Skip to main content

Thought Police

Yesterday I watched a live blog of the reading of the trial verdict in Apple v Samsung. The trial was complex, and the jury had to break down each patent by device. In the end, Apple won the day. They didn't get everything they wanted, but in contrast, Samsung got nothing.

I'm sure there will be an appeal, and this whole mess will drag on for another year or so, but it certainly says a lot about the patent system in this country. After deciding if Samsung had violated Apple's patents, the jury had to answer the question of if they thought those patents were actually valid. In all cases they said 'yes'. By the same token they had to answer if Apple violated patents, and even though they said Apple did NOT violate Samsung's patents, they also upheld Samsung's patents as well.

My personal assessment of all of this is that you had a jury full of regular people, who frankly, could probably have cared less about the mountains of patent law that was presented to them. They saw the stunning visuals of an iPhone next to a Galaxy S, and as I pointed out in an earlier blog, they saw the blatant copying that had taken place, and made an easy decision. The fact that they reached a verdict on a Friday also meant that they were probably quite tired of the whole trial and just wanted to go home for the weekend.

So where does this leave patent law? Even though I think the jury made the correct decision about Samsung copying Apple, I do wonder if we've ended up in a worse place for technology. Many of the technology patents that were disputed in this trial were about "how" something behaves. The way a screen rubber bands when you pull down on it, for example. At a certain point, you have to question if there's a ton of value is securing simple "ideas" like this from duplication.

But yet the flip side to the argument is that if a programmer comes up with a really cool way to do something, shouldn't they get the reward of being the first to financially benefit from it? So perhaps there's a middle ground. Maybe we need a different type of patent system that still can protect creative ideas, but doesn't brazenly lock them down for 20 years.

So here's my simple contribution to the who patent discussion. Let's let technology "idea" patents continue, but let's limit the term on them to 2-3 years. If a company is going to make a windfall on a particular idea, it's going to be as soon as the product hits the market. Let's allow them make their profit,  and then free the idea to all the people who want to copy it after it's 'old hat'.

Maybe it's a silly idea, and things probably won't be changing in our patent system any time soon, but maybe if we're open to some new thoughts and ideas, future generations will take the next step at making things better for innovators as well as people who benefit from cool ideas. Hmm... maybe I should patent my silly 'idea' before it's too late....

Popular posts from this blog

Push it... push it real good...

The other day I got a chance to play with the new Apple force touch trackpad. This is a new design that Apple has put on their laptops for non-mechanized clicking on trackpad. When you press on the trackpad it senses the force that you're pressing with, and when you reach a certain level, you feel a 'click'. If you keep pressing, you feel a second 'click'. The unique thing is that these 'clicks' aren't physical in nature. The trackpad never moves at all, but the click that you feel is from haptic feedback. In essence, when you press with enough force, the trackpad clicks back at you. You feel the sensation of clicking, but it's simply the trackpad responding to your pressure.

I got to play with this for a while, since the Apple Store rep was talking with us about soccer, and after a short bit I was getting the hang of it. I feel that it would take quite a bit longer though to really feel comfortable with this new paradigm. I'm someone who has a …

The beat goes on

Yesterday Apple revealed their long awaited entry into the streaming music field. They were able to do this quickly because of the acquisition of Beats last year, and the systems and intellectual property that came with that purchase. Considering that the music reveal was pretty much the only big news out of a pretty benign developer keynote, I'll take a few moments to talk about what I think about it.

Apple was perhaps the defining company in the music revolution of the past 20 years. With the introduction of the iPod that revolutionized portable music, to the creation of the iTunes store and the eventual death of DRM, Apple has been at the forefront of digital music. This leadership comes with high expectations to continue to lead, and so many people have long questioned Apple not getting into the streaming music business quicker.

For the past few years new companies have come forth to lead the change in the streaming music evolution. From Pandora and its ability to create uniqu…

Hack! Slash! Burn! Crush!!

The big tech news story of the weekend was the hacked account of Mat Honan. As documented in his posting on Wired.com, in the space of a few hours his digital life was in shambles. And as much as we always talk about strong passwords, etc., this was not a case of password failure. It was a case that shows just how our desire for on-demand, cloud based services that are convenient can come back to haunt us.

I highly suggest you go read all 4 pages of the article, but the quick summary is that a hacker wanted control of Mr. Honan's Twitter account. In order to get it, they started with basic social scouting, and proceeded to use all of the built-in tools of Google, Amazon and Apple to gain access to his accounts without ever needing to crack a single password. At Google they discovered what his Apple ID e-mail address was when they did a simple "Forgot my password" query. Then at Amazon, they called up customer service and game'd the system to get access to the last 4 …