Comments on: Are Apple’s Competitors Stealing Its Patented Inventions?

By: eldernorm

eldernorm — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:34:01 +0000

Hmmmm, so you are saying that it is alright for other companies to use Apple IP and not offer to pay for it. Of course, Apple gets sued plenty (in Marshall, Tx ) for "stealing other companies ideas,,,,, like
e-mail,
electronic communication,
etc, etc, etc.

And the people in Marshall seem to like who ever is suing. It really does not matter that air has been around a long time, someone claims to have a patent to an invisible gas that is used to power cellular growth, so they have a patent on air.

Guess I am just pissed over a very broken system that no one in government seems to want to fix.

Just a thought,
en

By: sunmy

sunmy — Mon, 31 May 2010 09:41:47 +0000

In fact, it is the patentee (Apple) who has stolen the right of the public (HTC or Google) to improve their product. This is an in inevitable consequence of the patent system. When the technology has developed to a certain stage, new innovations will be definitely be created, by one or another. By obtaining patents a little bit earlier, Apple was actually stealing the right of the public to make or using the same invention.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:22:49 +0000

I believe the GUI was the creation of Alan Kay who was at Xerox PARC when he created it, but was frustrated over the lack of support for the interface by the Xerox executive team. He left PARC and someone told him to talk to the folks who were developing a new personal computer product line. Alan did just that and joined the Apple. He brought his user interface with him.

So, I don't think that Apple stole the technology from PARC but used the technology that Alan brought along with him. Also, I don't remember Xerox ever claiming ownership of Alan's user interface.

By: supra vaider High

supra vaider High — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:05:11 +0000

good blog,good article,good post,everything was good

By: Air Jordan 2010

Air Jordan 2010 — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:38:31 +0000

thanks for your share

By: Bill Mosby

Bill Mosby — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:41:08 +0000

Ok, I'm being facetious here, but I'll say it anyway- you don't need the source code , you can just look it up in Knuth. My real point is that if the things disclosed are obvious, so is an implementation. And there sure are a lot of obvious disclosures.

To me, though, the thing that grates the most is the fact that they all seem to be based on a fusion of two unpatentable things- the algorithm being disclosed and the "preferred embodiment", a computer. I wonder if you could also get a patent on an algorithm fused with an alternative embodiment, the human brain?

By: bfeld

bfeld — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:04:05 +0000

But if you’ve ever read a software patent, you know that there is rarely any public disclosure of useful information. More importantly, most of the things disclosed are in the “obvious” or “non-novel” category, which makes them even more useless. Furthermore, the lack of source code completely undermines the entire discussion!

By: Jonas Maebe

Jonas Maebe — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:32:00 +0000

Yes. In fact, at least in a previous life Jobs had no problem admitting that Apple has/had no problems with "stealing great ideas": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

By: Lawrence Ebert

Lawrence Ebert — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:18:20 +0000

The issue of "copying" has been discussed before:

Which brings up a final point. The reason patent infringement is strict liability is because the patent system is designed to encourage people to read patents, which reading makes such people "aware" of what is going on and which reading will guide them NOT to be infringers. The reason for having a patent system is public disclosure of information, to avoid continued
re-discovery of wheels. Perhaps because Lemley hasn't figured that out (eg, Rational Ignorance), Mullin hasn't figured it out either.

from
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/07/mullins-prior-a…

By: bfeld

bfeld — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:42:06 +0000

Re: Nokia – I’m up in arms about it! I don’t know Sawyer’s position, but guessing from our interaction, he thinks is awful as well. It’s especially grotesque given the lack of innovation on the Nokia front for many years that allowed Apple to create an amazing product and dominate the market.