Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon sues Sigma for ¥12.6 billion over VR lenses

Go to last post
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
Now - lets se. So - you claim that all granted patents fulfil the criteria of height? Is that how I shall interpret your answer?
Click to expand...
I haven't a clue how you're going to interpret my answer. I can't even understand what you wrote, nor see how it connects with anything I said. What was that about 'height'? Where did I mention 'height?', especially in relation to Token Rings.
Click to expand...
Now - Ill answer to this one - and then I am done with this discussion. Its obvious so that you feel to be greatly superior and is the one full with knowledge.

This is what happened:

1. I said that there are patents with low height and gave some examples. It was e.g. Amazon one click.

2. Unfortunately one of the examples was token ring. And you it seems have worked with that and you wrote something that I did not find in particular relevant. But I think your point was that I was wrong. Was it not? I still dont understand in what way I was wrong. But ... you seem to say that everything I write is wrong. That seems to be the style you use when discussing in this forum.

3. So I then asked - how your post could show that there exist no low hight patents granted. Because the only way I can be wrong when claiming there exist low hight patents is that none such do in fact exist. Logic?

4. Now you see - there is a problem with your method of discussion - i.e. that everything the other one says is wrong. It is that every statement made tends to generate a couple of new statements - and all those are of course also wrong by definition. Then the discussion tends to be more and more complicated. Because everything has to be commented back from both parties. Then the discussion will be larger and larger end eventually go totally out of hand.

5. Therefore I have tried to restart the discussion some times - in order to make it easier to handle. But it quickly grows again.

So - now I say it once more time - and you dont have to answer if you dont wish so - but if you do I think you can say something that is more constructive than just stating me wrong in any sentence I write.

So here we go

Immaterial laws makes assumptions that are rapidly becoming less valid. The assumptions are that there are some simple relationships between a few actors, e.g. that writers wants to control the printers and that companies wants to control their competitors. This is not longer so. The planet is getting smaller with a large amount of actors that have different needs. Lots of programming is today made as open source. Lots of cultural artefacts are today made in diverse media. Its accelerating very fast. Photography is just a part of this. Its a revolution.

Take Linux, Its free. But people make money on it. In your world this is not possible. Take Google and Skype. More impossible stuff. Take this site. made by an enthusiast. How many patents do you think Phil Askey holds? With you reasoning Phil should not be in business.

Of course you can develop and make good business without patents.

And I am not so stupid that you claim in almost every post you write. I know that there are benefits with patents. And they have worked rather well until some years ago. There are also benefits with Copyrights. But Copyright is today a great anomaly. Stuff that are protected 75 (or whatever) years after the makers death? Big companies that hunts kids that copies music and sues them for millions of dollars? I dont know about you - but when I was young it was common practice to copy from radio on tape. And no one even dreamt on hunting any kids for it.

Now - I assume that everything I have written above - and probably also below is totally wrong and shows my utter ignorance. Then so be it. If you want an honest discussion, no matter if you find me wrong or right - welcome - but if you only can say I am wrong - this particular discussion ends here.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
f_stops said:
Nice post -
What we really need to see is Zeiss Ikon vs Nikon F.

Ikon . . . sounds like hmmm. . . Canon?
Click to expand...
Neither Zeiss nor Nikon were anywhere close to producing the first SLR. The Zeiss Ikon Contax S was the first SLR with an integrated Pentaprism eye level viewfinder, which would probably be a patentable invention.



http://basepath.com/wp/?p=288

Unfortunately for that particular Zeiss they were in the communist part of Germany, when there was an alternative Zeiss organisation being established in West Germany. The Soviet authorities didn't exactly go along with the whole idea of patenting, a bit like Roland, they believed that all inventions should be usable without licence for the common good (particularly German inventions for the Russian common good). And as far as their rights in the west were concerned, their was no-one championing their intellectual property rights. In fact, they were forced to stop calling themselves 'Zeiss' and start calling themselves 'Pentacon' instead. Those who think that the new 'Zeiss' established in Oberkochen is the real 'Zeiss' should stop and think that the pattern for the modern SLR camera was established by 'Pentacon'.

As for the Nikon F, at had no feature (save perhaps the titanium shutter) that was not anticipated by the 1958 Zunow reflex.



http://www.ukcamera.com/collect/zunow/zunow1.htm
and the Zunow even had an f/1.1 lens to go with it.
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
No, criminal law is a completely different thing.
Click to expand...
I know that.

One problem I have here is that English is not my native speak.

What I am trying to say is that copyright law, that is based on civil rights law is rather random. And tried to show what happened if you applied the same principles to criminal law. You are not making a crime when you are robbing the bank. Only if the bank sues you and can prove some loss then you might get a punishment. And please try to accept that I might use the faulty English words - in civil rights it might not be called punishment. But I hope you get my point nevertheless.

This means that if I use an image I e.g. find on Internet - then its quite random if anything will happen. And this goes for any image. So - to be on the safe side - I shall not use any found images - no matter how trivial the images might seem.

Lets say someone have put up a nice desktop image of a beach - and I see it and puts it on my desktop. A quite innocent thing to do I would say. Then it turns out that the guy that had that desktop finds it out and claims that he plans to start selling desktops and has some convincing argument that my stealing the desktop has made a damage of 1 million dollar. Maybe he will lose the case. But just being in such a case might be traumatic for many. And - with some slight changes the claim might be a winning case.

The main problem is that we are making small innocent actions possible a catastrophe for the one doing it.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
bobn2 said:
Neither Zeiss nor Nikon were anywhere close to producing the first SLR. The Zeiss Ikon Contax S was the first SLR with an integrated Pentaprism eye level viewfinder, which would probably be a patentable invention.



http://basepath.com/wp/?p=288
Click to expand...
Just an addition on that, you might think that the Contax S looks a bit like an old film Pentax

Well, you'd be right. VEB Carl Zeiss (the East German Zeiss) didn't have a total bust with shifting their IP in the capitalist world. One of the arrangements they made was with the Asahi Optical company, who produced the first Japanese 35mm SLR, the Asahiflex, in 1952



You'll not, it doesn't have a pentaprism. They added that in 1957 (also predating the Nikon F) and bought a name for it from VEB Zeiss Ikon. As I said in the other post, they'd chosen the name 'Pentacon' (from PENTAprism CONtax), but one of the other names they'd trade marked was 'PENtaprism conTAX' or Pentax, which is the name Asahi used for their camera.



http://www.cameraquest.com/pentorig.htm

--
Bob
 
Roland Karlsson said:
bobn2 said:
No, criminal law is a completely different thing.
Click to expand...
I know that.

One problem I have here is that English is not my native speak.

What I am trying to say is that copyright law, that is based on civil rights law is rather random. And tried to show what happened if you applied the same principles to criminal law. You are not making a crime when you are robbing the bank. Only if the bank sues you and can prove some loss then you might get a punishment. And please try to accept that I might use the faulty English words - in civil rights it might not be called punishment. But I hope you get my point nevertheless.
Click to expand...
It is exactly the right point. If physical or financial theft was handled in the same way as intellectual theft was, that is exactly what would happen. You'd rob the bank and wait to see if the bank would take any action to recoup the damage you caused them, without having to fear the criminal law enforcement agencies. So, I'm not sure now whether you think intellectual property law is no good because it's too weak - and it should be made a criminal offence to use someone else's image without their permission, or whether you think even the little protection that there is too strong.
Roland Karlsson said:
This means that if I use an image I e.g. find on Internet - then its quite random if anything will happen. And this goes for any image. So - to be on the safe side - I shall not use any found images - no matter how trivial the images might seem.
Click to expand...
That's what's called life. If you go up to someone in the street and punch them in the face, you don't know what's going to happen = they might run away, or punch you back or draw a gun and shoot you. My advice would be to weigh up the risks before going and punching someone in the face, if that's something you feel an urge to do.
Roland Karlsson said:
Lets say someone have put up a nice desktop image of a beach - and I see it and puts it on my desktop. A quite innocent thing to do I would say. Then it turns out that the guy that had that desktop finds it out and claims that he plans to start selling desktops and has some convincing argument that my stealing the desktop has made a damage of 1 million dollar. Maybe he will lose the case. But just being in such a case might be traumatic for many. And - with some slight changes the claim might be a winning case.

The main problem is that we are making small innocent actions possible a catastrophe for the one doing it.
Click to expand...
I think that's an absurd argument. All you're asking is for the law to be changed to take away from you the need to weigh the risks in your life, against the interests of those who create images and maybe wish to earn some money from them. I don't think your extreme risk averseness justifies prejudicing their interests. In the example you give above, if you borrow someone's image without knowing who they are or what they want to do with it, there is a very small chance that they are intending using it to start a wallpaper business. If they are, there is a very small chance that they will find your copy. If they do, there is only a very small chance that they will do anything other than settle for payment of the due licence fee. If they don't, it's unlikely that they'll find a lawyer who says anything other than settle for the licence fee, and if they did, it's very unlikely that a court would award anything other than the licence fee. That risk might be too much for you to bear, but you probably won't have time worrying about that while you're worrying about the green jelly from Andromeda which might land on your head and suck your brains out.

And in any case, if the risk is too much, you could simply do the right think, and ask the copyright owner for permission.
--
Bob
 
Roland Karlsson said:
So - now I say it once more time - and you dont have to answer if you dont wish so - but if you do I think you can say something that is more constructive than just stating me wrong in any sentence I write.
Click to expand...
I only say you're wrong in the sentences in which you're wrong, which is, I admit, rather a lot of them. But this discussion is obviously starting to upset you, so it's probably not worth continuing.
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
igb said:
bobn2 said:
Roland Karlsson said:
bobn2 said:
Business is a dirty game, and patents is part of it.
Click to expand...
Thats not a motivation for fixing patent laws that are not good
Click to expand...
Very few laws are 'good' - they are a compromise between what's fair, what's reasonable and what's enforceable,
Click to expand...
That would be a (theoretical) best case scenario.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are laws that satisfy none of these things, but I don't think that the patent laws fall into that category. It's obviously fair that people who spend time, money and ingenuity to develop something that can make money should be able to benefit from it. In a free market capitalist society such a thing is hard to unenforceable without a legal and bureaucratic supporting framework and the rigmarole one has to go through to gain a patent is reasonable in the circumstances.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
Me too. What I'd like to see is a real example of an effective 'blocking patent' - one taken and used for the sole purpose of preventing competitors using a technology that the patentee doesn't use themselves. I think in practice it is very hard to do that. In any case, unless a patent really covers the central concept of an idea (like the Bayer CFA patent) there are usually alternative means to an end, some of which turn out to be better ideas than the original patent. My experience is that companies tend to patent any development that might possibly have some value, I don't see them patenting ideas just for the purpose of inhibiting competitors.
Click to expand...
I don't have any experience in IP business, just being curious. If a company patents a number of alternative/competing technologies and ends up using only one for whatever the reason (and doesn't try to actively sell the rest), would it make sense to you that those patent expired after few years?
Click to expand...
Patents do expire after 20 years, and they expire if the owner doesn't pay the recurrent annual fee to maintain them in force. It's another thing people ignore about patent law, all the granted patents is not the same as all the patents in force. In any case, if the company has not used a patent, it's monetary value is low, and someone else using that would be reasonably secure in using the idea. In the end it's their business judgement as to whether the profit from the idea is sufficient to justify the risk.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
[...]. Did you know that changing the shape of your web logo on holidays has been patented by Google?
Click to expand...
If you can patent that, the law can use some revision.
Click to expand...
The application will have been thoroughly investigated by an expert examiner, and these people are pedants, I can speak form experience. Their job is to find the reasons why a patent should not be granted. You don't know exactly what the claims behind Google's invention were, nor the technology.
Click to expand...
I don't. And neither exactly how much respect Google is paying to the examiners, but the oncept sounds like what convenience stores have been doing since the beginning of time.
bobn2 said:
It's also one of these ideas that seems obvious only after someone has had it. If Google has had the idea and in increases their business (and Google puts a lot of investment into ideas) then why should they not protect it?
Click to expand...
Jokes aside, I understand that the patent system is founded on the idea that it stimulates technological progress. This example seems to be protecting more a marketing technique.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html
 
igb said:
igb said:
The application will have been thoroughly investigated by an expert examiner, and these people are pedants, I can speak form experience. Their job is to find the reasons why a patent should not be granted. You don't know exactly what the claims behind Google's invention were, nor the technology.
Click to expand...
I don't. And neither exactly how much respect Google is paying to the examiners,
Click to expand...
So, another one who believes that patent examiners are corrupt?
igb said:
but the oncept sounds like what convenience stores have been doing since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
convenience stores have been using varying web branding since the beginning of time?
igb said:
igb said:
It's also one of these ideas that seems obvious only after someone has had it. If Google has had the idea and in increases their business (and Google puts a lot of investment into ideas) then why should they not protect it?
Click to expand...
Jokes aside, I understand that the patent system is founded on the idea that it stimulates technological progress. This example seems to be protecting more a marketing technique.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are interested, I have now found the patent. It is US7912915, filed Apr 30, 2001, issued Mar 22, 2011 (suggesting that the examiners needed rather a lot of persuading) entitled 'Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site' and what is claimed is :

A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special even, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special even logo to the web page;
instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event relating to the user selection.

Rather more than what convenience stores have been doing, and you can change your logo for special events just fine without infringing this patent. You just can't do this particular combination of search functions and user customisation, which is fine, because Google invented it.
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
igb said:
bobn2 said:
The application will have been thoroughly investigated by an expert examiner, and these people are pedants, I can speak form experience. Their job is to find the reasons why a patent should not be granted. You don't know exactly what the claims behind Google's invention were, nor the technology.
Click to expand...
I don't. And neither exactly how much respect Google is paying to the examiners,
Click to expand...
So, another one who believes that patent examiners are corrupt?
Click to expand...
The only incorruptible things I know of are the limbs of certain saints, but then again I don't know everything.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
but the oncept sounds like what convenience stores have been doing since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
convenience stores have been using varying web branding since the beginning of time?
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
It's also one of these ideas that seems obvious only after someone has had it. If Google has had the idea and in increases their business (and Google puts a lot of investment into ideas) then why should they not protect it?
Click to expand...
Jokes aside, I understand that the patent system is founded on the idea that it stimulates technological progress. This example seems to be protecting more a marketing technique.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are interested, I have now found the patent. It is US7912915, filed Apr 30, 2001, issued Mar 22, 2011 (suggesting that the examiners needed rather a lot of persuading) entitled 'Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site' and what is claimed is :

A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special even, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special even logo to the web page;
instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event relating to the user selection.

Rather more than what convenience stores have been doing, and you can change your logo for special events just fine without infringing this patent. You just can't do this particular combination of search functions and user customisation, which is fine, because Google invented it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what is it that Google invented but it doesn't sound like new technology. Am I wrong?

Do you know what would happen if someone had used this kind of techniques prior to march 2011? BTW, I suppose that that's not patentable in Europe, right?
 
igb said:
bobn2 said:
igb said:
igb said:
The application will have been thoroughly investigated by an expert examiner, and these people are pedants, I can speak form experience. Their job is to find the reasons why a patent should not be granted. You don't know exactly what the claims behind Google's invention were, nor the technology.
Click to expand...
I don't. And neither exactly how much respect Google is paying to the examiners,
Click to expand...
So, another one who believes that patent examiners are corrupt?
Click to expand...
The only incorruptible things I know of are the limbs of certain saints, but then again I don't know everything.
Click to expand...
Corruptible and corrupt are different things. If patent examiners were favouring one company in return for backhanders, every competitor would be on it like a flash, as well as the various international trade organisations.
igb said:
igb said:
igb said:
but the oncept sounds like what convenience stores have been doing since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
convenience stores have been using varying web branding since the beginning of time?
igb said:
igb said:
It's also one of these ideas that seems obvious only after someone has had it. If Google has had the idea and in increases their business (and Google puts a lot of investment into ideas) then why should they not protect it?
Click to expand...
Jokes aside, I understand that the patent system is founded on the idea that it stimulates technological progress. This example seems to be protecting more a marketing technique.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are interested, I have now found the patent. It is US7912915, filed Apr 30, 2001, issued Mar 22, 2011 (suggesting that the examiners needed rather a lot of persuading) entitled 'Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site' and what is claimed is :

A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special even, where the instructions for creating the special event logo includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special even logo to the web page;
instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special event relating to the user selection.

Rather more than what convenience stores have been doing, and you can change your logo for special events just fine without infringing this patent. You just can't do this particular combination of search functions and user customisation, which is fine, because Google invented it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what is it that Google invented but it doesn't sound like new technology. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
If it wasn't new technology, it wouldn't have received a patent. the fact that it took Google ten years to get it suggests that maybe the examiners inclined to the same view of you, and it took an extended dialogue to convince them. Even now, the patent is open to challenge and can be voided if a judge can be persuaded to agree with you. In my experience, it is people who are not involved with an area of technology that fail to see the innovation and work in an apparently trivial innovation. In this case we have not just the special logo (which has to be a modification of some standard logo and include animation) and a specific link to some other information directly via a selection of that special logo. Presumably no-one had thought of that combination of things before, so it is new technology.
igb said:
Do you know what would happen if someone had used this kind of techniques prior to march 2011? BTW, I suppose that that's not patentable in Europe, right?
Click to expand...
The patent once granted is valid from the application date, since to make the application, Google had to disclose how to implement the invention. Thus, anyone who showed that they had done it before Google's application date would void the patent, someone who did it between the application and the grant date would be liable to the patent, and would have to reach some agreement with Google, should Google pursue the matter. On the other hand, if they could show that it was independently invented, it would be likely that any damages, in the form of lost sales to Google or royalty would be minimal. The worst they would probably suffer would be to have to produce a workaround to sidestep the patent, such as not including animation or making the contextual link via a separate button. Not as neat, but not a deal breaker.

As far as I see, it would be patentable in Europe, because it's not an algorithm or program. That one has to be treated carefully, since due to the ability of a Turing potent machine to simulate any calculable function, almost anything technological could be said at some level to be an 'algorithm'.

--
Bob
 
Roland Karlsson said:
bobn2 said:
If it wasn't new technology, it wouldn't have received a patent.
Click to expand...
I assume you really believe it to be so.
Click to expand...
Generally, yes. Having been subject to the work of patent examiners, I find them to be thorough and conscientious. They spend a lot of effort looking for prior art and trying to disqualify 'obvious' inventions.
Roland Karlsson said:
I wonder how you then explain that some patents are found to be invalid when they are examined in a case in court.
Click to expand...
No-one's perfect, and litigants employ good lawyers.
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
Generally, yes. Having been subject to the work of patent examiners, I find them to be thorough and conscientious. They spend a lot of effort looking for prior art and trying to disqualify 'obvious' inventions.
Click to expand...
I assume you are generally right there. But this does not mean that its hard to get a phony invention patented, you just have to find the right examiner and/or have the right connections. I assure you that I have worked for a very big company that knows how to get a whole bunch of phony inventions accepted.
bobn2 said:
No-one's perfect, and litigants employ good lawyers.
Click to expand...
Yepp .. no one is perfect. And lots of money can get you far.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
bobn2 said:
igb said:
bobn2 said:
igb said:
bobn2 said:
The application will have been thoroughly investigated by an expert examiner, and these people are pedants, I can speak form experience. Their job is to find the reasons why a patent should not be granted. You don't know exactly what the claims behind Google's invention were, nor the technology.
Click to expand...
I don't. And neither exactly how much respect Google is paying to the examiners,
Click to expand...
So, another one who believes that patent examiners are corrupt?
Click to expand...
The only incorruptible things I know of are the limbs of certain saints, but then again I don't know everything.
Click to expand...
Corruptible and corrupt are different things. If patent examiners were favouring one company in return for backhanders, every competitor would be on it like a flash, as well as the various international trade organisations.
Click to expand...
You mean that competitors will float additional brown envelopes?
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
but the oncept sounds like what convenience stores have been doing since the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
convenience stores have been using varying web branding since the beginning of time?
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
It's also one of these ideas that seems obvious only after someone has had it. If Google has had the idea and in increases their business (and Google puts a lot of investment into ideas) then why should they not protect it?
Click to expand...
Jokes aside, I understand that the patent system is founded on the idea that it stimulates technological progress. This example seems to be protecting more a marketing technique.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are interested, I have now found the patent. It is US7912915, filed Apr 30, 2001, issued Mar 22, 2011 (suggesting that the examiners needed rather a lot of persuading) entitled 'Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site' and what is claimed is :
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
[snip]
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
I'm not sure I understand what is it that Google invented but it doesn't sound like new technology. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
If it wasn't new technology, it wouldn't have received a patent.
Click to expand...
That was uncalled for.
bobn2 said:
the fact that it took Google ten years to get it suggests that maybe the examiners inclined to the same view of you, and it took an extended dialogue to convince them. Even now, the patent is open to challenge and can be voided if a judge can be persuaded to agree with you. In my experience, it is people who are not involved with an area of technology that fail to see the innovation and work in an apparently trivial innovation.
Click to expand...
That would be me. Gulity as charged on both counts.
bobn2 said:
In this case we have not just the special logo (which has to be a modification of some standard logo and include animation) and a specific link to some other information directly via a selection of that special logo. Presumably no-one had thought of that combination of things before, so it is new technology.
Click to expand...
It's probablly like you say but, under the premise that patent system was created not so long ago to preserve the incentives for technological innovation, I also fail to see where is the value in protecting that kind of invention. I mean, there is a difference between coming up with the wankel engine and this no?.

I imagine that the downside of allowing this kind of 'soft' innovations is that increases the cost (i.e. hinders productivity) harder for a great number of companies and individuals who shouldn't be worrying about whether a simple idea has been patented, hence offsetting any societal advantage of the system,

Probably the example you brought up is an extreme and infrequent case and, generally speaking the system works just fine.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
Do you know what would happen if someone had used this kind of techniques prior to march 2011? BTW, I suppose that that's not patentable in Europe, right?
Click to expand...
The patent once granted is valid from the application date, since to make the application, Google had to disclose how to implement the invention. Thus, anyone who showed that they had done it before Google's application date would void the patent, someone who did it between the application and the grant date would be liable to the patent, and would have to reach some agreement with Google, should Google pursue the matter. On the other hand, if they could show that it was independently invented, it would be likely that any damages, in the form of lost sales to Google or royalty would be minimal. The worst they would probably suffer would be to have to produce a workaround to sidestep the patent, such as not including animation or making the contextual link via a separate button. Not as neat, but not a deal breaker.

As far as I see, it would be patentable in Europe, because it's not an algorithm or program. That one has to be treated carefully, since due to the ability of a Turing potent machine to simulate any calculable function, almost anything technological could be said at some level to be an 'algorithm'.

--
Bob
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html
 
Roland Karlsson said:
bobn2 said:
Generally, yes. Having been subject to the work of patent examiners, I find them to be thorough and conscientious. They spend a lot of effort looking for prior art and trying to disqualify 'obvious' inventions.
Click to expand...
I assume you are generally right there. But this does not mean that its hard to get a phony invention patented, you just have to find the right examiner and/or have the right connections.
Click to expand...
So you keep on saying. What you keep on saying is that the system is corrupt (get the right examiner and/or have the right connections) and I think you should have some evidence before making such accusations.
Roland Karlsson said:
I assure you that I have worked for a very big company that knows how to get a whole bunch of phony inventions accepted.
Click to expand...
Then I think you should be identifying the company, since it is obviously a part of this whole conspiracy of corruption that you talk about and should be outed. You should also identify the phony patents, then maybe we could start a campaign of legal challenges to clean up this apparently corrupt patent system.
Roland Karlsson said:
Roland Karlsson said:
No-one's perfect, and litigants employ good lawyers.
Click to expand...
Yepp .. no one is perfect. And lots of money can get you far.
Click to expand...
So you keep saying.
--
Bob
 
skipping over the unevidenced assertions that patent examiners as a class are corrupt
igb said:
That would be me. Gulity as charged on both counts.
igb said:
In this case we have not just the special logo (which has to be a modification of some standard logo and include animation) and a specific link to some other information directly via a selection of that special logo. Presumably no-one had thought of that combination of things before, so it is new technology.
Click to expand...
It's probablly like you say but, under the premise that patent system was created not so long ago to preserve the incentives for technological innovation, I also fail to see where is the value in protecting that kind of invention. I mean, there is a difference between coming up with the wankel engine and this no?.
Click to expand...
There is a difference. Google had a good idea, and in the end Dr Wankel didn't. In terms of the complexity and innovation, I think they are directly comparable. After all, what was Wankel's idea, put a triangular rotor in an epitrochoid housing - all he's done is taken one of the well known pump arrangements and turn it into an engine, and since any internal combustion engine is just a pump running backwards, that seems obvious (after the event) . In terms of total earnings and economic impact, I'd guess that Google's idea will make considerably more money than Wankel's ever will. Still, as soon as patent examiners have to judge not just on originality but also on whether it's a good idea, then the system will be open to corruption.
igb said:
I imagine that the downside of allowing this kind of 'soft' innovations is that increases the cost (i.e. hinders productivity) harder for a great number of companies and individuals who shouldn't be worrying about whether a simple idea has been patented, hence offsetting any societal advantage of the system,
Click to expand...
I find the thing about ideas is that they only seem simple after someone has had them. Also, as the adage goes, the simple ideas are the best ones.
igb said:
Probably the example you brought up is an extreme and infrequent case and, generally speaking the system works just fine.
Click to expand...
I think it is an example of the system working just fine, why should not Google patent their idea any less than someone who invents a new shape fishing hook, or for that matter, someone who invents a new shape of housing in which to put a triangular rotor?
--
Bob
 
bobn2 said:
skipping over the unevidenced assertions that patent examiners as a class are corrupt
Click to expand...
Then I'll have to skip over the assertion that examiners are gods with amazing sexual prowess.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:
That would be me. Gulity as charged on both counts.
bobn2 said:
In this case we have not just the special logo (which has to be a modification of some standard logo and include animation) and a specific link to some other information directly via a selection of that special logo. Presumably no-one had thought of that combination of things before, so it is new technology.
Click to expand...
It's probablly like you say but, under the premise that patent system was created not so long ago to preserve the incentives for technological innovation, I also fail to see where is the value in protecting that kind of invention. I mean, there is a difference between coming up with the wankel engine and this no?.
Click to expand...
There is a difference. Google had a good idea, and in the end Dr Wankel didn't. In terms of the complexity and innovation, I think they are directly comparable. After all, what was Wankel's idea, put a triangular rotor in an epitrochoid housing - all he's done is taken one of the well known pump arrangements and turn it into an engine, and since any internal combustion engine is just a pump running backwards, that seems obvious (after the event) . In terms of total earnings and economic impact, I'd guess that Google's idea will make considerably more money than Wankel's ever will. Still, as soon as patent examiners have to judge not just on originality but also on whether it's a good idea, then the system will be open to corruption.
bobn2 said:
I imagine that the downside of allowing this kind of 'soft' innovations is that increases the cost (i.e. hinders productivity) harder for a great number of companies and individuals who shouldn't be worrying about whether a simple idea has been patented, hence offsetting any societal advantage of the system,
Click to expand...
I find the thing about ideas is that they only seem simple after someone has had them. Also, as the adage goes, the simple ideas are the best ones.
bobn2 said:
Probably the example you brought up is an extreme and infrequent case and, generally speaking the system works just fine.
Click to expand...
I think it is an example of the system working just fine,
Click to expand...
No, not if takes 10 years.
bobn2 said:
why should not Google patent their idea any less than someone who invents a new shape fishing hook, or for that matter, someone who invents a new shape of housing in which to put a triangular rotor?
Click to expand...
Because there's a potential societal benefit if people has an incentive to be able to make more goods with less overall cost and not necessarily if people devise techniques to sell more?
 
how would you tell the difference?
igb said:
Because there's a potential societal benefit if people has an incentive to be able to make more goods with less overall cost and not necessarily if people devise techniques to sell more?
--
Click to expand...
 
robert1955 said:
how would you tell the difference?
Click to expand...
I'm sure details would be tricky but the general principle a patent which does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem would be refused sounds like a good start.

Now, what's technical? We can probaly agree that contraptions are and that single clicking is more debatable.
robert1955 said:
igb said:
Because there's a potential societal benefit if people has an incentive to be able to make more goods with less overall cost and not necessarily if people devise techniques to sell more?
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top