Custom Search
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
In comp.dsp langwadt@fonz.dk <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: (snip) > I seem to remember hearing about companies where reading or searching > patents wasn't allowed, I assume as a defence in case they accidently > infringed on some patent As I understand it, that doesn't work. Well, possibly it works against willful infringment, but consider Kodak claiming that it didn't know about the Polaroid patent while making negative material for Polaroid. I was told some time ago that one might just as well read them. That it will be assumed that one has anyway. -- glenArticle: 152851
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT), "langwadt@fonz.dk" <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >On 26 Okt., 21:39, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> In comp.arch.fpga fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (snip, someone wrote) >> >> > "mostly people infringe patents because the original inventor isn't >> > willing to licence them on generally-reasonable terms. " >> > Whaaaaaat ?????? >> >> I would guess that more often it is because one doesn't realize >> that something is covered by a patent. =A0Either one doesn't know >> at all, or assumes that a known patent doesn't cover the specific case. >> > >I seem to remember hearing about companies where reading or searching >patents wasn't allowed, I assume as a defence in case they accidently >infringed on some patent > >-Lasse Yup. Not only to prevent accusations of willful infringement, but to try to maintain some semblance of an intellectual "clean room" for research and avoid so-called "contamination". Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152852
In article <j89nlf$smd$1@speranza.aioe.org>, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >In comp.arch.fpga fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> wrote: > >(snip, someone wrote) > >> "mostly people infringe patents because the original inventor isn't >> willing to licence them on generally-reasonable terms. " > >> Whaaaaaat ?????? > >I would guess that more often it is because one doesn't realize >that something is covered by a patent. Either one doesn't know >at all, or assumes that a known patent doesn't cover the specific case. > >One well known infringement case was the Kodak instant camera. > >Kodak, in trying to compete with Polaroid, designed a camera >that, I would guess, they believed didn't infringe. It is pretty >hard to believe that they didn't know about Polaroid. What I was suggesting was full-on compulsory licensing: if Kodak want to do something like that, they are permitted to licence Polaroid's patent and Polaroid cannot unreasonably refuse them or charge a licence fee that a judge considers unreasonably high; this will make their camera a bit more expensive than Polaroid's, but allow them to compete in the market. So patents become 'we invented this, so we can use it for free and get up to five bucks from every phone shipped by everyone else who uses it', rather than their present legally-enforced full monopoly position; if you want a monopoly, keep a trade secret. TomArticle: 152853
In article <613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5cc0b@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com" ><rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732 >> >> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with >> software patents. >> >> Rupert > >I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the >patent examination process is. If your primary user interface is a >touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you >unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"? By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a pattern of blobs on-screen. Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by every device? TomArticle: 152854
On 28 Oct 2011 00:05:31 +0100 (BST), Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >In article <j89nlf$smd$1@speranza.aioe.org>, >glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >>In comp.arch.fpga fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>(snip, someone wrote) >> >>> "mostly people infringe patents because the original inventor isn't >>> willing to licence them on generally-reasonable terms. " >> >>> Whaaaaaat ?????? >> >>I would guess that more often it is because one doesn't realize >>that something is covered by a patent. Either one doesn't know >>at all, or assumes that a known patent doesn't cover the specific case. >> >>One well known infringement case was the Kodak instant camera. >> >>Kodak, in trying to compete with Polaroid, designed a camera >>that, I would guess, they believed didn't infringe. It is pretty >>hard to believe that they didn't know about Polaroid. > >What I was suggesting was full-on compulsory licensing: if Kodak want >to do something like that, they are permitted to licence Polaroid's >patent and Polaroid cannot unreasonably refuse them or charge a >licence fee that a judge considers unreasonably high; this will make >their camera a bit more expensive than Polaroid's, but allow them to >compete in the market. > >So patents become 'we invented this, so we can use it for free and get >up to five bucks from every phone shipped by everyone else who uses >it', rather than their present legally-enforced full monopoly >position; if you want a monopoly, keep a trade secret. > >Tom The fundamental purpose of a patent is to allow the fruits of research efforts to belong to those who performed and paid for the research. What you suggest reduces the value of that by requiring that a license be provided to whoever comes along and asks for one. That substantially reduces the value of the patent system as a whole by preventing the research from being used exclusively by those who produced it. One of the beauties of the patent and copyright system is that patents and copyrights eventually expire, so that world ultimately has equal access to the fruits of humanity after the producers of the innovations have been given opportunity and protection to exclusively reap the benefits for a time. So in my view your proposed scheme reduces both the incentive to patent things, and, by creating more incentive to move things to trade secrets instead, potentially removes them from ultimately becoming accessible to everyone. For those reasons I think it's a bad idea. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152855
In comp.arch.fpga Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: (snip, someone wrote) >>What I was suggesting was full-on compulsory licensing: if Kodak want >>to do something like that, they are permitted to licence Polaroid's >>patent and Polaroid cannot unreasonably refuse them or charge a >>licence fee that a judge considers unreasonably high; this will make >>their camera a bit more expensive than Polaroid's, but allow them to >>compete in the market. (snip) > The fundamental purpose of a patent is to allow the fruits of research > efforts to belong to those who performed and paid for the research. > What you suggest reduces the value of that by requiring that a license > be provided to whoever comes along and asks for one. That > substantially reduces the value of the patent system as a whole by > preventing the research from being used exclusively by those who > produced it. (I hope that is the one you meant.) > One of the beauties of the patent and copyright system is that patents > and copyrights eventually expire, so that world ultimately has equal > access to the fruits of humanity after the producers of the > innovations have been given opportunity and protection to exclusively > reap the benefits for a time. So in my view your proposed scheme > reduces both the incentive to patent things, and, by creating more > incentive to move things to trade secrets instead, potentially removes > them from ultimately becoming accessible to everyone. I might agree with him. I agree that the license cost should cover the research costs, that makes a lot of sense. But say, for example, that one wanted $1000 per camera or phone as license cost? (For something that the patent holder sells for $100.) I would call that unreasonable, but as far as I know there isn't anything in patent law to refute it. Also, it seems to me that it isn't always easy to know that a new invention is sufficently different to avoid infringing. It seems that Kodak thought thier instant camera was sufficiently different, until they lost in court. Especially as the courts may not understand the technical details as well as they should. My old favorite was the patent on the XOR operator for graphical displays, allowing one to erase by drawing over something. That one, as I understand it, was contested twice and upheld both times, where I would say that it was obvious to anyone who understands the XOR operator. I have no idea what the license charge was, or would have been. It seems to me that the only thing that helps avoid this is the cross licensing deals. But that discourages small companies from competing in a big company world. > For those reasons I think it's a bad idea. -- glenArticle: 152856
In article <7b91cdf6-4eb1-4de2-b7b5-c381a2fd4e03@k10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, "langwadt@fonz.dk" <langwadt@fonz.dk> writes: >I seem to remember hearing about companies where reading or searching >patents wasn't allowed, I assume as a defence in case they accidently >infringed on some patent I've heard something similar from a friend who worked for a large company in Silicon Valley. Along with that was the "Nobody is suing us right now, so this is a good time to clean out your old email." -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.Article: 152857
On 28/10/2011 02:19, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2011 00:05:31 +0100 (BST), Thomas Womack
> <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article<j89nlf$smd$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> glen herrmannsfeldt<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> In comp.arch.fpga fatalist<simfidude@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip, someone wrote)
>>>
>>>> "mostly people infringe patents because the original inventor isn't
>>>> willing to licence them on generally-reasonable terms. "
>>>
>>>> Whaaaaaat ??????
>>>
>>> I would guess that more often it is because one doesn't realize
>>> that something is covered by a patent. Either one doesn't know
>>> at all, or assumes that a known patent doesn't cover the specific case.
>>>
>>> One well known infringement case was the Kodak instant camera.
>>>
>>> Kodak, in trying to compete with Polaroid, designed a camera
>>> that, I would guess, they believed didn't infringe. It is pretty
>>> hard to believe that they didn't know about Polaroid.
>>
>> What I was suggesting was full-on compulsory licensing: if Kodak want
>> to do something like that, they are permitted to licence Polaroid's
>> patent and Polaroid cannot unreasonably refuse them or charge a
>> licence fee that a judge considers unreasonably high; this will make
>> their camera a bit more expensive than Polaroid's, but allow them to
>> compete in the market.
>>
>> So patents become 'we invented this, so we can use it for free and get
>> up to five bucks from every phone shipped by everyone else who uses
>> it', rather than their present legally-enforced full monopoly
>> position; if you want a monopoly, keep a trade secret.
>>
>> Tom
>
> The fundamental purpose of a patent is to allow the fruits of research
> efforts to belong to those who performed and paid for the research.
> What you suggest reduces the value of that by requiring that a license
> be provided to whoever comes along and asks for one. That
> substantially reduces the value of the patent system as a whole by
> preventing the research from being used exclusively by those who
> produced it.
>
> One of the beauties of the patent and copyright system is that patents
> and copyrights eventually expire, so that world ultimately has equal
> access to the fruits of humanity after the producers of the
> innovations have been given opportunity and protection to exclusively
> reap the benefits for a time. So in my view your proposed scheme
> reduces both the incentive to patent things, and, by creating more
> incentive to move things to trade secrets instead, potentially removes
> them from ultimately becoming accessible to everyone.
>
> For those reasons I think it's a bad idea.
>
>
The key here is that "patents and copyrights /eventually/ expire".
Patent lifetimes are absurdly long (21 years, IIRC) for the modern
world. And copyrights are basically immortal since Disney buys new laws
every time the copyright expiration on Mickey Mouse approaches, and the
rest of the world has little real choice but to follow USA.
The purpose of a patent is /not/ to let the inventors get paid for their
efforts and research. It is to give the inventor a chance to
commercialise a product based on the invention, so that other (bigger
and established) companies cannot take the invention, build their own
product, and out-compete the inventor.
Think about that a little - especially in light of how modern patents
are used.
With the patent, the inventor (let's pretend for a minute that it really
is the inventor, or his company, who has the patent) has a time-limited
monopoly on using the invention, as long as he reveals it to everyone
else. He has two choices - he can build his own commercialisation of
the product (the patent gives him time to do that), or he can license it
to other companies who will build the product.
When patents were introduced, inventors might get two or three patents
in a lifetime of work - they represented /real/ inventions. A time
limit of half a lifetime was perfectly reasonable - it took a long time
to turn the invention into a product, make a production company and
facility, and sell the product.
But that just doesn't suit the world today.
For "physical" patents, a time limit of perhaps 2 years is more than
enough - that gives the inventor a solid head-start over competitors.
The inventor can, of course, sell licenses during that time. It may be
worth having a short time (another 2 years) after that when he can still
sell licenses, but anyone can get one ("reasonable and
non-discriminatory" terms) - that would be purely for money-making.
For software patents, the appropriate time limits are so short that they
should simply be banned outright (as they are in most countries).
The biggest patent reform needed, however, is in the review process
before they are granted. Any patent application should be judged by a
panel of experts in the field. They will be able to reject the patent
if it is obvious, if it is too broad, if it is unclear (clarity is an
essential part of a patent), or if it is not new. Patent office clerks
can handle the bureaucracy - but they can't be expected to handle the
technical challenges of assessing a patent application.
For the "panel of experts", I would suggest an organisation of paying
members, perhaps split by broad fields (medicine, engineering, etc.).
Professionals would have to pay yearly fees to be part of the
organisation - that would limit it mostly to real professionals. In
return, members would have access to searchable databases of patents,
contact information for other members, etc. And any member can judge
any patent application they want. Some people might worry that this
means the applicant is revealing their idea to too wide an audience -
but that's the aim of patents. When they submit their application, it
becomes "patent pending". Their only risk is if they submit a poor
application, intending to re-submit if it gets rejected. This public
peer review would encourage applicants to do their job properly first
time, and not waste everyone's time and money.
Article: 152858On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote: > In article<613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5cc0b@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com" >> <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732 >>> >>> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with >>> software patents. >>> >>> Rupert >> >> I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the >> patent examination process is. If your primary user interface is a >> touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you >> unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"? > > By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a > pattern of blobs on-screen. Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. > > Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by > definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by > every device? > You pay for usability research by doing the research, making a good product, and selling more than others because reviewers say "this device is easier to use than the competitors". So what if the competitors copy your ideas in their new devices six months later? The extra sales you make during those first six months should pay for the research many times over unless you are running your business very badly. Or are suggesting that it is somehow "fair" that you should get paid again and again for that usability research over the next 21 years?Article: 152859
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:38:35 +0000, Brian Drummond wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:52:45 -0500, Jon Elson wrote: > >> Nico Coesel wrote: >> >> > >> Note that the WebPack does not support 64-bit OS's. I think this is >> due to US export regulations. (At least this was true last time I >> checked.) > > Not officially... > > But if your 64-bit OS has the correct 32-bit compatibility libraries > installed, Webpack will run just fine. You just have to modify the > install script, ... minor correction; ISE13.1 Webpack installs and runs "out of the box" on a 64-bit system. On OpenSuse 11.3 at least; I haven't tried any others. - BrianArticle: 152860
On 10/27/2011 05:30 PM, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: > On 26 Okt., 21:39, glen herrmannsfeldt<g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> In comp.arch.fpga fatalist<simfid...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (snip, someone wrote) >> >>> "mostly people infringe patents because the original inventor isn't >>> willing to licence them on generally-reasonable terms. " >>> Whaaaaaat ?????? >> >> I would guess that more often it is because one doesn't realize >> that something is covered by a patent. Either one doesn't know >> at all, or assumes that a known patent doesn't cover the specific case. >> > > I seem to remember hearing about companies where reading or searching > patents wasn't allowed, I assume as a defence in case they accidently > infringed on some patent My employer forbids engineers and software developers from reading patents as a matter of policy (unless specifically requested to by legal).Article: 152861
Steven Hirsch wrote: > My employer forbids engineers and software developers from reading patents > as a matter of policy (unless specifically requested to by legal). "[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." What a travesty. Where's the progress when the wheel is reinvented every other month? One way out of this mess is for the EU to start ignoring US patents; that might make the US "snap out of it".Article: 152862
On 10/27/2011 08:19 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: > One of the beauties of the patent and copyright system is that patents > and copyrights eventually expire, so that world ultimately has equal > access to the fruits of humanity after the producers of the > innovations have been given opportunity and protection to exclusively > reap the benefits for a time. Patents, yes. Copyright? Not so much anymore. Since Disney started purchasing legislators I think public-domain has become an antiquated concept.Article: 152863
On Oct 27, 4:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. > But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea (whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy.Article: 152864
In article <bec95002-6c28-4539-8bed-be950e7766b0@m5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 27, 4:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >wrote: >> Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock >> bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock >> mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability >> sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with >> slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. >> >But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea >(whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy. If the idea's half-baked then people will do something else rather than pay even a small licence fee to use a bad idea; there aren't enough brilliant ideas that a dollar per device per brilliant idea is economy-threatening. You do need some kind of judicial review process to ensure that the fees don't get extortionate, and it may well be that people would use more trade secrets in an environment with compulsory licencing. TomArticle: 152865
On 26 Okt., 23:42, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > snip > > Many patent portfolios are defensive, and not intended to be asserted > against anyone. > it's like a cold war, big corp A, needs patents to defend themselves against big corp B and vice versa. when they occasionally clash it usually ends with a deal to cross license and they now have a bigger hammer to hit any small players trying to get in on their business seems like any startup doing anything that involves software is just a lawsuit waiting to happen, if it ever makes it to making money the patent trolls are ready to strike maybe the reality isn't really that bad but when you read something like this: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111001/00365416161/patent-troll-says-anyone-using-wifi-infringes-wont-sue-individuals-this-stage.shtml .. -LasseArticle: 152866
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:40:15 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >In comp.arch.fpga Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: > >(snip, someone wrote) >>>What I was suggesting was full-on compulsory licensing: if Kodak want >>>to do something like that, they are permitted to licence Polaroid's >>>patent and Polaroid cannot unreasonably refuse them or charge a >>>licence fee that a judge considers unreasonably high; this will make >>>their camera a bit more expensive than Polaroid's, but allow them to >>>compete in the market. > >(snip) >> The fundamental purpose of a patent is to allow the fruits of research >> efforts to belong to those who performed and paid for the research. >> What you suggest reduces the value of that by requiring that a license >> be provided to whoever comes along and asks for one. That >> substantially reduces the value of the patent system as a whole by >> preventing the research from being used exclusively by those who >> produced it. >(I hope that is the one you meant.) > >> One of the beauties of the patent and copyright system is that patents >> and copyrights eventually expire, so that world ultimately has equal >> access to the fruits of humanity after the producers of the >> innovations have been given opportunity and protection to exclusively >> reap the benefits for a time. So in my view your proposed scheme >> reduces both the incentive to patent things, and, by creating more >> incentive to move things to trade secrets instead, potentially removes >> them from ultimately becoming accessible to everyone. > >I might agree with him. I agree that the license cost should >cover the research costs, that makes a lot of sense. But say, >for example, that one wanted $1000 per camera or phone as license >cost? (For something that the patent holder sells for $100.) >I would call that unreasonable, but as far as I know there >isn't anything in patent law to refute it. I think it is important to cover the case where some inexpensive research leads to a significant breakthrough and the owner of the IP wants to keep it exclusive. There are many market cases where the return on investment will be maximized, and therefore the incentive to do good research maximized, if competitors are not allowed to use it. This also encourages research by the competitors in order to close the market gap. That's good for everyone, incuding the research and engineering communities, the consumers, and the owners of the IP. Compelling someone to license the results of their research to a competitor just seems to me to be a bad idea all around. There are some general market yardsticks for what license fees should be, and "reasonable and non-discriminatory" wording tries to be applied sometimes, but free market forces should be allowed to have their place, too. >Also, it seems to me that it isn't always easy to know that >a new invention is sufficently different to avoid infringing. >It seems that Kodak thought thier instant camera was sufficiently >different, until they lost in court. Especially as the courts >may not understand the technical details as well as they should. One of the attorneys I used to work with on such matters would often say, "It's not really a patent until a judge says it's a patent." There's so much crazy stuff gets patented, and patents granted that seem to overlap a lot, etc., etc., that IMHO it's often impossible to tell whether you'll infringe a certain patent or what patents might possibly be asserted against someone for a particular device. Long ago I reviewed a patent for an investor that seemed to cover the general idea of wireless cellular communications. Some tiny, unknown company owned it. Cellular systems were already widely deployed at that point, and the patent field in the area was already huge. What was the likelihood that anybody could be successful asserting that patent against the cellular industry? Would the patent hold up to scrutiny, i.e., not be declared invalid if the heavyweights of the industry challenged it? There's no way to know unless someone wants to try, and that's a very expensive proposition. >My old favorite was the patent on the XOR operator for graphical >displays, allowing one to erase by drawing over something. >That one, as I understand it, was contested twice and upheld >both times, where I would say that it was obvious to anyone who >understands the XOR operator. I have no idea what the license >charge was, or would have been. > >It seems to me that the only thing that helps avoid this is >the cross licensing deals. But that discourages small companies >from competing in a big company world. And there seems to be a lot of opinion that the recent "reforms" make it even worse for small companies. Time will tell, I suppose. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152867
On Oct 27, 7:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > In article <613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5c...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups= .com>, > > rickman =A0<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Oct 26, 10:13=3DA0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com" > ><rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732 > > >> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with > >> software patents. > > >> Rupert > > >I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the > >patent examination process is. =A0If your primary user interface is a > >touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you > >unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"? > > By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a > pattern of blobs on-screen. =A0Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. > > Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by > definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by > every device? > > Tom I'm not anti-patent. I think patents are not just useful, but essential to stimulating innovation. But the Apple patent (at least what was written here) is not about a slider bar. It is about a "gesture". In my opinion that is so vague (to the point of being obvious) that it should be unenforceable. As I said in the part of my message that you snipped, all Google or anyone else has to do is to not call it a gesture. If Apple insists that all methods of contact with the display would be a gesture then your suggestions would also be gestures. RickArticle: 152868
On Oct 28, 12:46=A0pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 4:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > wrote:> Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock > > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock > > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability > > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with > > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. > > But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea > (whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy. Isn't that the point that by giving inventors "rights" to their own invention that it encourages the invention process? I can assure you that many inventions would have happened much later or not at all if patents didn't exist. If for no other reason because many inventors and companies would not be in the business. They would probably be on Wall street. RickArticle: 152869
On Oct 28, 12:17=A0am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > On 28/10/2011 01:07, Thomas Womack wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In article<613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5c...@j20g2000vby.googlegroup= s.com>, > > rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> =A0wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 10:13=3DA0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com" > >> <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> =A0wrote: > >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732 > > >>> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with > >>> software patents. > > >>> Rupert > > >> I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the > >> patent examination process is. =A0If your primary user interface is a > >> touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you > >> unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"? > > > By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a > > pattern of blobs on-screen. =A0Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock > > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock > > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability > > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with > > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. > > > Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by > > definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by > > every device? > > You pay for usability research by doing the research, making a good > product, and selling more than others because reviewers say "this device > is easier to use than the competitors". =A0So what if the competitors cop= y > your ideas in their new devices six months later? =A0The extra sales you > make during those first six months should pay for the research many > times over unless you are running your business very badly. > > Or are suggesting that it is somehow "fair" that you should get paid > again and again for that usability research over the next 21 years? That is only the case for a fast moving industry like the example given. I did my work in pharmaceutical research and it wasn't uncommon to take 5 years to get a product to market. The FDA testing and documentation alone would take a couple of years. Meanwhile half the people who worked on the project have moved to competing companies and results of clinical trials are public knowledge. Of course to compensate the company that bears the actual costs the patent date is actually moved forward to provide for a few additional years of protection. They also seem to be VERY sympathetic to CIPs. If you were to invent the syringe today, you could probably continually patent it indefinitely every time you came up with a different sized needle. Unless I miss your point it is ~different inventions warrant different lengths of protection. Some of this is already in the system but it could be improved. But who is the judge who gets more and who gets less. Trivia question: What do Fredrick's of Hollywood and Howard Hughes have in common? They both have patents for push-up bras. Personally I think patents for things like push up bras should run for 30 years to encourage development in that area.<sic> Patent attorney where I worked once leaned back in his chair and laughed "I hope people do infringe, the more the merrier! Standard royalty for patent infringement is 7% so we would make 7% of what everyone else sells for doing nothing! Great business to be in!" RickArticle: 152870
In comp.arch.fpga Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: (snip, someone wrote) >>>>What I was suggesting was full-on compulsory licensing: if Kodak want >>>>to do something like that, they are permitted to licence Polaroid's >>>>patent and Polaroid cannot unreasonably refuse them or charge a >>>>licence fee that a judge considers unreasonably high; this will make >>>>their camera a bit more expensive than Polaroid's, but allow them to >>>>compete in the market. (snip, then I wrote) >>I might agree with him. I agree that the license cost should >>cover the research costs, that makes a lot of sense. But say, >>for example, that one wanted $1000 per camera or phone as license >>cost? (For something that the patent holder sells for $100.) >>I would call that unreasonable, but as far as I know there >>isn't anything in patent law to refute it. > I think it is important to cover the case where some inexpensive > research leads to a significant breakthrough and the owner of the IP > wants to keep it exclusive. There are many market cases where the > return on investment will be maximized, and therefore the incentive to > do good research maximized, if competitors are not allowed to use it. > This also encourages research by the competitors in order to close the > market gap. That's good for everyone, incuding the research and > engineering communities, the consumers, and the owners of the IP. I was thinking of the case where someone wants to be anti-social, not license it, and also not sell the devices. Or, say, only sell to people with a certain political or religious viewpoint. Maybe someone already rich enough not to be moved by market forces. > Compelling someone to license the results of their research to a > competitor just seems to me to be a bad idea all around. If free market works, I think I agree. I am not sure that it always does. (snip, I wrote) >>Also, it seems to me that it isn't always easy to know that >>a new invention is sufficently different to avoid infringing. >>It seems that Kodak thought thier instant camera was sufficiently >>different, until they lost in court. Especially as the courts >>may not understand the technical details as well as they should. > One of the attorneys I used to work with on such matters would often > say, "It's not really a patent until a judge says it's a patent." > There's so much crazy stuff gets patented, and patents granted that > seem to overlap a lot, etc., etc., that IMHO it's often impossible to > tell whether you'll infringe a certain patent or what patents might > possibly be asserted against someone for a particular device. Well, that is true. The latter gets back to not reading patents. If you don't read your competitors patents, you have no idea if you might be infringing. If you do, you have at least a chance to notice. Next time you get stopped by a traffic cop, try telling him that you didn't read that page in the DMV book, and didn't know that speeding was illegal. Again, might work against willful speeding, or willful infringment, but in the end, it is still illegal. Well, I was told by someone who works closely with patent lawyers that it is better to read them. You at least have the possibility of designing around the patent. > Long ago I reviewed a patent for an investor that seemed to cover the > general idea of wireless cellular communications. Some tiny, unknown > company owned it. Cellular systems were already widely deployed at > that point, and the patent field in the area was already huge. What > was the likelihood that anybody could be successful asserting that > patent against the cellular industry? Would the patent hold up to > scrutiny, i.e., not be declared invalid if the heavyweights of the > industry challenged it? There's no way to know unless someone wants > to try, and that's a very expensive proposition. Just like buying a lottery ticket. Well, many of them. There is a cost, but a low probability of a big payoff. Or license to a big company for a reasonably price and let them argue it out in court. -- glenArticle: 152871
rickman wrote: > I'm not anti-patent. I think patents are not just useful, but > essential to stimulating innovation. But the Apple patent (at least > what was written here) is not about a slider bar. It is about a > "gesture". In my opinion that is so vague (to the point of being > obvious) that it should be unenforceable. As I said in the part of my > message that you snipped, all Google or anyone else has to do is to > not call it a gesture. If Apple insists that all methods of contact > with the display would be a gesture then your suggestions would also > be gestures. No, that's not the way the patent system works. This will go to court, and a jury of 12 zombie farmers in Texas who just came from their pumpkin patches will rule on this, and of course Apple will insist that anything is a gesture. Afterwards, Apple will sue the pumpkin farmers for violating their trademark, because a pumpkin looks somewhat like an apple. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/Article: 152872
On Oct 28, 7:29=A0am, Noob <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote: > Steven Hirsch wrote: > > My employer forbids engineers and software developers from reading pate= nts > > as a matter of policy (unless specifically requested to by legal). > > "[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and > useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the > exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." > > What a travesty. > > Where's the progress when the wheel is reinvented every other month? > > One way out of this mess is for the EU to start ignoring US patents; > that might make the US "snap out of it". This is exactly why patents are granted. Not only is the inventor able to benefit financially from his invention but the invention is made public. Once the patent expires the world is the recipient. RickArticle: 152873
Co-sponsored by IEEE NCA Consultants Network, Baltimore Consultants Network, Society on Social Implications of Technology, Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society, and Region 2 PACE Committee Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let=92s explore what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below. When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260 8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general Web Page: www.ieee-consultants.org Registration: http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/877= 1 Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak regarding the impact of this new law. Anyone available in the area?Article: 152874
In article <a8f1923a-38a3-4d17-953e-c51228eda4bf@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 28, 12:46=A0pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 27, 4:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >> wrote:> Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock >> > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock >> > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability >> > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with >> > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device. >> >> But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea >> (whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy. > >Isn't that the point that by giving inventors "rights" to their own >invention that it encourages the invention process? I can assure you >that many inventions would have happened much later or not at all if >patents didn't exist. If for no other reason because many inventors >and companies would not be in the business. They would probably be on >Wall street. Project that onto Tesla. He invented the electricity power grid, with a distance the most import invention of all times, and sold that for a pittance to Westinghouse. Project that onto Chuck Moore. What did inventors do before there where patents? Wall street? Come one! >Rick Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z