--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Display screen or portion thereof with graphical user interface

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CLAIM      The ornamental design for a display screen or portion thereof with

     graphical user interface, as shown and described.       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors: Cranfill; Elizabeth Caroline (San Francisco, CA) Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino,  CA) Appl. No.: D/363,168 Filed:   June 5, 2010

A screen with 3 buttons at the bottom.

https://7zpy0a.sn2.livefilestore.com/y1pk9Ky1Vct-0mUpDCn15JUrT6jZGg-05QoPtUf918fxKkaAXqiooqqXJNeUSBbCJBnlBhpYJSAHllRv2FbN_B6RT5WyPPydxki/US_D666209S.png?psid=1

If you have the TIFF viewer installed, here is the USPTO link:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=D0666209&OS=PN/D0666209&RS=PN/D0666209

Here's Apple's "slide to unlock" patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,046,721.PN.&OS=PN/8,046,721&RS=PN/8,046,721

This patent, although approved, was rejected when it was used in a courtroom against HTC. Many companies are wasting money on patenting stupid and vague things in order to harass small startups. When you can't make do - sue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assisted proactive IP address acquisition

Abstract

The present invention relates to reducing the time required to provide an IP address to a mobile node by pro-actively obtaining IP addresses, through the use of PANA-assisted pro-active IP address acquisition, IKEv2-assisted proactive IP address acquisition, or by pro-active IP address acquisition using DHCP only.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Ohba; Yoshihiro (Englewood Cliffs, NJ), Lopez; Rafael Marin (Morcia, ES)  Assignee: Toshiba America Research, Inc. (Piscataway, NJ) Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (Piscataway, NJ)   Appl. No.:  11/567,134 Filed:  December 5, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

System and method for blocking unauthorized network log in using stolen password

Abstract

The geographic location of a computer attempting to gain authentication to a server is obtained using the IP address of the computer, with authentication being denied if the geographic location is not approved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Camaisa; Allan (Las Vegas, NV), Samuelsson; Jonas (La Jolla, CA)  Assignee: Anakam, Inc. (Wilmington, DE)   Appl. No.:  11/257,421 Filed:  October 24, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application rights enabling

Abstract

Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, implementing and using techniques for controlling capabilities of a user software application. A user software application is provided, the user software application including a set of disabled operations. Content capable of being operated on by one or more of the disabled operations in the set of disabled operations is received. Application rights information operable to enable an operation in the set of disabled operations to operate on content within a context specified in the application rights information are received and the operation in the set of disabled operations is enabled to operate on the received content. Methods and apparatus for providing content to be operated on by a user software application and methods and apparatus for providing a configurable, context-dependent user software application are also described.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Orthlieb; Carl W. (San Jose, CA), Pravetz; James P. (Sunnyvale, CA), Rosenbaum; Sarah (Menlo Park, CA)  Assignee: Adobe Systems Incorporated (San Jose, CA)   Appl. No.:  13/052,756 Filed:  March 21, 2011

And its momma too....

Parent Case Text

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

 This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/681,915, filed on Mar. 5, 2007 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,913,314 to issue on Mar. 22, 2011), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/080,923, filed on Feb. 21, 2002 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,213,269). The prior applications are incorporated herein by reference.

And just because a patent sounds obvious to you, doesn't mean it was obvious when it was invented.

A case in point: The iPhone's slide-to-unlock patent was a novel way of unlocking a phone. Before that you had to press and hold a button, or press a button that was deliberately difficult to press.

Someone at Apple came up with the idea of slide-to-unlock, and they tested it and they coded it. Why should Apple have to sit by whilst other people steal their ideas? It might sound obvious to you now, given the prevelance of smartphones. But let's not forget that when Apple patented this idea, their phone was the only phone that was just a screen. Everyone else had a keyboard or a phone-pad for data-entry, so a swipe-to-unlock was genuinely a new idea.

I suppose for me the one big thing that does need to change in patent law is that I think patents regarding codecs and parsers should be changed to make it cheaper and easier to make interoperable software.

For example, whilst I have no objection to the inventors of H.264 patenting clever ways of quickly decoding software, or even clever ways or encoding and compressing video - I don't think they should be able to prevent people writing software that decodes H.264-conforming video.

Similarly I think that it's fair game for the inventors of DVD and BluRay codecs to charge hollywood royalties to allow movies to appear on BluRay. But I don't think it's reasonable for them to charge your DVD/BluRay software money to allow you to decode your content - hell, you've already given them the money when your bought the disk, you shouldn't have to pay twice.

It should be legal and proper for me to implement my own PDF reader or to write my own PDF writer without giving Adobe money (since PDF is a de-facto standard). I just shouldn't be allowed to copy how Adobe are doing the reading/writing.

I think the law should say if a format X exists such that X is a de-facto container for transmitting or storing data, such that it is likely that a company wishing to transmit or store data of that type will be compelled to read or write data in and out of that container, then it should be legal and free for any third-party to implement software that read or writes data in or out of that container format.

The makers of H.264 should be free to sell their own software that makes H.264 videos, and they should be able to patent how their software works. But they shouldn't be able to stop or charge you from opening and writing H.264s via other, third-party applications (like a browser).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intra-vehicle information conveyance system and method

Abstract System and method for conveying data between vehicles includes a data generating system arranged on a first vehicle to obtain or generate information about the first vehicle or conditions around the first vehicle, a first communications system arranged on the first vehicle and coupled to the data generating system for communicating with a wireless Internet service provider (ISP) and a second communications system arranged on a second vehicle and communicating with an ISP. The first communications system enables the information obtained or generated by the data generating system to be transmitted via the Internet to the second communications system. The first and second communications systems can communicate with the same ISP or different ISPs linked to one another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Breed; David S. (Miami Beach, FL), Johnson; Wendell C. (Kaneohe, HI), DuVall; Wilbur E. (Reeds Spring, MO)  Assignee: Intelligent Technologies International, Inc. (Denville, NJ)   Appl. No.:  11/874,749 Filed:  October 18, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graphical representation of assets stored on a portable media device

Abstract A user interfaces can deliver enhanced information regarding media assets stored on a portable media device. A graphical user interface for database browsing and navigation can include a list of values of a metadata item and a graphical representation of the distribution of media assets across the values on the list, such as a pie chart where the size of different wedges reflects the fraction of media assets having a particular value. As a user browses a list, the graphical representation can be modified to emphasize the correspondence between different graphical elements and different entries on the list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Bull; William (Mountain View, CA), Hicks; Kourtny Minh (Sunnyvale, CA)  Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)   Appl. No.:  13/024,296 Filed:  February 9, 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficient transmission of changing images using image caching

Abstract In one embodiment, a display of a source device is shared with one or more viewer devices, e.g., of an online collaborative computing session, and the display is divided into a plurality of identified blocks. In response to changes in the display, the source device determines an outer boundary of an updated region affected by the change, where the updated region defines a plurality of "update blocks" of the identified blocks within the outer boundary. Images within each update block may then be compared to a previous version of the corresponding update block to determine if that individual update block is affected by the change. Any unchanged update blocks may be converted to an easily compressible image, and the source device may then compress and transmit the updated region to the viewer devices, where the transmitted updated region has instructions to use previous versions of unchanged converted update blocks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Liu; Guangbing (Sunnyvale, CA), Sheng; Hailei (Fremont, CA), Gu; Jiannong (Sunnyvale, CA)  Assignee: Cisco Technology, Inc. (San Jose, CA)   Appl. No.:  12/399,089 Filed:  March 6, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Command user interface for displaying selectable software functionality controls

Abstract An improved user interface is provided for displaying selectable software functionality controls and for presenting logical groupings of particular functionality controls associated with a selected top-level functionality. Underneath a row of top-level functionality tabs, functionalities controls associated with a given top-level functionality tab are presented in logical groupings. Selection of a particular tab switches modes of the user interface to present controls for functionalities associated with the selected tab.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Harris; Jensen M. (Kirkland, WA), Butcher; Aaron M. (Duvall, WA), Morton; David A. (Redmond, WA), Satterfield; Jesse Clay (Seattle, WA), Denney; Justin (Seattle, WA)  Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)   Appl. No.:  10/955,967 Filed:  September 30, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methods and graphical user interfaces for editing on a multifunction device with a touch screen display

Abstract In some embodiments, a device displays content on a touch screen display and detects input by finger gestures. In response to the finger gestures, the device selects content, visually distinguishes the selected content, and/or updates the selected content based on detected input. In some embodiments, the device displays a command display area that includes one or more command icons; detects activation of a command icon in the command display area; and, in response to detecting activation of the command icon in the command display area, performs a corresponding action with respect to the selected content. Exemplary actions include cutting, copying, and pasting content.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Ording; Bas (San Francisco, CA), Kocienda; Kenneth L. (Sunnyvale, CA), Moore; Bradford Allen (Palo Alto, CA), van Os; Marcel (San Francisco, CA), Williamson; Richard (Los Gatos, CA), Forstall; Scott (Mountain View, CA)  Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)   Appl. No.:  12/565,750 Filed:  September 24, 2009

Does anyone else here have an idea to simply, not necessarily accurately, sort patents by complexity?

-Josh

In such case, to validate a patent, a "laugh test" is most likely to be enough.

6 minutes ago, cheong wrote

Maybe U.S. can have another pool of jury build with candidates who qualified to be a jury and work as R&D in I.T. software/hardware vendors.

In such case, to validate a patent, a "laugh test" is most likely to be enough.

At that point, it's not really a jury, it's a panel of experts.

The "laugh" test already exists in patent law. It's a requirement that patents are a novel, marketable and practical innovation that is non-obvious to an expert in the field.

I think perhaps the bit that several people are getting confused by, is that having a patent granted doesn't mean it passed that test. That test of a patent's validity is only via a patent lawsuit.

I could go a patent a "small device that holds a picture and/or witty phrase designed to be attached via magnets to consumer refrigeration devices" (a fridge magnet), but that doesn't mean I get $1 for every fridge magnet sold. To do that I have to bring a patent lawsuit, where experts in fridge magnetism would argue (and succeed) in persuading the court that my patent wasn't valid.

If you want to complain against these patents, you need to complain about ones that have been tested in court. Patents which haven't been tested in court might not be valid. Hence, all of the patents you're complaining about in this thread might not be valid patents.

Good point.  http://www.perkinscoie.com/news/pubs_detail.aspx?publication=1442&op=updates

Except then there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness

Our world is rife with bad all around.

Please close this thread as I think it would not be beneficial for anyone to post to it.

 STAY AWAY!  RUN FOR THE HILLS.

1 day ago, Bass wrote

Any software patent that doesn't have human and machine readable code attached.

The problem with that idea is that it removes one of the key protections that patents are there for. Let's say I've an idea for a system called Product X that offers some revolutionary new idea that could improve everyone's life and all I really need is the time to sit down and create it. For arguments sake, let's imagine that would be about one year. Unfortunately during that time I also need to do pesky things like eat and pay bills, so I need someone to invest in me and my idea for it to become a reality.

Now, if I can patent my idea, I can arrange a meeting with a VC, pitch my idea and hopefully get their backing. My wonderful product X makes it into production a year later and everyone reaps the rewards of the system working as intended. Society as a whole wins because of the patent system.

If, however, I can't patent it till after I've actually made it then I can't risk going and pitching my idea to anyone, because at that point there is nothing to stop them taking the idea and making it themselves, leaving me entirely out of the loop. Likewise I can't actually get on and create it because my life is full of whatever work I'm having to do to pay the bills. Product X never gets made, society as a whole loses out on an innovative idea.

Note that I just say "never see software from X and Y containing both feature", because there could be software Z, made in country that ignores software patents, immediately copies from both software vendors and made both feature available. And in the world of internet, even if software Z is just sold locally because it's a small business, the torrents will spread it worldwide if it's cool.

Software patents exist just to put vendor X and Y in a world of hurt that prevent them from making awesome products AND prevent them to compete with foreign products, and put legitimate customers in the world of hurt because they can't legally buy a product that contains both feature, and have to either 1) choose to use one of the (now) interior product or 2) download software written by Z.

1 hour ago, cheong wrote

@AndyC:There's one drawback - if software from vendor X has an insightful (read: helpful feature that's not obvious but easy to implement) patented feature and software from vendor Y has another insightful patented feature, we'll possibly never see software from X and Y containing both feature.

The version of Windows that you are running contains ideas about video decompression and ideas about audio decompression, both owned by different patent groups.

So that's clearly not true that patents stop people using your idea.

They just stop people using your idea for free and without your permission.

Patents don't stop you making awesome products. They stop big companies from stealing awesome ideas and not paying the inventor.

Remember Apple use patent to bar certain model's of Samsung mobile phone to sell in U.S.?

They for certain can be used to hinder competition. Even if we can make law have clause to require the patent holder to license to the competitors, they can still create a unreasonablely high price tag that essentially equal to saying NO.

Patent rules stops multiple patent holders who are not getting along very well from making awesome product.

9 minutes ago, cheong wrote

@evildictaitor: Remember the IE6 days when the patent holder explicitly said he'll never grant right for Microsoft to use auto-detect feature, so we all needed a script to load Flash?

And that was their right to do, as the inventor of the idea.

Microsoft doesn't have any right to implement ideas that it didn't invent any more than I have the right to make and sell Gucci bags without permission of the brand-owner.

At the end of the day, patent holders are like any other business. They want to make money. But patent holders make money from licencing the idea to people who are actually using the idea.

If I patent "donut flavoured coffee", I only make money if someone chooses to actually implement it and sell donut flavoured coffee. If it turns out that was a stupid idea (who they hell would want donut flavoured coffee?), I make no money.

If I patent it for my little coffee shop and a Starbucks manager comes into my store, loves my donut flavoured coffee and tomorrow every Starbucks in the Western world is selling donut flavoured coffee to the tune of billions of dollars - why shouldn't I be entitled to my fair share? I was the one who invented it and perfected the flavour after all.

Starbucks can either come into my store and give me a reasonable price for my idea, or they can make their own damn flavours.

And if I don't want to sell to them for any price - why should I be forced to? Maybe I'm about to sign an international licencing agreement with Costa who want exclusivity on donut flavoured coffee. I shouldn't be compelled to allow Starbucks to steal my idea, and if they do, I should be allowed to sue them.

They for certain can be used to hinder competition. Even if we can make law have clause to require the patent holder to license to the competitors, they can still create a unreasonablely high price tag that essentially equal to saying NO.

You should look into FRAND licences. They specifically prohibit companies doing that. (MP3s are FRAND-patented for example).

2 hours ago, cheong wrote

@evildictaitor:Under FRAND clauses, the patent holders can still refuse licensing the patent to competitors. They're just required to assist identifying the portion of product that will result in infringment when the necessary claims are not granted.

Actually patents that are FRAND licences (like GSM and WiFi) cannot be withheld from competitors.

There are of course less fair versions of FRAND - Microsoft has several royalty-free FRAND with no-competitor licences (e.g. the Office 2007 UI is freely available, unless you're a competitor to one of the five Office applications http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=1571).

There are also several different types of "free if you don't sue us" patent licences, such as the Apache Licence (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). These patents are aimed at saying "if you play fair, you can use this for free. If you stop playing fair, so will we".

In other words, unless you're going to license your patents out, FRAND is irrelevent.

5 hours ago, cheong wrote

@evildictaitor:FRAND clause does not have statements for the patent holder to hold the right to just produce the products themselves, it just say that if you're going to license it out, you have to license it at fair charges.

In other words, unless you're going to license your patents out, FRAND is irrelevent.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing:

Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can't change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors and to ensure that potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis.

http://www.sipo.gov.cn/

And there's even more complicated cases. Say vendor X have patent portfolio exchange agreement with vendor A. Now if vendor Y want to acquire vendor X's feature, by FRAND rule they should also set up portfolio exchange agreement in order to be fair to vendor A. But what if vendor Y's patent portfolio have significantly higher value than vendor X? Will vendor Y ever consider it's worthwhile to do that?

So just as this FAQ said, in many case it's just difficult to apply FRAND principle when licensing patents.

Say vendor X have patent portfolio exchange agreement with vendor A. Now if vendor Y want to acquire vendor X's feature, by FRAND rule they should also set up portfolio exchange agreement in order to be fair to vendor A. But what if vendor Y's patent portfolio have significantly higher value than vendor X? Will vendor Y ever consider it's worthwhile to do that?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

Fair relates mainly to the underlying licensing terms. Drawing from anti-trust/competition law; fair terms means terms which are not anti-competitive and that would not be considered unlawful if imposed by a dominant firm in their relative market. Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are; requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want (bundling), requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs) and including restrictive conditions on licensees' dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).

For example, JPEG is a web-standard, because it is a requirement of web-browsers to be able to decode JPEG images (but not a requirement, for example, to decode TIFF images). JPEG is (was?) patented but is provided royalty free. The W3C (rightly) saw the possibility of abuse here if JPEG decided that, say, Google weren't allowed to show JPEGs in Google Chrome any more, or Microsoft needed to pay 1 kajillion dollars to show JPEGs in IE - so they insisted that JPEG be made FRAND or free to be accepted as an Internet standard.

The H.264 video codec is very nearly a web-standard, because it will probably soon be a requirement of web-browsers to be able to decode H.264 video streams. H.264 is free for web-browsers, but is FRAND everywhere else, such as in BluRay players. since otherwise a company could buy the rights to H.264 to do attacks on companies that make BluRay players (like Microsoft).

Since this would be unfair, most standards committees make it a requirement that critical components of a standard are either available under a free or FRAND licence, so that anyone can implement the standard - even if they are a competitor of the holder of the component part.

2 minutes ago, fanbaby wrote

evildictator, I'm a firm believer in capitalism, as I view it as the only just system, but I think that the current (ab)use of the patent law has nothing to do with it.

+1

It is necessary if you want to be able to allow capitalism to judge the value of an idea, to make it possible to trade ideas with each other, and patents allow you to do that.

Patent companies are also fine - I have no problem with companies thinking up clever ideas and selling those ideas to people in a position to use them.

What I do have a problem with is people using patents to block ideas. Submarine patents, overly generic patents and vague patents aren't part of making ideas tradeable. If your idea isn't specific, novel, innovative and marketable, then society should have no time for it.

If you want to patent "an IDE that happens to be gray", or a "button with a picture of a turtle on it" then that shouldn't meet the bar - it's not innovative enough.

If you want to patent "some invention that might perhaps allow users to interact fluidly with the web", that should fail - it's not specific enough.

Submarine patents should be illegal too - you should be required to bring a patent lawsuit as soon as you become aware of an infringement or the patent should become invalid. You shouldn't be allowed to wait for them to make lots of money before you sue.

And finally, you shouldn't be allowed to patent "let's all be kind to each other" or "the manifesto of the republican party in the USA", because they're not marketable.

Once you fix those big problems, I think the patent system would go much further towards helping people be innovative.

My argument is not in favour of our current system of patents. It's in favour of patents in the abstract sense of being able to protect innovations and buy and sell ideas for money.

For you to trade something as abstract as an idea, you first have to own an idea.

How can one own an idea? The mere concept is rediculous.

It means that when I am presented with a problem and I've come up with a solution to it, I first have to check if that idea is not patented by somebody before I can use it.

Then when it does belong to somebody, I first have to consult the fellow to see what it will cost me to use his idea to solve my problem. Meanwhile I'm still stuck on the problem.

And in case I missed the patent of somebody else's idea, I risk hefty fines in creating my solution.

Nothing would get done in a world where you can take ownership of an idea.

5 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor:

For you to trade something as abstract as an idea, you first have to own an idea.

How can one own an idea? The mere concept is rediculous.

The Soviets thought the same about factories and cars. How could one man possibly own a factory!? The factory produces goods for the good of the people. The very concept that someone could own the factory is absurd! It is "owned" by the people!

The Native Americans thought the same about land. The land was here before you - how could you possibly own it? What a silly thing to do to claim ownership of land.

And yet we trade those things perfectly well in a world of market capitalism. Factories and land are protected (I suppose you'd say by force) by the government granting you rights at the expense of squatters "right" to live where they please.

The government gives you the same rights to ownership of an idea that it gives you to ownership of a factory. If you make a factory all by yourself on land that you own, that's your factory. Someone else isn't allowed to come and make stuffed animals using your machinery without your say so.

Similarly if you come up with an idea all by yourself using ideas that your own, that's your idea. Someone else isn't allowed to come and make money by using your idea without your say so.

If you're really good at making factories, but not awfully good at running them, you can sell your factory to someone who's good at running them, but not very good at building them.

If you're good at inventing ideas but not awfully good at implementing them, you can sell your ideas to someone who is good at implementing them, but not very good at inventing them.

"Let's say I've an idea for a system called Product X that offers some revolutionary new idea that could improve everyone's life and all I really need is the time to sit down and create it."

One problem in your whole story. Patents don't cover ideas. Patents cover completed inventions.

If I file a patent and anyone reasonably knowledgable in the art can't reproduce the invention in question perfectly using the contents of the patent alone, that patent is not valid.

Thus for a software patent to be valid, the "code" already has to be there, in the patent. But it's usually in flow charts and English descriptions. Which quite frankly, makes little sense because computers don't execute flow charts.

2 hours ago, Bass wrote

@AndyC:

One problem in your whole story. Patents don't cover ideas. Patents cover completed inventions.

Patents protect ideas. Copyright protects completed inventions.

2 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Patents protect ideas. Copyright protects completed inventions.

What... the... f**k?

I really hope you are joking. Because if you aren't this has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read on Channel 9.

Seriously? I won't lie, I'm pretty much in shock right now.

I may be misunderstanding you here. You honestly think patents protect ideas? And orders of magnitude more absurd, you believe copyrights protect inventions?

This is correct?

What do you want me to do? Disprove you??

8 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@AndyC:

Seriously? I'm won't lie, I'm pretty much in shock right now.

I may be misunderstanding you here. You honestly think patents protect ideas? And orders of magnitude more absurd, you believe copyrights protect inventions?

Dear lord.

Patents protect ideas. So you could, for example, patent a new type of gearbox. It's not the specific make and model of gearbox itself that the patent protects, but the idea of how it works. Nobody else can then come along and make a gearbox that uses the same underlying principle (even if it is physically different) without licensing your patent, because the idea of your gearbox is what you have protected.

Copyright protects implementations from being reproduced directly. So if you've written some code for a new type of control then your code is already protected by copyright. The idea behind it, however, is not protected so someone can legitimately write different code to do the same thing - unless you have a patent on the idea. It doesn't protect "inventions", because they are ideas, but it does protect the specific end result, i.e. the product of your invention (the exact make/model/design of your gearbox, for example).

This is why you can't, as you want, say that a software patent needs to come with source code. You would have reduced the idea of your mechanism down to a single implementation of the idea, which is an entirely different thing.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

If by "idea" you mean a formal specification that correctly describes an invention in such a manner that is clear and complete enough any person in skilled in the field could reproduce the working invention.

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

If you go ahead and read the patent law here in the USA (which shouldn't be way different from most of the rest of the world), I think you'll find some difficultly find the word "idea" in the law, let alone the sections which determine what is patentable. You'll see the word invention a lot, though.

Of course patents DO cover the actual implementation of the product.

When licensing process is not involved, FRAND has no restriction on them, because that's not the purpose of what FRAND is made for.

4 hours ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

If by "idea" you mean a formal specification that correctly describes an invention in such a manner that is clear and complete enough any person in skilled in the field could reproduce the working invention.

Obviously the patent has to accurately describe the idea, yes, otherwise you could just file a patent that says "I've had a great idea, will revolutionize the world, will let you know details later". And it also has to be a patentable idea (in UK parlance their has to be an "inventive step", it has to be possible to produce and it can't fall into one of the categories deemed non-patentable).

*snip*

If you go ahead and read the patent law here in the USA (which shouldn't be way different from most of the rest of the world), I think you'll find some difficultly find the word "idea" in the law, let alone the sections which determine what is patentable. You'll see the word invention a lot, though.

Because US Patent Law formally defines a meaning for the word "invention" and in much stricter terms than it's generic usage. Thereafter it is used repeatedly to avoid having to constantly clarify all the conditions that apply. It doesn't change the fact that an "invention" in Patent Law is essentially an idea, subject to a series of defined criteria that determine that it is patentable. You'll find similar examples of formalised language in pretty much any legal document.

53 minutes ago, cheong wrote

@AndyC:What do you think the design patents and utility patents for?

Of course patents DO cover the actual implementation of the product.

"Design patents" are basically a whole different kettle of fish entirely, which is why pretty much everywhere outside of the US doesn't refer to them as such and instead prefers usually to embody the concept as a "Registered design" or similar.

And patents do not cover implementation. If you license my patented widget, you can use the description to design, manufacture and sell your own widget that works in the same way. You can't necessarily just directly clone the widget I've been selling though, because I still have copyright on that specific implementation (assuming, of course, that it is copyrightable - not everything is) 

16 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

"Design patents" are basically a whole different kettle of fish entirely, which is why pretty much everywhere outside of the US doesn't refer to them as such and instead prefers usually to embody the concept as a "Registered design" or similar.

Try read the comparison for Design Patent in wiki against copyright again. Copyrights covers non-functional items and design patent covers functional items. Commercial products are usually functional ones.

Should a pattern of firing neurons in your brain be protected by law, so that anybody who is firing the same pattern of neurons in his own brain has to pay you when you want to put the pattern of firing neurons to use?

22 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC: Now that we've settled on what it is, what's your position on it?

Should a pattern of firing neurons in your brain be protected by law, so that anybody who is firing the same pattern of neurons in his own brain has to pay you when you want to put the pattern of firing neurons to use?

Once you accept the possibility that you can "own" anything, you have to accept that you can "own" an idea. It's no more ridiculous a concept than owning land or sheep and horses.

I will grant you that current laws (especially in the US) are in desperate need of reform and modernisation because they were designed around a very different society and rate of development/production than we have today. Simply throwing them out and going back to the dark ages is not progression, however.

You are in desperate need to at least read the Wikipedia article on "patent" at the bare minimum.

It's also very important use correct legal words to describe things, saying that copyright is for inventions and patents are for ideas and than diminishing the differences as being pointless legalities makes you look you have no clue what you are talking about.

18 minutes ago, Bass wrote

AndyC,

You are in desperate need to at least read the Wikipedia article on "patent" at the bare minimum.

The best place to learn anything is not Wikipedia. You can have that advice for free.

It's also very important use correct legal words to describe things, saying that copyright is for inventions and patents are for ideas and than diminishing the differences as being pointless legalities makes you look you have no clue what you are talking about.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I have never said the difference between a patent and copyright is pointless. I'm quite aware of exactly what the difference is. I'm not overly sure you are.