iPhone 6

[velu]

Damn.. This is iPhone thread . Leo and cabby :mad:

[StriKe]

Damn.. This is iPhone thread . Leo and cabby :mad:

This crapple doesn't even deserve a thread.. Waiting for Moto X+1,G2, Note 4, Z3, Nexus X/6, LG watch and Moto 360

:yay:

[velu]

Have to agree iCloud is a direct competitor of Google cloud.. Will get only better Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Old guy]

I'm against design patents because they serve no purpose. Implementation is multi-step, if the judge decides that it is "discussable" it becomes part of the lawsuit else it doesn't. Everyone says they are against patent systems but no one provides a solution. The best solution for now is what companies like Twitter, Tesla etc. have come up with "no-first-use". Personally, I am against design patents.

Problem is you cannot propose solution without knowing legal history of that country Can't they create better system which blocks products like mi3 and mipad which are in clear violation and should not exist but do not block every other product with same shape ? My problem is not even these patent but how can they exist when it's not even creation of anything not even idea .. Also I will read about no first use this is first time I am hearing about it :two_thumbs_up:

[Crookbond]

Sabby, I want to tell you to differentiate between three parts - (1) Patent (2) Litigation and (3) Patent accepted for a litigation. A patent is generally an atomic unit which in itself provides something unique via multiple claims (lets call it features). These features are either part of a "working system" or a "method". By themselves, these features aren't unique but the combination of them could make them unique. A litigation, generally consists of 1 or more patents. More of then than not, there are multiple patents (unless the core technology itself) because one of them isn't sufficient to prove that your competitor is trying to steal your innovation. This is more true for something like a phone where there are multiple features than something like a car where one unqiue feature could be the selling point. A patent can be accepted/rejected for litigation. This totally depends on the law system of the country and the judge who listens to the trial. For example, you can't have a software patent in India. In US, it is allowed. There are many complex factors including human judgment. More often, judges aren't technically capable to understand software implementations and hence, these calls have high variance. I've tried to simplify as much as possible and hence, I might have used wrongly. All the above doesn't apply to design patents - they are purely ornamental in nature.

[Crookbond]

Problem is you cannot propose solution without knowing legal history of that country Can't they create better system which blocks products like mi3 and mipad which are in clear violation and should not exist but do not block every other product with same shape ? My problem is not even these patent but how can they exist when it's not even creation of anything not even idea .. Also I will read about no first use this is first time I am hearing about it :two_thumbs_up:

By nature, patent violations are civil not criminal suit. So unless, the party holding the patent files an application - it won't be taken to trial. In a criminal trial, the state can bring charges but in a civil trial it has to be the parties. A patent is never on an idea but on a method or a system. You can't patent an idea! More about "No-First-Use" policy. https://blog.twitter.com/2012/introducing-innovators-patent-agreement https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement http://paulgraham.com/patentpledge.html http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

[Old guy]

Sabby, I want to tell you to differentiate between three parts - (1) Patent (2) Litigation and (3) Patent accepted for a litigation. A patent is generally an atomic unit which in itself provides something unique via multiple claims (lets call it features). These features are either part of a "working system" or a "method". By themselves, these features aren't unique but the combination of them could make them unique. A litigation, generally consists of 1 or more patents. More of then than not, there are multiple patents (unless the core technology itself) because one of them isn't sufficient to prove that your competitor is trying to steal your innovation. This is more true for something like a phone where there are multiple features than something like a car where one unqiue feature could be the selling point. A patent can be accepted/rejected for litigation. This totally depends on the law system of the country and the judge who listens to the trial. For example, you can't have a software patent in India. In US, it is allowed. There are many complex factors including human judgment. More often, judges aren't technically capable to understand software implementations and hence, these calls have high variance. I've tried to simplify as much as possible and hence, I might have used wrongly. All the above doesn't apply to design patents - they are purely ornamental in nature.

Thanks :icflove: Yes I can see you tried to call it feature which is simplified a lot but explains out topic better ... Ok just reply simply to this do you feel design patents are wrong and why is that ?i think we both feel same but I am not able to put it in words well I actually have no problem with majority of patents under discussion here just some software and design ones which clearly you have problem with took ..correct ? Also I get this whole process but don't u think there is lot of money being wasted defending patents which might not hold under litigation process ?

[Old guy]

By nature, patent violations are civil not criminal suit. So unless, the party holding the patent files an application - it won't be taken to trial. In a criminal trial, the state can bring charges but in a civil trial it has to be the parties. A patent is never on an idea but on a method or a system. You can't patent an idea! More about "No-First-Use" policy. https://blog.twitter.com/2012/introducing-innovators-patent-agreement https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement http://paulgraham.com/patentpledge.html http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

Now I was simplifying the idea part ...also thanks for no first use links I just read twitter one it sounds like a good idea their main concern is not with topic which we are discussing but with patents of employee ...:hmmm:

[Sachin=GOD]

@DM - Thanks for the clarity on patents.

[Old guy]

@DM - Thanks for the clarity on patents.

Yeah he really explained it well ...that's why I wanted to talk with him and I learned so much like always :two_thumbs_up:

[Crookbond]

Thanks :icflove: Yes I can see you tried to call it feature which is simplified a lot but explains out topic better ... Ok just reply simply to this do you feel design patents are wrong and why is that ?i think we both feel same but I am not able to put it in words well I actually have no problem with majority of patents under discussion here just some software and design ones which clearly you have problem with took ..correct ? Also I get this whole process but don't u think there is lot of money being wasted defending patents which might not hold under litigation process ?

Design patents are merely ornamental in nature like the Fifth Glass Avenue patent about Apple you posted. I don't see a reason for their existence. Currently, they are simply used to add litigation layers on existing issues. More like, dressing on a salad. Software patents are a huge debate and increasingly, I think the problem is in not the system but the people who grant these patents. Also, unlike other things software moves (or is moving) very fast - so the nature of what comprises of a software in 1990 is different from what is now. For example - Latent Semantic Indexing is an algorithm which is used to help search. Spotlight (search on all Macs, iPod, iPhones, iPads etc.) use it. It was patented in the late 1980s and it made sense then. It doesn't make sense anymore. The money part is the third angle which people argue against patent litigations. But, I think that is a red herring. For me, the job of the govt should be protecting innovation. Now, even if people are granted patents for stupid things - the judges should be smart enough to understand where to draw the line.

[Old guy]

Design patents are merely ornamental in nature like the Fifth Glass Avenue patent about Apple you posted. I don't see a reason for their existence. Currently, they are simply used to add litigation layers on existing issues. More like, dressing on a salad. Software patents are a huge debate and increasingly, I think the problem is in not the system but the people who grant these patents. Also, unlike other things software moves (or is moving) very fast - so the nature of what comprises of a software in 1990 is different from what is now. For example - Latent Semantic Indexing is an algorithm which is used to help search. Spotlight (search on all Macs, iPod, iPhones, iPads etc.) use it. It was patented in the late 1980s and it made sense then. It doesn't make sense anymore. The money part is the third angle which people argue against patent litigations. But, I think that is a red herring. For me, the job of the govt should be protecting innovation. Now, even if people are granted patents for stupid things - the judges should be smart enough to understand where to draw the line.

I think money part is valid ...these companies wasted years and millions of collards fighting these patents which in the end did not stooge...and people who grant them are part of system I guess I cannot really pin point at who is at fault but clearly like you said here system were not made for products we have today or software we have today ...you seem to know lot more than any of us so what do u think should happen with software ...what are the arguments really as u can see here is lot of misinformation out where and sensationalised headlines and this is honestly first time I am actually learning something new about this ...:nice:

[Crookbond]

Now I was simplifying the idea part ...also thanks for no first use links I just read twitter one it sounds like a good idea their main concern is not with topic which we are discussing but with patents of employee ...:hmmm:

A patent always has some inventors - who are generally employees. But the patent in itself, belongs to an organization. For example - the 5th Avenue Glass Patent lists Steve Jobs (and other people) as inventors. But, the patent in itself belongs to the organization Apple. If the inventors leave the company, the patent is still with the company. The first use policy is detailed on the open source Github repository. In simple terms, a company which signs the "No-First-Use" (or IPA as Twitter likes to call it) won't initiate a patent litigation against any company unless - (1) The other company in itself has initiated one against you and you have to defend it and (2) It can be used as an offense against companies who repeatedly sue others in other words patent trolls (they didn't want to use that term as it sounds a bit crass). In case of (2), permission will be sought from the inventors of the patent to proceed with the litigation.

[Crookbond]

@DM - Thanks for the clarity on patents.

There's no way for a layman to even understand some of these. The tricky part about IT related patents are that you require the knowledge of both IT and law. Most IT company patent offices usually have people who have certain degree of experience with software as patent lawyers.

[Old guy]

A patent always has some inventors - who are generally employees. But the patent in itself, belongs to an organization. For example - the 5th Avenue Glass Patent lists Steve Jobs (and other people) as inventors. But, the patent in itself belongs to the organization Apple. If the inventors leave the company, the patent is still with the company. The first use policy is detailed on the open source Github repository. In simple terms, a company which signs the "No-First-Use" (or IPA as Twitter likes to call it) won't initiate a patent litigation against any company unless - (1) The other company in itself has initiated one against you and you have to defend it and (2) It can be used as an offense against companies who repeatedly sue others in other words patent trolls (they didn't want to use that term as it sounds a bit crass). In case of (2), permission will be sought from the inventors of the patent to proceed with the litigation.

Ah...thanks for clearing this up I will read rest of links too ..thanks this sounds like a good idea but what is incentive for company to use this ?

[Crookbond]

I think money part is valid ...these companies wasted years and millions of collards fighting these patents which in the end did not stooge...and people who grant them are part of system I guess I cannot really pin point at who is at fault but clearly like you said here system were not made for products we have today or software we have today ...you seem to know lot more than any of us so what do u think should happen with software ...what are the arguments really as u can see here is lot of misinformation out where and sensationalised headlines and this is honestly first time I am actually learning something new about this ...:nice:

In a free market, the money is for the company to decide how they want to spend it. They are responsible for their share holders (if public) and if private, they can do whatever they want to! The tenets of law is to provide a framework for people to do business and give a fair environment. If the company wants to waste its money on patent litigation, it's their choice.

[Old guy]

In a free market' date=' the money is for the company to decide how they want to spend it. They are responsible for their share holders (if public) and if private, they can do whatever they want to! The tenets of law is to provide a framework for people to do business and give a fair environment. If the company wants to waste its money on patent litigation, it's their choice.[/quote'] Hmmm but it can't be good for anyone other than law firms ...:cantstop: I guess way u explained patents this makes sense too but design ones still do not I guess I need to read more about it

[Crookbond]

Ah...thanks for clearing this up I will read rest of links too ..thanks this sounds like a good idea but what is incentive for company to use this ?

You mean why should companies sign up for "No-First-Use" (NFU)? Actually, funny as it may sound - NFU actually originated from warfare (chemical, biological and nuclear). If you ask me the incentive, on the top of my head I would say game theory and pay offs - but that for another day!

[Old guy]

You mean why should companies sign up for "No-First-Use" (NFU)? Actually' date=' funny as it may sound - NFU actually originated from warfare (chemical, biological and nuclear). If you ask me the incentive, on the top of my head I would say game theory and pay offs - but that for another day![/quote'] :hmmm: Maybe after my ban :p

[Crookbond]

:hmmm: Maybe after my ban :p

Well, if you really want to learn about it - I'd recommend to take this course (if you have time). https://www.coursera.org/course/networksonline Chapter 7 deals with how people behave in a social network. I took this course last year and completed it - quizzes and final exam too.