Apple Wins Reversal of $625.5 Million Mirror Worlds Patent Infringement Verdict(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Apple Wins Reversal of $625.5 Million Mirror Worlds Patent Infringement Verdict
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/apple-wins-reversal-of-mirror-worlds-patent-verdict.html
4 comments
Is there any other country in this beautiful world that encourages lunacy like this?
I mean, patenting a specific engine design is fine by me. But that would be equivalent to patenting the source code structure of Spotlight, which no one can see anyway. How did we get to the point where we now have patents not for implementations but for interfaces? I wonder how much money is wasted every year on disputes like this. How much time is wasted on it. How many lives are getting wasted on it!
Software does not have visible physical implementations like engines do. Software consists of ideas, written down so computers can execute them. Software really only exists in the mind, it has no physical reality. If you patent software, you patent cell patterns in some brain. If you sue someone for that, you are claiming ownership of some programmers brain tissue!
It will be a fine day when we programmers can legally own our own brains again. It will be a day worthy of great celebration! Until then, american minds must keep their head down lest someone wants to rip their brains out, which is a sad thing indeed.
I mean, patenting a specific engine design is fine by me. But that would be equivalent to patenting the source code structure of Spotlight, which no one can see anyway. How did we get to the point where we now have patents not for implementations but for interfaces? I wonder how much money is wasted every year on disputes like this. How much time is wasted on it. How many lives are getting wasted on it!
Software does not have visible physical implementations like engines do. Software consists of ideas, written down so computers can execute them. Software really only exists in the mind, it has no physical reality. If you patent software, you patent cell patterns in some brain. If you sue someone for that, you are claiming ownership of some programmers brain tissue!
It will be a fine day when we programmers can legally own our own brains again. It will be a day worthy of great celebration! Until then, american minds must keep their head down lest someone wants to rip their brains out, which is a sad thing indeed.
Well I hope you called out apple when they sued HTC on patents like, sliding an image to unlock a phone...
It's not that anyone in particular partaking in this system is evil. They all have to do it. It's the system itself that is evil.
I don't care who sues who. Software patents in general are an awful mess that should be abolished.
I don't care who sues who. Software patents in general are an awful mess that should be abolished.
To me these patents seem less transparently silly than many of those often at issue in high-profile cases, and yet they end up providing an even harsher argument against software patents. With the silly patents a couple tweaks to the system might get them thrown out, but I don't think any patent system that accepts software patents could find a basis for rejecting these. From that starker viewpoint its as crazy an idea as ever that the person who typed these abstract descriptions and made these shoddy diagrams deserves more ownership than Apple, who actually made the concepts real.
"From that starker viewpoint its as crazy an idea as ever that the person who typed these abstract descriptions and made these shoddy diagrams deserves more ownership than Apple, who actually made the concepts real."
To be fair, Gelernter wrote several books about these ideas, founded a software company based on them, and tried to market several different desktop software packages using the ideas in the mid/late 90s. He's also a professor of computer science at Yale, and invented a bunch of concepts (in the same books) that were inspirations for JavaSpaces and Jini. He's not a wackadoo in some garage in Texas.
My point is, it's terrifically unfair to characterize Gelernter as a patent troll. He's been a prolific contributor to computer science, and (speaking as someone who was a fan of the books that first popularized the ideas in question), a lot of Apple's UI designs today really are fantastically similar to what Gelernter was dreaming up 20+ years ago. The Time Machine UI, in particular, was so much like the lifestreams concept that I originally thought that Apple had hired him to do the design.
There are situations where ideas seem obvious in retrospect, but completely out of left-field at the time of their conception. These ideas weren't even in the ballpark when Gelernter first started publishing them.
To be fair, Gelernter wrote several books about these ideas, founded a software company based on them, and tried to market several different desktop software packages using the ideas in the mid/late 90s. He's also a professor of computer science at Yale, and invented a bunch of concepts (in the same books) that were inspirations for JavaSpaces and Jini. He's not a wackadoo in some garage in Texas.
My point is, it's terrifically unfair to characterize Gelernter as a patent troll. He's been a prolific contributor to computer science, and (speaking as someone who was a fan of the books that first popularized the ideas in question), a lot of Apple's UI designs today really are fantastically similar to what Gelernter was dreaming up 20+ years ago. The Time Machine UI, in particular, was so much like the lifestreams concept that I originally thought that Apple had hired him to do the design.
There are situations where ideas seem obvious in retrospect, but completely out of left-field at the time of their conception. These ideas weren't even in the ballpark when Gelernter first started publishing them.
Thanks I didn't know all that about Gelernter and his work.
There are situations where ideas seem obvious in retrospect, but completely out of left-field at the time of their conception. These ideas weren't even in the ballpark when Gelernter first started publishing them.
Unless you can demonstrate that the people who implemented the Apple products actually read a single line written by Gelernter, the grandparent's point stands.
Ideas aren't, or at least shouldn't be, worth jack squat. Apple did all the actual work here.
Unless you can demonstrate that the people who implemented the Apple products actually read a single line written by Gelernter, the grandparent's point stands.
Ideas aren't, or at least shouldn't be, worth jack squat. Apple did all the actual work here.
The old truths of the OJ trial still rings true. Justice is not black or white, the only color that matters is green!
You can see how there is some Cover Flow similarity there. However, why should this be patentable at all? Otherwise, shouldn't I just sit down and sketch as many UI configurations as I can think of, patent them all, and then sue the hell out of anyone who then implements them? Just seems silly.