"HTC claims that is has found ‘alternate solutions‘ to these patents, but Mueller isn’t optimistic:
But can those patents really be worked around? Standing in front of the Great Wall of China, you can also vow to walk around it. That doesn’t mean it’s a viable option."
The fact that you can't go around those patents, emphasizes how broken the current patent system is. How are competitors going to be "innovative", which is what the patent system was supposed to encourage, if they can't actually take another path in building their product, and basically their only real options are to either infringe on the patents or pay the licensing fees.
The patent system has been causing this problem for many years. The Wright brothers asserted that their patent covered lateral control of an aircraft, no matter how that control was implemented, and prevailed in court. Obviously, lateral control is a "blocking patent" - there is no way to work around it (and live).
The resulting litigation and threats of litigation disrupted and damaged the advancement of flying technology in the US, causing the US to lose its early lead.
The resulting litigation and threats of litigation disrupted and damaged the advancement of flying technology in the US, causing the US to lose its lead indeed.
You learn one thing about someone and they lose hero status? Neil deGrasse Tyson (one of my heroes) one said that you need to assemble your heroes out of the parts of many. No one is perfect.
You can still admire the admirable things about the Wright brothers while disagreeing with their use of patents.
I disagree. Hero in my book is doing eternal good in advancing technology. So, I like to believe in as few heroes as possible as something to strive for.
However, what they did was effectively create something and then sit on it. "The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines."
They are still notable in my book for being the first aviation flight being achieved just as USA was notable in my book for being the first to land on the moon.
Guess who's harbouring the space technology these days?
The innovate part of the patent system was meant to encourage people to create the patents and protect their ideas. It's meant to prevent competitors from trying to steal or go around your idea since you're supposed to be the one who invested the time/money to create it.
Of course, that's the concept. Whether or not it lived up to those ideals is another thing.
To play devil's advocate here, if this patent really can't be worked around reasonably, than this may be, finally, an example of a software patent that is valid and worthy of a patent because it is a true and novel invention.
If the patents can't be worked around reasonably then it could just as easily mean that the patents are so broad and superficial that nearly any approach, whether common sense or not, would violate them. I haven't read the full patents, so I don't have a real opinion yet, but from what I know about software patents in general my explanation would surprise me less than yours.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, I was only making a statement from one angle.
It's too late now, but if I could edit my statement, I would like to point out that the patent could be valid assuming it was very SPECIFIC in its claims, and not just a broad patent which would mean that the single unique invention was so brilliant that it was the one and true path to the end product.
If a patent cannot be worked around, and any engineer coming up against the same technical challenge would have to solve it in the same way, then that is a discovery, not an invention, and intrinsically not a valid patent.
Well, there are lots of ways that an invention could be unworthy of a patent. Being one of many equally good solutions to a problem might be one, depending on your beliefs, and that seems to be the one you have in mind. But it could also, for example, be an obvious combination of existing inventions (say, combining a payment-processing system with a 3-D printer) or indeed something already known in the prior art.
But can those patents really be worked around? Standing in front of the Great Wall of China, you can also vow to walk around it. That doesn’t mean it’s a viable option."
The fact that you can't go around those patents, emphasizes how broken the current patent system is. How are competitors going to be "innovative", which is what the patent system was supposed to encourage, if they can't actually take another path in building their product, and basically their only real options are to either infringe on the patents or pay the licensing fees.