this whole idea of patenting ideas that may show up in the future without a working model is total BS. The patent office needs to insist that if these companies are going to file for a patent that the company is obligated to first show a working model.
I don't understand why there are so many Apple haters here. I don't own and Apple computer or an iphone, but Apple innovates and everyone else then jumps on board to try and catch up. Where were all the cool phones from Motorola, Samsung, LG, and HTC before the iphone showed up? Where were all the thin laptops before the Mac Air? Anyway reguardless, they need to get a handle on the patent trolls before all the companies who do create, build, and innovate decide they can't produce anything new without getting sued.
Anyway reguardless, they need to get a handle on the patent trolls before all the companies who do create, build, and innovate decide they can't produce anything new without getting sued.[/citation]
[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]this whole idea of patenting ideas that may show up in the future without a working model is total BS. The patent office needs to insist that if these companies are going to file for a patent that the company is obligated to first show a working model.[/citation]
Right! This is getting out of hand. Apple and every other tech company must have whole law firms working full itme on law suits against each other.
Tomorrow's news... Apple is awarded 21.7 million dollar in patent law suit.
[citation][nom]bogcotton[/nom]I agree with your general idea, but providing a working model isn't practical.Imagine a company has spent millions investing into how to make a truly unique product which was completely their idea, but they haven't managed to produce it yet, then another company looks at their plans, works it out, and steals their idea providing a working model and gets their patent.It would be better if they were obligated to produce a certain percentage of their companies value in stock which then gets sold, once it is possible to make their device.Honestly I think it would be better if patents had a new system which involves a jury making common sense decisions rather than the nonsense system everyone has now.[/citation]
By definition, if their device does not work, then they are patenting the idea of what it would do.
I would like to the patten the idea of manned space flight to Mars. I don't know all the details, or even have a working model, but why should that matter?
I like the ipod touch...that said I am still a PC, the poor people winning this lawsuit won't see any funds for approx 5-7 years, then they will only see partial payments of $300,000-$400,000 over the next 8-10 years because they will file the proper paperwork to make it seem that if they paid the entire settlement it would hurt the company and then they can just file chapter 11 and dump the whole deal. I have always said that there are too many loopholes that allow companies to manipulate the system. Accountability is lost.
[citation][nom]FunYun[/nom]By definition, if their device does not work, then they are patenting the idea of what it would do.I would like to the patten the idea of manned space flight to Mars. I don't know all the details, or even have a working model, but why should that matter?[/citation]
Uh, yeah... I think it's a little more involved than that. In order to file for a patent, you have to provide blueprints, or code or a plan of some sort; this is in addition to a DETAILED narrative of what it is that the device or code is supposed to do and how it is supposed to work. The device or algorithm doesn't have to be functional.
If another company comes along and builds a functional device or algorithm that is substantially based upon the schematics or code you submitted for patent, then there is a high degree of probability that you will receive a judgement in your favor. You can not simply patent an idea. So your notion about patenting the idea of a manned space flight to Mars won't work. However, if you came up with a space-craft design, even if it is not functional, THEN you could patent it and sit back waiting (hoping) that someone steals your design.
Ironically, if they did, you would be smiling all the way to the bank and some other idiot on a forum or blog would be whining about how people shouldn't be able to patent idea.
I agree with those who say a company must show a working model to gain a patent, or at least have a concept that they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt belongs to them and is something that they developed and made possible before anyone else can.
To just patent ideas... that is where things get tricky.
"predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses."
Really? Wow, this sounds similar to BRANCH PREDICTION! You are just doing it at a different level. Apple needs to ditch lawyers (yes, I hate them) and get a good engineer who can present tech data to "simple" people, and this should be dismissed.
Predictive snooping...wow. I am going to file a patent on "Command Arragement, using any number of data bits from 1 to 1TB..."
Now I just sit back and sue any chip maker that goes and makes CPUs using instruction sets. GOLD!
[citation][nom]Choujij[/nom]I'm sure Apple will think of something to sue them back...[/citation]
The use of "Apple" in the plaintiff's court documents is a willful use of our trademarked name, and was not done so with the express permission of Apple. Therefore, we request that judgment be made against Opti for violation of Trademark Violation.
I'm glad Apple got stung though. Big companies like this do need to play nice.
[citation][nom]some guy over here laughing at you[/nom]None of you have anything remotely close to working knowledge of patent law. Why don't you just leave it to the professionals. As a side note, did you know that someone patented peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Smuckers bought and still holds the patent.[/citation]
How to exercise your cat with a laser pointer. It's not just youtube, it's a real patent.
Apple tries its best to exploit small companies and small companies tries to sue them back. The problem really is that we're all trying too hard to scam each other for profit. Laws are just black and white words, ethics are completely left out.