-
The Patent Thing
-
[Michael Gissing] “Patent system “out of control”
Before the verdict an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, Robin Feldman, described the case as unmanageable for a jury.
“There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions,” Feldman said. “I don’t give that much reading to my law students. They can’t possible digest it.
“And the fact that they’ve found a number of serious errors in the judgement suggests that it might be vacated. Apparently there are places where they awarded millions to Apple for things that they decided were not infringements in other parts of the document.
-
[Chris Harlan] “[Bill Davis] “Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY.”
I don’t know what you were quoting, but what you linked to is an article from Aug. 2011. See for yourself:”
Maybe this: https://gizmodo.com/5938193/
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[Chris Harlan] “[Bill Davis] “Uh, The article I quoted was from the front page of Gizmodo TODAY.”
I don’t know what you were quoting, but what you linked to is an article from Aug. 2011. See for yourself:”
Maybe this: https://gizmodo.com/5938193/
“Well, now–that looks right. Undoubtedly what Bill meant to link to.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
https://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/25/apple_v_samsung_verdict_crea...Another blog.
“
This one, I tend to agree with. I also think the Gizmodo article about all the problems with the verdict is quite interesting:
https://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up
-
[Bill Davis] “I argued in my post to the TED piece that it’s irrelevant whether Dylan used the same melody originally used by others to create his work. What matters is the commercial value he created by leveraging that melody into a singular marketplace success. The melody is not the thing that needs protection. Melody’s are used and re-used all the time. But when a melody and lyrics are fixed into a tangible expression – and gain public awareness and traction – it is THEN that the value attaches to them. The person who breaches copyright isn’t leveraging the NOTES in the song – they’re leveraging “good will” that the song has accrued by virtue of it’s very success. “
Let’s go thru this a little bit.
[Bill Davis] “The melody is not the thing that needs protection.”
Then why did George Harrison get successfully sued over copyright infringement for using the melody of “He’s So fine” in his composition “My Sweet Lord”? Why did Ray Parker, author of the “Ghostbusters” theme get sued by Huey Lewis for ripping off the melody to “Want A New Drug.” And if melodies are not in need of protection where does that leave classical composers? Melody in fact is just as much in need of protection as lyrics, and is afforded that protection in court.
[Bill Davis] ” it’s irrelevant whether Dylan used the same melody originally used by others to create his work. What matters is the commercial value he created by leveraging that melody into a singular marketplace success.”
What’s irrelevant is the marketplace success of Dylan’s songs. Copyright protection is not reserved only for big hits and commercial successes. What matters to me is the enduring quality of the songs, which has absolutely nothing to do with it’s commercial viability.
[Bill Davis] “The person who breaches copyright isn’t leveraging the NOTES in the song “
They are not leveraging the separate individual notes, any more than a plagiarist is leveraging the alphabet. They are leveraging the specific order and combination of notes.
[Bill Davis] “- they’re leveraging “good will” that the song has accrued by virtue of it’s very success. “
Sometimes this might be the case but often what they are leveraging was the beauty and imagination of the created work, as in cases where song writers take classical themes and re-work them for pop hits. I doubt many of the teens who bought “A Lover’s Concerto” by the Toys back in 1965 ever heard Bach’s Minuet in G Major, which is where the melody comes from. The song’s value was due not to any “good will” but to the quality of the original composition. The copyright being in the public domain, much as Dylan’s stolen melodies, Linzer and Randell were free to steal away to their hearts delight, and I’m happy they did because it resulted in a great song, but this had nothing to do with leveraging anything other than the beauty created by someone else.
As for the TED piece, even while I agree that patenting finger gestures, like patenting parts of the human genome that some bio tech companies are trying to get away with, is more than a little insane, the speaker’s thinking is a bit shoddy. Dylan and Woody Guthrie used tunes that were already ancient and in the public domain. What they did hurt no one. The Beatles have every right to protect the use of their creations, the Grey album was an infringement on their rights, and unless I’m sorely mistaken Paul and Ringo and even George Martin are still alive to be hurt by it.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Chris Harlan] “This one, I tend to agree with. I also think the Gizmodo article about all the problems with the verdict is quite interesting:”
I don’t know what to make of it. I see the points from every side.
Obviously, patent law needs reform, then all companies will follow those new rules. For now, the current system is in place.
I’m just wondering if reform will be “allowed” to really happen or perhaps more accurately, taken to task. If this trial is any indication, new laws stand to get absolutely swallowed by the details, corporate lobbying will dilute any progress, and people will hurry up and make mistakes so they can rightfully have a weekend with the family. Add to that a global initiative of differing governing rules, structures, and methods, it sounds like a perfect bureaucratic storm of stalemates.
Can someone just give us a proper fcs3 successor so I can go back to my little corner of the universe and let the adults in the room argue over which Buick to drive? I want a jet pack dinosaur laser.
-
Shameful victory.
How can nobody patent the round corners?
The patents and copyrights world is a can of worms.
Did you know that the famous “Smiley Face” icon is a trademark of a private company in more than 100 countries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley
rafael -
[Michael Gissing] “PARC did much more than invent a mouse ‘concept’. They invented the actual mouse as well. It had three buttons. All Jobs did was make it cheap.”
I disagree nearly totally. It wasn’t the cost. It was attaching it to an entire system that started to transform the perceptions of the marketplace from a computer as something that is always keyboard driven, to something that was GUI and mouse driven.
THAT’s the value Apple brought to the table. Without the expression in the Mac, the mouse itself has little value. It’s another way of saying that “ideas” in and of themselves have little value. The value is in turning ideas into actions and products that creates additional value. Precisely what Jobs and the Apple team did with the mouse.
[Michael Gissing] “But the issue that needs to be recognised is that current behaviour by companies that police patents as a business are clearly stifling development and innovation, in spite of you finding minor instances where the pro argument can be made.”
Are you actually arguing that this is an era of “stifled development and innovation???”
Excuse me but the EXACT opposite is true. Innovation is rampant. New technologies are cropping up like weeds. Everywhere. The best of them will become products as they always have. The worst of them will FAIL. Leaving any patents or other value preservation tools on the marketplace – precisely where they should be.
Innovate or die. And if you succeed in innovation, THEN you have the dollars to protect your patent. If you can’t manage that patent into an income stream – then somebody with the economic strength to innovate and sustain a business will snap it up who can.
Harsh? You bet. Business survival of the fittest.
BTW, I’m not a big fan or a defender of this system. Merely one who recognizes that it’s been the system for hundreds of years and while abuses of it rampant and certainly need to be dealt with – it’s also created a massive culture of innovation all over the world.
How exactly do you incentivize innovation if you don’t protect it?
Anyone?
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Software patents are bogus.
Picasso had a saying – “Good artists copy, great artist’s steal”. And we’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas. — Steve Jobs, 1996
I’m going to destroy Android because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. — Steve Jobs, 2010
So which one is it?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Bill Davis]”I disagree nearly totally. It wasn’t the cost. It was attaching it to an entire system that started to transform the perceptions of the marketplace from a computer as something that is always keyboard driven, to something that was GUI and mouse driven”
Sorry Bill but if you ever want me or anyone to take your opinion seriously, then at least know your history. Even the recent pro Apple TV doco I saw on the history of Apple admitted the PARC concept of mouse driven GUI with clcikable icons was shown to Jobs and he just stole it. Look on the web and find that cute clip of Steve saying “all artists copy – great artists steal”. His contribution was making a cheap mouse single button cheap as the PARC mouse was around $300 to make. That’s it.
If Xerox had patent protection like you espouse, then Apple would never have happened. We live in an age that has benefited more from the fact that until recently software couldn’t be patented. If you think the era we live in is because of patents then you really don’t know this subject.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up