Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (8)
to Community by Maemish - 1 day, 1 hr ago -
Porting apps to Leste (44)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by norayr - 1 day, 5 hrs ago -
List of well performing apps on Leste (35)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by smatkovi - 4 days, 3 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (13)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days, 1 hr ago -
Sailfish OS for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910C) - (treltexx) (79)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days, 1 hr ago -
U-Boot for Nokia RX-51 with BootMenu (updated version 2012.10-rc3-1) (843)
to Alternatives by Arno_11 - 5 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2011-06-14
, 13:19
|
|
Posts: 1,079 |
Thanked: 1,019 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#32
|
Maybe the fact that MS bailed Apple out years ago when they were jumping off their burning apple cart could have something to do with it.
__________________
Mick has just punched the cr@p out of the "Unlike" button on the Official Nokia Facebook Page.
Mick has just punched the cr@p out of the "Unlike" button on the Official Nokia Facebook Page.
|
|
2011-06-14
, 13:49
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 778 |
Thanked: 337 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
|
#33
|
soo.. whats the argument about again?
|
|
2011-06-14
, 14:03
|
|
Posts: 673 |
Thanked: 856 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
|
#34
|
Originally Posted by ericsson
Have you ever read any patent application?
Wrong. Patents are about the specific implementation to achieve the purpose. If you somehow use that implementation no matter to what purpose, you are in a danger of infringing.
Well, let's just say that your definition of patent is close to the 19 century definition.
Today, patents are written in such way that they cover not only the particular implementation being protected, but it's scope is extended as much as possible.
Example patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,125,447
More info can be found here:
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-t...-v-google.html
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Oracle_v._G...282010,_USA%29
EDIT: Added link to one of the patents within Oracle vs Google, and an article about the issues
__________________
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
Last edited by momcilo; 2011-06-14 at 14:33.
|
|
2011-06-14
, 14:56
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 974 |
Thanked: 622 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by momcilo
I know how patents are written. The point is you cannot legally in court protect something that is not well defined. You cannot prove that I am infringing your patent, if your patent is merely an idea with no implementation. If you invented a 3D touch screen, you can patent that invention using claims that descibe the implementation, you cannot patent the idea of a 3D touch screen with no implementation. The very essence of inventing something is to create something that solves the problem of making an idea *work in real life*. If somebody else created another 3D screen using a different implementation, there is nothing you can do about it because it is a different invention. But if someone used your implementation creating a 3D television, they are infringing your patent even though it is a different idea.
Have you ever read any patent application?
Well, let's just say that your definition of patent is close to the 19 century definition.
Today, patents are written in such way that they cover not only the particular implementation being protected, but it's scope is extended as much as possible.
Example patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,125,447
More info can be found here:
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-t...-v-google.html
EDIT: Added link to one of the patents within Oracle vs Google, and an article about the issues
Another point is that even tough you have invented something completely by your own head, if it has been done before, you are infringing.
|
|
2011-06-14
, 15:09
|
|
Posts: 673 |
Thanked: 856 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
|
#36
|
Originally Posted by ericsson
So in your opinion:
I know how patents are written. The point is you cannot legally in court protect something that is not well defined. You cannot prove that I am infringing your patent, if your patent is merely an idea with no implementation. If you invented a 3D touch screen, you can patent that invention using claims that descibe the implementation, you cannot patent the idea of a 3D touch screen with no implementation. The very essence of inventing something is to create something that solves the problem of making an idea *work in real life*. If somebody else created another 3D screen using a different implementation, there is nothing you can do about it because it is a different invention. But if someone used your implementation creating a 3D television, they are infringing your patent even though it is a different idea.
Another point is that even tough you have invented something completely by your own head, if it has been done before, you are infringing.
How does Caller ID infringes Nokia patent?
Where is the line between idea and implementation?
__________________
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
 |
|
2011-06-14
, 16:31
|
|
Posts: 738 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ London
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by ericsson
You can, if the person you attack does not have a sufficient amount of cash to sustain the trial (even if he would win it in the end).
The point is you cannot legally in court protect something that is not well defined. .
| The Following User Says Thank You to erendorn For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-06-14
, 16:57
|
|
Posts: 144 |
Thanked: 134 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Hamburg
|
#38
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to mbo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-06-14
, 17:47
|
|
Banned |
Posts: 974 |
Thanked: 622 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
|
#39
|
Originally Posted by momcilo
I haven't seen that specific Caller ID patent, there are lots of them. But patents are straight forward. An invention that makes an idea work in real life is something you can file a patent for if no one have made that invention before. If someone has done it before, you have to do it differently (make a new and different invention) to be able to file a patent.
So in your opinion:
How does Caller ID infringes Nokia patent?
Where is the line between idea and implementation?
A patent is like a recipe. People with adequate knowledge shall be able to re-create your invention by reading your patent. In broad terms a patent is a recipe on how to go from an idea to a working prototype.
Caller ID is an idea. Nokia obviously owns one (of many other owned by others) patents for how to make a working Caller ID in a cell phone. Apple has shamelessly and unlawfully used Nokias patent. Now they must pay
 |
|
2011-06-14
, 17:47
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#40
|
Not sure why this was moved to Off Topic; General was appropriate. Moving back.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Although I would have wonder on how much of this was influenced by the Nokiasoft merger? It's not really like the Apple lawers to back down or settle to an agreement. They would sooner keep dragging companies through the mud as they have shown with nokia in the past.
MS on the other hand, is one of the very few companies that have been able to win battles with Apple as they have both the money and an army of devil spawn lawers on there side. Apple may have realised that they would never win over nokia now they have MS backing and have been looking for a way to reach a settlement since february?