Google should have just agreed to join the Rockstar 6 in jointly purchasing the patents when it was offered the chance to do so.
But no, greedy Google wanted sole rights to the patents so they could abuse others with them. They bid up to $4.4 billion in the end but were ultimately up against people with bigger pockets.
This will come back to bite Google too if they are found to infringe. It will be exceeding difficult for Google to argue against high royalties as they have effectively validated the value of the patents with their own $4.4 billion bid.
Google must be kicking themselves. They created this problem all by themselves.
Those forcing Android manufacturers out of Android business, on the whole, have not being using any Nortel/Rockstar stuff.
At the time, to Google it surely looked suicidal to join and negate the Nortel stuff whilst other stuff continues.
Microsoft certainly have HTC well cornered. Luckily for Samsung they seem to the billions needed to defend forever against Apple.
I say 'forever' as that has become the tactic, suing over 'everything but the kitchen sink'.
http://www.opptrends.com/2013/12/apple-inc-aapl-filed-a-patent-for-voice-tagging-technology-in-siri/
"Through the technology, the Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) users could search for tagged photos using natural language text strings"
"The technology is known as “voice-based Image Tagging and Searching.”"
Tagging, searching through tags should not be patentable. It uses basic 'If then' type statements eleven year olds are taught about.
"The proposed invention could even automatically tag corresponding photos, based on the time and location at which they were snapped"
That almost sounds like an attempt to outlaw some of my quick and simple handy macros.
It is slightly sinister how that article is so subserviently written.
I'm not sure what is actually worse, the actual Apple patent filing attempt, or the style of some media reporting of it.
Its like the gold rush with a land grab to patent all common sense software development out of existence.
I really sense the only reason patent office is turning a blind eye is so that US corporate companies own most of it.
I quite wonder if this global race to the 'protectionist bottom' eventually ends up with 'tit for tat' banning per country.
Not just "modified gene sequences where astronomical amounts of time and money have gone into genetic engineering to achieve specific things".
The full quote you posted from my Wikipedia link:
Gene in natural state: Can't be patented.
Isolated sequence with a known function: Can be patented, without having been "modified" or "genetically engineered", and even though it is not an invention.
Myriad did actually lose, in a surprise ruling, but an appeal is underway...
I think there is a big difference between patenting a drug (invention) or testing method (invention) versus an actual isolated gene sequence (discovery).
Can we please get back to the post which is not to do with genes.
Whatever your opinion is of software patents (yours is quite clear...), most inventions can be deconstructed down to component parts, each of which is common general knowledge. Whether it's a washing machine or a computer program, the invention would lie in the combination of these parts and the resulting functionality (effects).
The patent here boils down to your web search for a restaurant highlighting the click word "Free Taxi".
Likely a "If location is in the Restaurant's free taxi area Then highlight with free ride logo link".
Preventing other search engines from doing the very same is a complete farce. Its now becomes a restraint of trade on the restaurant and taxi companies.
And by now restraining others you are part banning search engines from their job of searching.
The patent here boils down to your web search for a restaurant highlighting the click word "Free Taxi".
Likely a "If location is in the Restaurant's free taxi area Then highlight with free ride logo link".
Preventing other search engines from doing the very same is a complete farce. Its now becomes a restraint of trade on the restaurant and taxi companies.
And by now restraining others you are part banning search engines from their job of searching.
The patent is what it is, it doesn't boil down to anything. You could equally belittle a patent for combustion engine, saying it "boils down to" burning fuel to power a car. Patents don't prevent others from achieving what the inventor has set out to achieve, they prevent others from achieving the same thing in the same way.
So if we are talking about the same US patent, if you want to, in America, commercially exploit a system which highlights the click word "Free Taxi" "If location is in the Restaurant's free taxi area Then highlight with free ride logo link", then this patent does not prevent you from doing so, as long as, for the term of the patent, you don't do it in exactly the same, precisely defined, way:
A computer-implemented method of providing advertisements, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, geographic location information associated with a client device and information identifying a particular user;
accessing user data for a plurality of users;
identifying the user data associated with the particular user including information provided by the particular user for receiving advertisements;
accessing a plurality of target customer profiles each associated with at least one requirement and an advertisement, each advertisement being associated with a business location and a bid value;
identifying an advertisement based on whether the user data associated with the identified advertisement satisfies the at least one requirement associated with each of the plurality of target customer profiles;
identifying transportation options for transporting the particular user from a current location based on the received geographic location information to the business location associated with the identified advertisement;
for each of the identified transportation options, determining, by the processor, a cost value based on a cost of a fare to transport the particular user from the current location to the business location associated with the identified advertisement;
selecting one of the identified transportation options based on the bid value associated with the identified advertisement and the determined cost values; and
determining whether the bid value associated with the identified advertisement is greater than the determined cost value for the selected transportation option;
when the bid value associated with the identified advertisement is greater than the determined cost value for the selected transportation option, transmitting the identified advertisement and the selected transportation option to the client device for display.
The difference was that the combustion engine was new and used materials.
Here the materials are all there. It is LEGO like and they are patented each and every Lego session, without even the session starting.
As likely as not, it is thousands and thousands per day.
The difference was that the combustion engine was new and used materials.
Firstly, I was talking about any combustion engine. If someone came up with brand new design today, would you belittle that as merely "burning fuel to power a car"?
The difference was that the combustion engine was new.
If you know that the claimed method, in toto, was known prior to the filing or priority date of the patent, then please do spill the beans (with references).
Just in that 'taxi' there are likely 100s of possibilities to patent.
Free pizza delivery, free collect and repair, free bus.
They don't look inventions, they are land grabs.
...Patents don't prevent others from achieving what the inventor has set out to achieve, they prevent others from achieving the same thing in the same way....
"The patents in question were originally filed by now-defunct search engine Lycos and they relate to how results from search engines can be ordered and ranked."
On 'how they can be ranked' "Google had argued that it had already reengineered AdWords so that it no longer infringed. But Judge Jackson ruled earlier this month that those modifications hadn't actually changed the system enough and that the new version of AdWords "was nothing more than a colorable variation of the infringing product."
So maybe order and rank can't be achieved and you only get left to to give a crap order and crap rank without infringing.
Seems to me that every day you will find something on any web site that infringes for some vague reason or another.
In a way it will be a bit like every app near enough being a Lodsys infringer.
Seems the software arm of Wisconsin Uni may well be attacking ARM itself via Apple. http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/03/apple-sued-by-university-of-wisconsin-over-a7-chip-at-heart-of-iphone-ipad
The attack is on speculative pre-fetch prediction, something that became more prominent with the advent of Cortex A15.
Speculation is power hungry using hit and miss maths logic to help speed up processing so better prediction obviously increases speed and lowers some of the extra power needed. (prediction is more aggressive in x86 chips methinks)
What is doubly weird is that Apple have previously cited the patent themselves so just maybe ARM already do optionally license the rather dodgy patent of simple maths behind it all.
Doubling interesting is that if Apple and others are holding the basic maths patents, then ARM stock may devalue, ARM themselves being hindered in developing their own designs further. I think I do recall reading that ARMs biggest cost by a wide margin is in patent defence.
Seems they just patented something myself and I'm sure a fair few of you already do. That is using a different email for privacy and to avoid or track spam.
But don't Google themselves already allow linked email accounts?
Seems they just patented something myself and I'm sure a fair few of you already do. That is using a different email for privacy and to avoid or track spam.
But don't Google themselves already allow linked email accounts?
They haven't patented anything. They have filed a patent application and that is what has been published. It is yet to be searched and examined.
"A magnetic attachment unit for magnetically attaching together at least individual first electronic and second electronic devices each having an associated magnetic attachment feature, comprising: a body comprising: a first side, a second side opposite the first side, electronic circuitry arranged to at least provide a communication channel between the first and second electronic devices and processing resources, and a data storage unit arranged to store data; a first magnetic attachment system at a first side of the body comprising at least a first magnet arranged to provide a first activation force for activating the corresponding magnetic attachment feature in the first electronic device; and a second magnetic attachment system at a second side of the body comprising at least a second magnet arranged to provide a second activation force for activating the corresponding magnetic attachment feature in the second electronic device, wherein a magnetic attachment force generated between the activated first and second magnetic systems and the corresponding magnets in the magnetic attachment unit causes the first and second individual electronic devices to operate together as a cooperating electronic device."
Maybe misreading the obfuscation it says something like this as an example 'If subject is sat still for 25 minutes Then do a sensor does a reading'.
But by using the vague terms 'method of automation' they appear to be patenting the act of automation as a method in itself.
NFC tags are sometimes used for automation stuff by Android owners.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/19/apple_patent_talking_fruit_in_every_room/
"According to Patently Apple, which has undertaken the daunting task of unpacking the claims in US Patent 8,677,377, Apple's aim is to make Siri – or something like it – not just something Theodore Twombly falls in love with, but the centre of the household.
That's no light task. Apple's patent attorneys were hard at work on this one, doing their best to obfuscate the rendering of the patent claims:"
Maybe the same conclusion as me is there. That is, if the patent office does not have a clue what its about, then being a million miles from obvious, its easier to get it through.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3210R20140403?irpc=932
"Called the Partnership for American Innovation ......a lobbying group aimed at pushing back at some changes to the patent system members of Congress have proposed.....Companies signing on to the effort so far are Apple Inc., DuPont, Ford Motor Co., General Electric, IBM Corp, Microsoft Corp and Pfizer Inc."
Seems Cisco and Google are in the opposite camp, citing that far too many frivolous patents are awarded. Personally I suspect frivolous software patents now cause world wide trade friction that could eventually escalate to a full blown trade war.
Seems the software arm of Wisconsin Uni may well be attacking ARM itself via Apple. http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/03/apple-sued-by-university-of-wisconsin-over-a7-chip-at-heart-of-iphone-ipad
The attack is on speculative pre-fetch prediction, something that became more prominent with the advent of Cortex A15.
Speculation is power hungry using hit and miss maths logic to help speed up processing so better prediction obviously increases speed and lowers some of the extra power needed. (prediction is more aggressive in x86 chips methinks)
What is doubly weird is that Apple have previously cited the patent themselves so just maybe ARM already do optionally license the rather dodgy patent of simple maths behind it all.
Doubling interesting is that if Apple and others are holding the basic maths patents, then ARM stock may devalue, ARM themselves being hindered in developing their own designs further. I think I do recall reading that ARMs biggest cost by a wide margin is in patent defence.
The very first ARM processors back in the late 80's were pre-fetching.
Methinks it was a newer algorithm so in a way it was like patenting an easier solution to complete Rubiks Cube.
The problem to me is that on any project programmers may create thousands and thousands of solutions to a complete a big set of tasks creating a major minefield of potential litigation.
Whatever your opinion is of software patents (yours is quite clear...), most inventions can be deconstructed down to component parts, each of which is common general knowledge. Whether it's a washing machine or a computer program, the invention would lie in the combination of these parts and the resulting functionality (effects).
Yes, but you can't patent a combination even if it is novel. The patent people at a former employer called this "a toaster on a sunbed".
I'm sure I must have the wrong end of the stick on this one because if someone comes up with a program to do something in a certain way and wants to market it, surely taking out a patent on it is the obvious thing to do? Otherwise if it's any good, everyone would simply use it for nowt. A bit like coming up with new kind of tool or a new drug.
But that point seems to obvious to me, that I'm sure I've missed something. Can someone enlighten me?
Comments
But no, greedy Google wanted sole rights to the patents so they could abuse others with them. They bid up to $4.4 billion in the end but were ultimately up against people with bigger pockets.
This will come back to bite Google too if they are found to infringe. It will be exceeding difficult for Google to argue against high royalties as they have effectively validated the value of the patents with their own $4.4 billion bid.
Google must be kicking themselves. They created this problem all by themselves.
Those forcing Android manufacturers out of Android business, on the whole, have not being using any Nortel/Rockstar stuff.
At the time, to Google it surely looked suicidal to join and negate the Nortel stuff whilst other stuff continues.
Microsoft certainly have HTC well cornered. Luckily for Samsung they seem to the billions needed to defend forever against Apple.
I say 'forever' as that has become the tactic, suing over 'everything but the kitchen sink'.
"Through the technology, the Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) users could search for tagged photos using natural language text strings"
"The technology is known as “voice-based Image Tagging and Searching.”"
Tagging, searching through tags should not be patentable. It uses basic 'If then' type statements eleven year olds are taught about.
"The proposed invention could even automatically tag corresponding photos, based on the time and location at which they were snapped"
That almost sounds like an attempt to outlaw some of my quick and simple handy macros.
It is slightly sinister how that article is so subserviently written.
I'm not sure what is actually worse, the actual Apple patent filing attempt, or the style of some media reporting of it.
The Google 'Algorithm' is there to offer you a free ride to a restaurant to eat and spend money, etc etc.
Its like the gold rush with a land grab to patent all common sense software development out of existence.
I really sense the only reason patent office is turning a blind eye is so that US corporate companies own most of it.
I quite wonder if this global race to the 'protectionist bottom' eventually ends up with 'tit for tat' banning per country.
Can we please get back to the post which is not to do with genes.
Whatever your opinion is of software patents (yours is quite clear...), most inventions can be deconstructed down to component parts, each of which is common general knowledge. Whether it's a washing machine or a computer program, the invention would lie in the combination of these parts and the resulting functionality (effects).
Likely a "If location is in the Restaurant's free taxi area Then highlight with free ride logo link".
Preventing other search engines from doing the very same is a complete farce. Its now becomes a restraint of trade on the restaurant and taxi companies.
And by now restraining others you are part banning search engines from their job of searching.
The patent is what it is, it doesn't boil down to anything. You could equally belittle a patent for combustion engine, saying it "boils down to" burning fuel to power a car. Patents don't prevent others from achieving what the inventor has set out to achieve, they prevent others from achieving the same thing in the same way.
So if we are talking about the same US patent, if you want to, in America, commercially exploit a system which highlights the click word "Free Taxi" "If location is in the Restaurant's free taxi area Then highlight with free ride logo link", then this patent does not prevent you from doing so, as long as, for the term of the patent, you don't do it in exactly the same, precisely defined, way:
Here the materials are all there. It is LEGO like and they are patented each and every Lego session, without even the session starting.
As likely as not, it is thousands and thousands per day.
Firstly, I was talking about any combustion engine. If someone came up with brand new design today, would you belittle that as merely "burning fuel to power a car"?
If you know that the claimed method, in toto, was known prior to the filing or priority date of the patent, then please do spill the beans (with references).
And? The claimed method uses a computer. Computers are made of materials. So not a difference.
USPTO grants ~1500 patents per day.
EPO grants ~180 patents per day.
The majority of these will have nothing to do with software.
Free pizza delivery, free collect and repair, free bus.
They don't look inventions, they are land grabs.
"The Supreme Court could abolish software patents next year. Here’s why it should."
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/06/the-supreme-court-could-abolish-software-patents-next-year-heres-why-it-should/
This lists some of the rubbish pile.
https://www.eff.org/patent-busting
According to you the 'framed browsing' is likely an 'invention'.
So "Long live the frameless web" ?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/29/vringo_owed_patent_royalties_from_google/
On 'how they can be ranked' "Google had argued that it had already reengineered AdWords so that it no longer infringed. But Judge Jackson ruled earlier this month that those modifications hadn't actually changed the system enough and that the new version of AdWords "was nothing more than a colorable variation of the infringing product."
So maybe order and rank can't be achieved and you only get left to to give a crap order and crap rank without infringing.
Seems to me that every day you will find something on any web site that infringes for some vague reason or another.
In a way it will be a bit like every app near enough being a Lodsys infringer.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/03/apple-sued-by-university-of-wisconsin-over-a7-chip-at-heart-of-iphone-ipad
The attack is on speculative pre-fetch prediction, something that became more prominent with the advent of Cortex A15.
Speculation is power hungry using hit and miss maths logic to help speed up processing so better prediction obviously increases speed and lowers some of the extra power needed. (prediction is more aggressive in x86 chips methinks)
What is doubly weird is that Apple have previously cited the patent themselves so just maybe ARM already do optionally license the rather dodgy patent of simple maths behind it all.
Doubling interesting is that if Apple and others are holding the basic maths patents, then ARM stock may devalue, ARM themselves being hindered in developing their own designs further. I think I do recall reading that ARMs biggest cost by a wide margin is in patent defence.
Seems they just patented something myself and I'm sure a fair few of you already do. That is using a different email for privacy and to avoid or track spam.
But don't Google themselves already allow linked email accounts?
They haven't patented anything. They have filed a patent application and that is what has been published. It is yet to be searched and examined.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/21/apple_files_patent_application_for_magnetic_accessory_attachment/If its complete b******s does the obfuscation in the patent application goes to an extreme?
It sounds like a follow up to their fridge magnet (Apple Unibody magnet) patent application.
Talking of obfuscation, what are you actually trying to say?
Maybe misreading the obfuscation it says something like this as an example 'If subject is sat still for 25 minutes Then do a sensor does a reading'.
But by using the vague terms 'method of automation' they appear to be patenting the act of automation as a method in itself.
NFC tags are sometimes used for automation stuff by Android owners.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/19/apple_patent_talking_fruit_in_every_room/
"According to Patently Apple, which has undertaken the daunting task of unpacking the claims in US Patent 8,677,377, Apple's aim is to make Siri – or something like it – not just something Theodore Twombly falls in love with, but the centre of the household.
That's no light task. Apple's patent attorneys were hard at work on this one, doing their best to obfuscate the rendering of the patent claims:"
Maybe the same conclusion as me is there. That is, if the patent office does not have a clue what its about, then being a million miles from obvious, its easier to get it through.
"Called the Partnership for American Innovation ......a lobbying group aimed at pushing back at some changes to the patent system members of Congress have proposed.....Companies signing on to the effort so far are Apple Inc., DuPont, Ford Motor Co., General Electric, IBM Corp, Microsoft Corp and Pfizer Inc."
Seems Cisco and Google are in the opposite camp, citing that far too many frivolous patents are awarded. Personally I suspect frivolous software patents now cause world wide trade friction that could eventually escalate to a full blown trade war.
The very first ARM processors back in the late 80's were pre-fetching.
The problem to me is that on any project programmers may create thousands and thousands of solutions to a complete a big set of tasks creating a major minefield of potential litigation.
Yes, but you can't patent a combination even if it is novel. The patent people at a former employer called this "a toaster on a sunbed".
But that point seems to obvious to me, that I'm sure I've missed something. Can someone enlighten me?