What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
18 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"to ensure that future iPhone users will be able to access and purchase tunes (and video?) from the iTunes Store"
Should read:
"to ensure that competitors products _won't_ be able to access and purchase tunes (and video?) from the iTunes Store"
Patents don't solve technical problems. They prevent others from doing so, and are especially anti-competitive where those solutions are trivial. - fordicus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6people who don't understand the patent system should be barred from public comment on patent issues entirely. Case in point, the author of this article. From TFA "On February 1, the US Patent & Trademark Office published Apple’s patent application titled Configuration of a computing device in a secure manner . Apple’s patent describes ..."
Publishing a patent application means absolutely nothing. I can write "Hello" on a sheet of paper with appropriate headings, pay the fees, and in 18 months I will have a published patent application which says "Hello".
Published Patent Application != Patent.
The patent system works by rewarding inventors who publicly disclose their invention a 20 year monopoly on their invention. What you see here from Apple is the disclosure of their invention which, if the claims are deemed allowable by a patent examiner (often after multiple amendments to the claims to overcome prior art), will be issued as a patent.
/rant off - ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Patents don't solve technical problems."
I think the quote you were criticizing was only referring to the work Apple is doing which resulted in lawyers filing for patents. I'm pretty sure people understand patents don't solve technical problems.
"They prevent others from doing so"
Yep, that's what they're designed to do, in part. They're also designed to encourage inventors to detail how they are doing something clever, so that in X years when the patent runs out, everyone can take advantage of it.
If patents didn't exist, companies would simply protect their works using trade secret protection, and many clever solutions would have never seen the light of day.
"and are especially anti-competitive where those solutions are trivial."
I agree, trivial 'inventions' should not be patented, and since they are, the patent system is currently doing more harm than good. - datisit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. You should be able to do it all from the phone. No computer needed!
- jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope people can download podcasts Wirelessly like when a new one shows up it automatically gets it.
- 1021, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Configuration of a computing device in a secure manner" patent. Wow, just wow.
How much more generic can these patents get? It's a danger to creativity I tell you. - 1jaxstate1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All over the iPhones WiFi connetion! This is good news.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have some experience dealing with granted patents (not applications) that were (IMO) trivial and incomplete and possibly fictional. Lawyers routinely try to get a patent to be as general as possible, beyond the actual scope of invention. It's understandable, but it works to undermine the system.
Patents were intended to do more than simply protect an inventor's rights, as some stake in the ground -- they were designed as a way to protect an inventor's work in EXCHANGE for a public good, i.e., making the details public and licensing the technology for the greatest good, not simply preventing competition. Apple is routinely on the wrong side of this debate. - phunkysai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would be killer. Here's hoping that we will be able to surf the iTunes store from anywhere, not just within range of our desktop. Altho I guess an iTunes interface on that small screen might not work too well.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2""Configuration of a computing device in a secure manner" patent. Wow, just wow. How much more generic can these patents get?"
Try reading the patent before your criticize it. The whole point of patent titles is to be simple, so that when one is looking for a particular method of doing something, a patent search can come up with it quickly. In this case, the patent describes a method of authentication that is unique to the application of the iPhone (presumably), that is thorough and complete. The idea behind patenting it is to keep other's hands off of it for the time that the patent is valid, and so that their licensing of the method is clear and straight forward (instead of you buying a license to copyrighted code, for example, you would instead buy a right to license the patent and implement your own code performing the same steps as put forward in the patent).
From a once over of the patent, it sounds pretty sound, but without a team of lawyers going through and reading all other forms of authentication that aren't referenced in this patent, I couldn't tell you how strong it really is. At least it isn't as vague as trying to patent "a method of selecting an item on a screen using a cursor". But we'll save that discussion for another day. Do yourself a favor and read the patent. - Kuipo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iTMS... Let's just spell it out, or leave it out. Not every name has to be abbreviated.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Method of Swinging on a Swing? Method of Doing Commerce over the Internet?"
If these people actually invented these things, then any patent made with it should stand. The problem is the process of proving you invented it. The Patent Office currently doesn't actively look for challenges against patents, and other inventors, they leave that up to the inventors to decide. So if someone tries to patent something that's ridiculously obvious, there's no recourse but to sue them after it's happened (or hope that the prior art is so well known that the patent application is rejected).
In this case, the method is sound. Patenting a protocol is a very strong legal way to keep people from using that protocol without authorization (which is why Microsoft has a patent printing machine in their basement). In this case, Apple's patent only refers to a few particular wireless authentication steps and makes up a solid protocol (one that I certainly haven't seen before). If you can find a solid case of these particular steps being taken in another device, then certainly this patent is invalid, else, the patent stands.
So many people reject patents based on just the title, try reading them for once. You might find it quite educational. - mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh yes this is an excellent idea...all over the iPhone's amazing EDGE connection. Good luck with that *****.
- spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A patent that was granted in 2002 where a child would swing side to side instead of forwards and backwards. This isn't new as children on the playground were doing this 25 years ago when I was a kid and were being yelled at because they were colliding with other children on the swings.
"The Patent Office currently doesn't actively look for challenges against patents, and other inventors, they leave that up to the inventors to decide. So if someone tries to patent something that's ridiculously obvious, there's no recourse but to sue them after it's happened (or hope that the prior art is so well known that the patent application is rejected)."
Which pretty much proves my point in disagreeing with the parent saying that an application does not equal a patent. The application will go through. Maybe someone will sue Apple, or it will end up standing up in court like Amazon's patents covering standard brick and mortar practices that were considered "innovative" because it was applied to the internet. - bluering, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I could really tell from the article, but it seems like this wouldn't be too hard to adapt to a VNC or RDP type connection. That way you could operate away from home (on public wifi somewhere) so long as your home system is up and running on the net.
- jmmf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Inaccurate title as a published application != a patent (see fordicus' excellent description). Please everyone keep that in mind when they see published applications, and also remember, for granted patents, protection -only- extends to what is pointed out in the claims at the end of the application, not -anything- else (no protection on pictures, the description, etc. etc.)
Also, legally speaking, 'trivial' things aren't allowed/shouldn't be allowed to be patented. Whenever you see people rant about something trivial/obvious that was allegedly patented, be sure to check they aren't referring to an application and that they aren't referring to the pictures/specification; make sure they are referencing an actual patent, not an application, then go check its claims to see if they have a valid point. - spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Published Patent Application != Patent."
With the patent office rubber stamping everything that goes by their desk these days, it pretty much does. I mean come on, Method of Swinging on a Swing? Method of Doing Commerce over the Internet? - VermiciousKnid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2looks to me like it has to go through a computer to reach the net. if so, weak.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is