Several months ago (3 to be precise) Grant Gross claimed that the "U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned Monday whether they should side with Microsoft and weaken the legal standard needed to invalidate a patent, with some justices suggesting there are alternatives to changing established law."
“Didn't Microsoft sell their legacy products with disk formatting before patenting it?”
--Anonymous"Looks like another legal spin by the legal spin artists," remarked on it someone in USENET. "So, if one sells an invention before they patent it, they are not entitled to the fruits of their labour?
"Ludicrous of course, if one were to consider the so called validity of software patents.
"Didn't Microsoft sell their legacy products with disk formatting before patenting it?"
He added: "I would say that if someone copied such so called invention prior to it being patented, then yes, it is prior art.
"There is no need for SW patents as copyright law is all that is required," added another person. "You will find prior art at some level in all SW and hence SW should not be patentable. The absurd patent litigation we are seeing today is, in the main, from companies who cannot compete on a level playing field."
"Agreed," said the former person, "hence I was being facetious. SW has no business being patented without being a unique integral component of a physical invention. That should exclude general operating systems like Linux and Microsoft Windows, to name a few.
"The smartphone market is a clear example of this. Microsoft, who aren't able to produce a smartphone people want, resorts to extortion. Apple, who did produce the first truly smartphone, resort to patent suits because android phones are simply a better product and Apple cannot compete on a level playing field," add the second person to whom the reply was: "Microsoft is nothing more than a monopoly maintenance machine with a large marketing and legal base. They can't compete on the merits of their products, and thus must resort to other means for profitability."
Apple and Microdoft are both resorting to software patents simply because they cannot win the battle, not with a long-term win anyway. As Mr. Pogson rightly explains, the real news is that Apple's case against Android is crumbling in some ways while those behind Apple's patent strategy leave the company.
Some people see the glass half-empty. Others see it half-full. The case of Apple v HTC over Android/Linux is 80% empty and on shaky ground IMHO.
Apple charged HTC with violating 10 patents and the initial decision is that 2 were infringed… Imagine a citizen claiming a neighbour stole his 10 Rolls-Royces and the police notice that the complainant only owned 2… That would result in charges of mischief against the complainant where I come from. The two remaining patents are really shaky and also at issue in Apple v Samsung.
Comments
twitter
2011-07-18 23:05:00
Apple's brief rise and short dominance of the "smart phone" market was more a result of the exclusion of all others than it was any kind of innovation on Apple's part. Groklaw is calling attention to the harm done to the US market by patents.