bbc.co.uk— A letter from Apple's legal team reveals that the firm wants Europe to revise rules covering patents that are essential to industry standards.
Feb 8, 2012View in Crawl 4
"Apple has asked for more clarity over how patents deemed crucial to industry standards should be handled."
Nice attitude there, Apple:
Crucial: Anything technological to build mobiles.
Non-Crucial: Any shape, color or form Apple thinks it owns and anything even remotely resembling 'their' patents - Oh, it is.. square... and black... or white... and thus infringing on our rights!
How something looks is covered by copyrights, not patents. Patents are for inventions, although that term is being taken very lightly these days. I sure hope that the system isn't that messed up that patents for how something looks are allowed these days.
What I get from this article is that Apple want's more clarity; you want to use a patent, then this is the standard fee which everyone pays, no behind-the-scenes negotiations, same for everyone and no 'you can't use it'.
The whole patent lawsuit situation has become cannon fodder, they sue because they can, because they got sued by the other party first or because they want to establish their patents and not get sued by someone else who has pretty much the same patent. It really isn't about what they were invented for; protecting inventions from blatant copying in return of sharing your inventions publicly.
Apple is right, we need to revise patent rules. They are far too stringent and hinder progress. The original idea behind patents was to protect the little folk who come up with great ideas from the corporate monsters. Have any of you ever looked into patenting anything yourself? Only corporate monsters can afford to patent anything these days. Either make the process accessible to everyone, regardless of income, or remove them entirely. Its time to revise patent rules, just not in Apple's favor.
How about this for step one: Corporations shouldn't be able to own patents. No 'assignees'. Just allow the inventors to own them. Step two is that we greatly restrict the term of patents such that they expire quickly.
The patent itself isn't the expensive part - it's paying your patent attorney to research and write it. Most of which you will do yourself, but the attorney has to sign off on it.
What I'm taking away from this article is that if a company has a patent that covers an industry standard, like 3G, mp3 etc. that that company should make it's patent available for a flat fee for everyone who want's to use it, no behind-the-scenes, company-per-company negotiations or 'you can't make a phone with 3G because I don't like you and won't allow you to use my patent'.
Sure that's in Apple favor, but just as much as any other company who uses standards in their products.
Surprise, surprise - companies that can buy US lobbyists to get draconian copyright laws passed that screw consumers and stifle competition now want a global system like the US. Gag me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
murxFeb 8, 2012
"Apple has asked for more clarity over how patents deemed crucial to industry standards should be handled."
Nice attitude there, Apple:
Crucial: Anything technological to build mobiles.
Non-Crucial: Any shape, color or form Apple thinks it owns and anything even remotely resembling 'their' patents - Oh, it is.. square... and black... or white... and thus infringing on our rights!
xeworlebiFeb 9, 2012
How something looks is covered by copyrights, not patents. Patents are for inventions, although that term is being taken very lightly these days. I sure hope that the system isn't that messed up that patents for how something looks are allowed these days.
What I get from this article is that Apple want's more clarity; you want to use a patent, then this is the standard fee which everyone pays, no behind-the-scenes negotiations, same for everyone and no 'you can't use it'.
The whole patent lawsuit situation has become cannon fodder, they sue because they can, because they got sued by the other party first or because they want to establish their patents and not get sued by someone else who has pretty much the same patent. It really isn't about what they were invented for; protecting inventions from blatant copying in return of sharing your inventions publicly.
zphiloFeb 8, 2012Submitter
Apple is right, we need to revise patent rules. They are far too stringent and hinder progress. The original idea behind patents was to protect the little folk who come up with great ideas from the corporate monsters. Have any of you ever looked into patenting anything yourself? Only corporate monsters can afford to patent anything these days. Either make the process accessible to everyone, regardless of income, or remove them entirely. Its time to revise patent rules, just not in Apple's favor.
futfanaticoFeb 8, 2012
Great point - the purpose behind patents was to protect individual inventors, not multi-national corporations that can compete with other mncs.
dsmxFeb 8, 2012
I suppose a simply solution would be to make it so any 1 person or company has a restriction on the number of patents it's allowed to have.
RustinHawverFeb 8, 2012
I concur. The way things are does not help the process of free enterprise and spark creative ingenuity from the masses. It stifles it.
christienriouxFeb 9, 2012
How about this for step one: Corporations shouldn't be able to own patents. No 'assignees'. Just allow the inventors to own them. Step two is that we greatly restrict the term of patents such that they expire quickly.
RustinHawverFeb 12, 2012
Why should they Expire? If they expire quickly then the inventor looses?
meccaydnaFeb 9, 2012
The patent itself isn't the expensive part - it's paying your patent attorney to research and write it. Most of which you will do yourself, but the attorney has to sign off on it.
xeworlebiFeb 9, 2012
What I'm taking away from this article is that if a company has a patent that covers an industry standard, like 3G, mp3 etc. that that company should make it's patent available for a flat fee for everyone who want's to use it, no behind-the-scenes, company-per-company negotiations or 'you can't make a phone with 3G because I don't like you and won't allow you to use my patent'.
Sure that's in Apple favor, but just as much as any other company who uses standards in their products.
mtownFeb 8, 2012
I would think certain finger gestures for touchscreen commands are "essential" for touchscreen devices, but apple would disagree.
asdafasdfafsadfafadafsasFeb 8, 2012
Apple is a whiny bitch.
sattireattireFeb 8, 2012
Of course the want to revise the rules. If you can't play by the rules, you change them.
razorsfuryFeb 9, 2012
Or more precisely... "Revise the patent rules to favor us... apple".
michaelpaul529Feb 9, 2012
Apple shouldnt be complaining about this. what assh**e...
spider_manFeb 9, 2012
"the firm wants Europe to revise rules covering patents that are essential to industry"
Translation:
the firm wants Europe to revise rules covering patents that are essential to Apple's profits
There I fixed it for you.
futfanaticoFeb 8, 2012
Surprise, surprise - companies that can buy US lobbyists to get draconian copyright laws passed that screw consumers and stifle competition now want a global system like the US. Gag me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Mick1964Feb 8, 2012
Why would Apple want the rules changed unless it is to their benefit.
http://www.electricalhub.co.uk
g21networkFeb 9, 2012
good.....thought behind patents was to protect individual inventors