallelt) is a drag. Two or more fingers far apart is a zoom. As long as there's no line of code that goes "if one finger down then it's a drag else if two fingers down it's a zoom" then the code doesn't infringe the apple patent. Easy peasy.
Design patents on the form of a utilitarian object become functional. People get used to handling an iphone with rounded corners. They get used to volume buttons being in a certain place, on/off buttons being in a certain place, charging/usb ports being in a certain place. Imitating those things strikes me as less of an attempt to "rip off" Apple and more of an attempt to make it easier to use for people who want to switch away from the iphone or ipad for other reasons.
Pagerank is a great example of something that's not supposed to be patentable. It's an algorithm. The claims are "computer implemented method of (description of some algorithm)" and "computer-readable medium that stores instructions (that implement some algorithm)". Absurd. I'd be in favor of someone trying to invalidate that patent. Google's algorithm incorporates so many more signals now than what is identified in the pagerank patent (#6285999). Putting that patent into the public domain wouldn't have any direct impact on Google's market share.
I'd like to know how duckduckgo or any other smaller search engine avoids getting sued. Is it possible to be in the search engine space and avoid infringing on any of the [invalid but granted anyway] patents in that space? The pagerank patent has a massive list of newer, mostly search related, patents in its "referenced by" list (which takes up the vast majority of the page). [1]
I think a lot of people most infuriated by Apple's patent suit against Samsung also think the Pagerank patent is not valid. If you're looking for bias, good luck with your search. I'm against all horrible patents even if they're owned by patent non-aggressors, and even if they're owned by companies I depend on for technology.
Is that the point of the design patent though? Fashion designers always apply for design patents. The other day I saw that Philip Morris has a patent for rounded corners on their cigarette boxes. Gucci has a patent for the shape of their handbag handles. If form can be patented, why can't Apple be allowed to do the same? If we reform the patent system and disallow all design patents, then I'm sure the fashion industry would be pretty mad, since there would be nothing preventing a competitor from creating an equivalent "ugg boots".
China is one of those places where you can't patent design, and I suppose it kind of works in a strange free-market-way. The winners are those who can copy the fastest, and have enough money to bribe politicians to shutdown the competition.
You keep accusing people of not understanding what patents are, but most people aren't objecting to Apple having the exclusive right to an ornamental design (even if it isn't purely ornamental). Harping on this technicality allows you to dismiss the parent poster as not knowing anything about patents as though you're some kind of expert on them, while ignoring his point.
What people object to is Apple asserting dubious patents with broad claims to block competition. Mating a general purpose computer and an algorithm to produce a "new" "machine" is a stupid loophole. Patents are supposed to be an exchange where an inventor gets a temporary monopoly while the public gets instructions for implementing a new and non-obvious "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter". You can't seriously argue that the world needed the bounce-back, data detector, or universal search patents to figure out how to accomplish those things. Patents shouldn't cover things that are, at best, features!
You might respond by pointing to Windows Phone as an example of a mobile OS that's different and NOT getting litigated over, but that's because Apple and Microsoft have cross-licensing agreements that have been in place since the last time Apple tried to pull this look-and-feel bullshit and lost.
Since you insist on using loaded language like "Android ripped off ... Apple", what evidence do you have to back that up? Also, what makes you say that the "anti-patent movement started with [Google]"? You're aware that people have had concerns about software patents long before this, right? Take Amazon's one-click patent as an example of something that stirred up a similar amount of nerd rage. It's not propaganda, just other people arriving at a pretty reasonable conclusion and stating it.
Apple didn't invent multi-touch finger recognition via capacitive display. You could literally take the same software written for a display/camera system and use it on a capacitive display. It would have been written before Apple filed for the patent. Apple doesn't have an invention here.
"One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity"
Yeah. They do. Patented inventions become a commodity in 14-20 years, depending on the kind of patent.
"Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process."
Call me crazy, but I think we're seeing Apple using the process to defend their inventions, which is exactly what the system was set up to do.
Patents aren't intended to ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest consumer gadgets; they're intended to provide inventors with incentives to produce non-trivial inventions, by granting them temporary monopolies on their ideas. To argue that Apple (and Microsoft, et al.) are wrong because they're artificially inflating prices on their patented products is to miss the entire point of the debate.
The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less. I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream.
More broadly, I often see people decrying that the poor have access to LCD TVs, ACs or decent smartphones, with the point being that they should stop being so demanding. But this is exactly what technological progress looks like - innovations which are expensive and exclusive are useful demos, but they don't become world-changers until they become widespread.
So yes, the patent system should ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest gadgets, and any other technology. Otherwise, it is simply stifling innnovation.
"The system was set up to foster innovation, not grant free monopolies willy nilly. I've yet to read any convincing argument about how this verdict will lead to more innovation, but there's a very clear way to see how it could lead to less."
The patent system does not grant patents "willy nilly". Whether you agree with the outcome or not, there is a (rather lengthy) review process, and it was followed. And if the verdict is consistent with the patent laws, then your objection to the case is irrelevant -- your proper complaint is with the system, not the actor.
"I find it very hard to believe that had Apple not been granted these patents, or if the patents had a much more appropriate 12-18month validity period, they would not have shipped the iPhone and forgone the massive revenue and profit stream."
Again, you have complaints about the patent system, and I empathize. I don't like many aspects of the system, either. But I also don't begrudge Apple for acting rationally within the rules established by the system.
In this case, in particular, I believe that the patent system is being used in a legitimate way, to protect a company that has made some true marketplace innovations. It's decidedly sub-optimal that Apple has to resort to patents on rubber-band scrolling to protect something as core to their business model as "look and feel", but that's the system that we have. I don't think it's fair to make Apple a villain (and Samsung a hero) just because the laws are flawed.
Said another way: don't hate the player, hate the game.
The player is playing the kind of game where everybody loses. But there is a way to make everyone win: act like Google has been acting up to now. Every big actor should build up a protective pile of abusive patents (it's so easy nowadays) and threaten anyone that might sue them of counter-suing.
It's just like the Cold war: nuclear weapons were a reality, so everyone got lots of it and mutual assured destruction ensured nothing too bad could happen.
Now Apple decided to play an all-in against its main competitor to establish monopoly by using its abusive patent against someone they knew could counter-sue. And now, instead of discouraging that kind of practice and realizing the perversion of the patent system, the jury decided to encourage them.
In other words: this player chose to play a disgusting game. I think we can hate both the player and the game.
I think it's only disgusting because it's a very visible case, and affects consumers directly. There are probably hundreds of patent wars that happen in the enterprise space that nobody reads about because nobody would understand even if they read it. Those wars would be equally disgusting wouldn't it? I feel like we're only allowed to hate the game if the game provides everyone with the same tools.
The patent office explicitly leans upon the court system to validate its decisions. It doesn't do thorough content and substance reviews, it does procedural reviews. For a jury to trust blindly in a patent decision is fallacy, just as much trusting blindly in one sides lawyer.
Call me crazy, but I think we're seeing Apple using the process to defend their inventions, which is exactly what the system was set up to do.
What exactly are they defending their "inventions" from? Other companies making competing products seems to be the biggest thing.
Patents aren't intended to ensure that consumers have rock-bottom prices on the latest consumer gadgets; they're intended to provide inventors with incentives to produce non-trivial inventions, by granting them temporary monopolies on their ideas.
Apple is an extremely successful business. What other incentives are necessary for companies like Apple to want to innovate?
I am all for all inventions must eventually become a commodity. However, if you look at the long term instead of just getting innovation to become cheap commodities available to everybody as soon as possible, some protection should be provided to the inventor so while cool new progressive "stand on the shoulders of giants" changes can keep coming, risky groundbreaking innovations can also emerge once in a while. Without effective patent protection, everybody will resort to do safer small-step improvements instead of spending years and billions to build (and market) something vastly different from what people are familiar with. In other words, with zero patent protection, you will still see cars getting better mileage, but you won't see an electrical car.
If we want to argue for patent reform, we need to focus on the true patent trolls. Apple is not a patent troll and arguing against this will push many people to the other side of patent reform debate.
Apple is not a patent troll, but patent trolling is merely one facet of patent abuse.
We need to focus on patent abuse, and Apple most certainly is abusing the recent flaws in the patent system, by patenting things which do not deserve patent protection (because patent protection for these things does not benefit society at large, discourages innovation, and is contra to the original intent of the patent system). The problem, fundamentally, is the system, not Apple, but because they are benefiting from its flaws, it's very likely they will defend them.
Unfortunately this will be quite hard, because Apple (along with other abusers) is also extremely, extremely, rich, and the rich tend to get their way...
I'm all in for revolutionary changes. Unfortunately, that's not what Apple did in this case.
The iPhone is outstanding design. And that is the extent of their work: with enough computing power, they made the first smartphone that didn't suck. Sooner or later, it was bound to happen.
One way to look at innovation and progress is that all inventions must eventually become a commodity. Something which is novel, hard, expensive and rare today must become a cheap and ubiquitous commodity tomorrow. It is this process that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and easily leverage past technologies to produce newer, better ones.
Here we see Apple (and to a lesser extent, MS, RIM and other parties) actively fighting this process. None of these parties want touchscreen smartphones to become cheap commodities available to everybody - there's a lot less money to be made this way. Android is Google's attempt to commoditize the smartphone and is probably responsible for erasing tens of billions from the market caps of other companies, the flipside of which is that today tens of millions of people all over the world have access to technology that would otherwise not have.
This is why I think Android is ultimately a force for good and I hope it's simply too late to put the genie back in the bottle and that this verdict won't have a lasting impact.