07-26-11 03:42 PM
34 12
tools
  1. 01itr's Avatar
    Apple Wins Two Original iPhone Patents Regarding Rotation Heuristics - Patently Apple

    So now only Apple devices can have screen rotation? Come on now.
    07-26-11 01:53 PM
  2. dentynefire's Avatar
    The underlying problem is what you can patent in the US Patent system. Most of the patents in dispute are too broad. Take the Apple vs HTC patent dispute as an example. Apple is suing over patents that were applied for years before handheld platforms came about, and are so broad that the computer or device you're currently reading this on (unless it's an Apple product) is in violation of the patent.
    Patents are granted after being published. The patent application can be reviewed and contested before it is granted. So for a year or so a company can dispute the application. Just because Google started a phone os in 2008 when Apple had a patent or Oracle had patents before doesn't mean they have a right to that IP AFTER they start.

    Looks like Google is too late to the cell phone OS game...sorry my condolences. Tomorrow I start my own search engine, sorry Google just innovatin
    07-26-11 01:59 PM
  3. dentynefire's Avatar
    Apple Wins Two Original iPhone Patents Regarding Rotation Heuristics - Patently Apple

    So now only Apple devices can have screen rotation? Come on now.
    well it doesn't mean screen rotation. it means screen rotation the way they do it.
    07-26-11 02:04 PM
  4. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    I disagree. Motorola is already looking at different avenues and that was before all of this patent bs was happening, in terms of android.

    Android was a good way to get manufacturers names out there and say "We make cool hardware."

    Now this is littler differentiation between android phones AND manufacturers are going to have to PAY apple, google and MS. I think we can agree that they won't stand for that for long.

    In terms of more oses, there will always be other software makers. Plus there is WEB OS to turn to because HP is going to license it out. There are plenty of options for everyone.

    I am not concerned for consumers. At all. I am happy to see the in-fighting between these companies. At some point congress will step in and give everyone a good smacking.
    I think Motorola needs Android way too much now. I don't think they'd be around without it, and I think iOS is too entrenched for Moto's OS to really catch. Of course, I have been wrong before.

    But I agree, WebOS is definitely an option (hopefully).
    07-26-11 02:06 PM
  5. Rooster99's Avatar
    "google cries fowl ..." - is that a variation on Angry Birds?

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    - R.
    07-26-11 02:06 PM
  6. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Patents are granted after being published. The patent application can be reviewed and contested before it is granted. So for a year or so a company can dispute the application. Just because Google started a phone os in 2008 when Apple had a patent or Oracle had patents before doesn't mean they have a right to that IP AFTER they start.

    Looks like Google is too late to the cell phone OS game...sorry my condolences. Tomorrow I start my own search engine, sorry Google just innovatin
    I think you're missing the point. The review and approval process of the US Patent system is flawed as it applies to intellectual property. As it stands now, you can patent a very broad idea, and any notion of anybody disputing its approval is laughable as the application isn't exactly on public display for easy reference to anybody who may wish to contest it. It's like sifting through a haystack trying to find one specific piece of straw.

    And then there's the concept of licensing a patent to others which is flawed. As it is now, if you make licensing available to one party, you also have to allow for licensing to others interested. The flaw in this though, is that tech companies get around this restriction by simply not licensing select patents at all, but instead selectively choose who they're going to sue for violating the patent.
    07-26-11 02:15 PM
  7. dentynefire's Avatar
    I think you're missing the point. The review and approval process of the US Patent system is flawed as it applies to intellectual property. As it stands now, you can patent a very broad idea, and any notion of anybody disputing its approval is laughable as the application isn't exactly on public display for easy reference to anybody who may wish to contest it. It's like sifting through a haystack trying to find one specific piece of straw.

    And then there's the concept of licensing a patent to others which is flawed. As it is now, if you make licensing available to one party, you also have to allow for licensing to others interested. The flaw in this though, is that tech companies get around this restriction by simply not licensing select patents at all, but instead selectively choose who they're going to sue for violating the patent.
    If a company only allows only one company to be licensed IP then its like collusion, anti competitive and ilegal. And any company that does not do its due diligence does so at their peril, or risk of...earlier I looked up RIM patents, wasn't very hard at all, whats the problem?
    07-26-11 02:25 PM
  8. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    If a company only allows only one company to be licensed IP then its like collusion, anti competitive and ilegal. And any company that does not do its due diligence does so at their peril, or risk of...earlier I looked up RIM patents, wasn't very hard at all, whats the problem?
    It's easy to look up patents already approved for one company, sure that's a no brainer. Now go and try investigating the patents for every single company in existence that may hold any kind of patent relating to the tech industry or intellectual property. Follow that up with researching every single pending patent that has been applied for and is still under the review/approval process. See how far that gets you. Large corporations attempt it all the time with large teams of workers to accomplish the task, and the results are rarely 100% reliable.

    As for only licensing to one company... that is precisely my point. You can't do that. But the flaw in it is that companies get around it by not licensing a patent to anybody at all, which is completely legal, then simply pick and choose who they sue for patent infringement. It's a loophole that gets around selective licensing.
    01itr likes this.
    07-26-11 02:42 PM
  9. dentynefire's Avatar
    Ah I see what you're saying with the loophole. This is just my opinion here but if a company wins a lawsuit with one company and others are involved as you describe it, then we may never find out the results of negotiated settlement. The licensing fees and agreement would likely be confidential.
    07-26-11 03:42 PM
34 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD