16 March 2013

How PatentlyApple Harms Patents – Including Apple’s

One bad apple Up until now I have had an informal, unwritten policy of not critiquing other blogs.  After all, I know as well as anyone just how much hard work goes into maintaining a blog, coming up with ideas for articles, and finding the time and energy to actually write them.  Anybody who does that deserves a certain degree of respect, even if I happen to disagree with everything they say!  After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However, there are opinions, and then there are facts.  And when a widely read blog consistently posts false or misleading information, there is absolutely no good reason not to call them on it.  This is particularly true when that misinformation has the potential to influence views in a matter of significant public interest, such as the debate over the merits (or otherwise) of patents for computer-implemented inventions (please note that I am deliberately avoiding the meaningless term ‘software patents’).

One blog with which I have a huge problem in this regard is PatentlyApple.  For those unfamiliar with the blog, it is an overtly partisan celebration of all things (allegedly and actually) innovative at Apple, Inc.  Occasionally, this involves spiteful attacks on all things (allegedly and actually) imitative at Apple’s competitors, such as Samsung and Microsoft.  However, it is not these matters of opinion or rhetoric with which I have a problem.

My big issue with PatentlyApple is the way in which it consistently misconstrues and misrepresents the content and scope of the patents and applications – of Apple and others – which it purports to explain.  The reason for this is simple – PatentlyApple is not written by a patent attorney.  The fact is that it takes many years of training and experience to interpret a patent specification, and particularly the claims, which are ultimately determinative when it comes to assessing what the patent covers.  And having typically spent a number of illustrated paragraphs purportedly explaining to a large audience what a patent application is all about, PatentlyApple’s disclaimer that it is necessary to read the ‘full text’ of the document to obtain complete details just does not cut it!

Every time PatentlyApple gets it wrong it helps to drive another stake into the heart of a patent system that is already under assault by a range of opponents.  Most of the errors perpetrated by PatentlyApple are oversimplifications, or plain mistakes, over what a patent or application actually covers.  It is no wonder, then, that some people reading those articles would form the impression that these are ridiculous patents, encompassing overly broad and/or obvious subject matter, which provide further ‘proof’ that the patent system is broken, and that ‘evil software patents’ should be abolished altogether.  And there are readers who believe this – just read the comments on some PatentlyApple posts.

The irony is, of course, that by doing this, a blog which aims to celebrate Apple’s inventiveness is actually undermining the very system which enables the company to protect its investment in innovation.

The ‘Magic’ Charging iPad Cover

In its latest post (as at the time of writing), Apple Invents iPad Smart Cover with Built-In Inductive Charging, PatentlyApple asserts that Apple’s US application publication number 20130063873 ‘reveals the next step in the evolution of the iPad Smart Cover with built-in inductive charging.’

‘Simply put,’ says PatentlyApple, ‘this is a great idea to keep the iPad charged while on the go.’

Except that it is not.  Correctly put, the invention claimed in the application does not do anything to make charging an iPad any more convenient when ‘on the go’.  What it actually does is to enable bulky and unsightly power supply ports to be eliminated from the iPad itself, possibly leading to thinner, lighter, more attractive devices.  But, in practice, users are still going to have to find somewhere to plug-in to recharge when ‘on the go’.

In one form, the invention is defined in claim 1 of the application as follows:

1. A protective cover arranged to protect at least a display of a tablet device, comprising:
  • a body portion having a size and shape in accordance with the display, comprising:

    • an inductive power transmitter arranged to wirelessly pass power to a corresponding inductive power receiver unit disposed within the tablet device by inductively coupling,
    • at least a first magnetic element, and
    • at least a second magnetic element used to secure the body portion to the display in a closed configuration, wherein in the closed configuration the first magnetic element is detected by a sensor disposed within the tablet device, the detection altering a current operating state of the tablet device; and
  • an attachment mechanism for pivotally attaching the body portion to the tablet device.

This says that the invention is simply a cover, which includes an inductive coil positioned so that it can transfer power wirelessly into the tablet.  The cover can be fixed to the tablet device by an ‘attachment mechanism’, and held closed by a magnet, while a second magnet is provided to enable the tablet to identify when the cover is closed, so that it can switch into a different ‘operating state’, e.g. one in which the battery can be charged using power received via the cover.

None of this, you will note, says anything about where the charging power comes from.  As PatentlyApple rightly points out, the description suggests that it could come from an external power source (e.g. a charger), or from an additional battery located within the cover.  However, most people would recognise that the idea of carrying around a second battery located in the cover is pretty impractical – who would want the extra weight, or a bulky-looking cover?  And since inductive power transfer is typically somewhat less than 100% efficient, you would not even be able to use all of the power stored in that second battery (which would itself then need recharging).

Sure enough, there is no mention of secondary batteries in the claims.  This suggestion was probably added by the patent attorney primarily to justify a broad claim 1, which does not explicitly say where the power comes from.  After all, the specification tells us that there are multiple options!  But when we get to claim 2 we find:

2. The protective cover as recited in claim 1, further comprising: a power line connecting the inductive power transmitter to connector arranged to connect the power line to an external power supply; and a ground line connecting the inductive power transmitter to ground, wherein when the protective cover is attached to the tablet device, a tablet device housing acts as a chassis ground for the inductive power transmitter.

So what the invention primarily achieves is simply to move the power connector from the tablet/iPad to the cover.

Now, I am not saying that this is not a clever idea, or that it should not earn Apple a patent.  But what I am saying is that what the claimed invention consists of, and what it does, are quite different from the impression you would get from reading PatentlyApple.  And most of the ‘analysis’ you will find there is no more reliable than this simple example.

Dastardly Copycats, Microsoft and Samsung!

Take, for example, two nasty little attack-pieces published by PatentlyApple in the past couple of weeks, Slime Bag Microsoft Tries to Patent Apple's "Pinch and Zoom" and Hypocritical Samsung Tries to Patent Pinch & Zoom.  Both posts accuse Apple’s rivals of dastardly acts of trying to ‘steal’ Apple’s innovative technology, for various nefarious or strategic reasons.

I want to be very clear about one thing right at the outset here – you cannot get a valid patent on something which already exists, whether or not it has already been validly patented by someone else.  So this has nothing to do with whether or not Apple’s own ‘pinch-to-zoom’ patents are valid.

And there is nothing wrong with innovation which builds on other people’s patented innovations.  That is how technology advances, and Apple is one of the great masters of this art.  If your new invention requires access to somebody else’s patented technology to work, then you have the choice of seeking a licence, acquiring the patent (or the company, which Apple has done more than once), or waiting for the patent to expire.

But there is certainly nothing wrong with saying ‘here’s my new idea, and here’s a really good way to implement it using some existing technology as an element’.  And that is exactly what is happening in the Microsoft and Samsung patent applications that have gotten PatentlyApple all hot under the collar.

Here is the main claim (i.e. claim 1) of the Microsoft application (pub. no. 20130055077):

1. A method for an application program to modify information displayed on a mobile device, comprising: displaying on the mobile device by the application program at least a first portion of a document; receiving input from the user, the input comprising an input to a touch screen of the mobile device; retrieving from a memory in the mobile device a document-related structure data associated with the document; and displaying on the mobile device by the application program at least a portion of the document-related structure data in place of the first portion of the document.

Now, I am not going to bore you with the details of what this claim is all about, or any discussion of whether it is new and inventive.  But what you can see immediately is that there is no mention of pinching of zooming here.  The claim says that input is received from the user, which causes some stuff to happen.  If you want to find mention of pinching and zooming, you have to look at claims 2 and 3:

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second input from the user comprising a request to zoom-out from the document; and displaying at least a second portion of the document, wherein the second portion displayed is a superset of the first portion of the document.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the second input from the user comprises a finger-pinching movement of two fingers on the touch screen.

This is not an attempt to ‘patent’ pinch and zoom.  Claims 2 and 3 are known as dependent claims, i.e. they do not stand alone, but must be read in combination with claim 1, to which they refer back.  What this says is ‘I have come up with something I think is a new invention (claim 1), and I think that a pretty good way to do it in practice is to have the user zoom on the document with a pinching gesture (claims 2 and 3)’.

Now, I am certain that no Apple aficionado would argue with the proposition that pinch-zoom is a pretty good user interface concept.  The inventor would be lying to say otherwise!

The Samsung application (pub. no. 20130061171) is another example of exactly the same thing.  Here is Samsung’s claim 1:

1. A display apparatus comprising: a display unit for displaying a User Interface (UI) having a size that varies in response to a user's manipulation of the display unit; and a control unit for changing a type of information displayed in the UI in at least one stage in accordance with a state of the manipulated size of the UI.

Again, the issue here is not whether this claim is itself patentable – that is for Samsung to argue over with the Examiner.  The point is that the is no mention of pinching to zoom in this claim.  For that, you must read on down to claim 5:

5. The display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the size of the UI is adjusted according to at least one of a pinch-in operation and a pinch-out operation.

‘Slime bag’ and ‘hypocritical’ are strong words.  There is nothing wrong with using them, as a matter of opinion, but at the very least your argument should be based on facts rather than demonstrable falsehoods.

Catching Spammers and Stalkers?

According to another recent PatentlyApple article, Apple Granted a Social Networking Patent that Filters out Spammers and Stalkers, Apple’s recently granted patent no. 8,396,932 is all about how a social networking platform can identify and deal with spammers and stalkers.  No doubt the specification describes such features, and some of them may even be patentable (Apple could have other applications pending based on a similar description of the system).  However, this is not at all what the patent in question is all about.

Here is claim 1 of the Apple patent:

1. A computer-implemented method for ensuring consistency in a friend service database comprising: detecting an operation which requires updates to a plurality of related friend state records; generating a key representing the operation; generating an entry in a write-ahead log database using the key, the entry specifying the updated friend state records and the type of operation to be performed on the friend state records, wherein the write-ahead log database is separate from the friend state records; attempting to update the plurality of friend state records; and if the plurality of friend state records have been successfully updated, then deleting the entry in the write-ahead log database wherein the operation comprises merging data from a friend state record associated with a handle with a friend state record associated with a known user and wherein the merging comprises: updating the friend state record associated with the known user to include the data from the friend state record associated with the handle.

I do not propose to discuss this claim in detail, but it will be pretty clear to everyone that it has nothing to do with identifying spammers or stalkers.  Rather, it is directed to a method of ensuring that when a simultaneous update is required to multiple related records in a ‘friend service database’, the operation is performed in such a way that consistency is maintained within the database.

Compared with catching stalkers, of course this is all a bit dull.  But then, most patented technologies are pretty boring for those people not directly involved!

Conclusion

I could go on all day, but I will spare you all and stop there!  The above examples were not cherry-picked for their inaccuracies, they are simply the four most recent PatentlyApple posts to have each conducted an allegedly detailed analysis of a published application or patent.  Finding misleading information on PatentlyApple is not hard – the challenge is to find a post that gets it right!

Now, I do not much care what people want to write about, and I know that I have the free choice not to read anything I do not wish to.  But with the patent system under increasing scrutiny, the important issue is not whether or not I read PatentlyApple.

When PatentlyApple publishes details of the patenting activities of Apple and other high-profile high-tech companies, other outlets report and reproduce this information as ‘news’.  And in the comments sections across the web, people express their outrage at a ‘broken’ patent system which allows companies like Microsoft and Samsung (not to mention Apple) to obtain patents on ‘obvious’ ideas like pinch-zoom.

Just one problem – it’s not happening.

Image Copyright (c) 123RF Stock Photos

24 comments:

JoeNorth5 said...

Harm the patent system? Really? Most young people didn't care about patents until Patently Apple came into being. His site is interesting and thankfully not a boring lawyer. Write about something people want to read about instead of attacking others who are tying to show Apple's innovation and yes, they cover Samsung, Microsoft, RIM, Google and other companies on their sister site Patent Bolt. Boring "lawyers" can't capture the imagination of consumers and so your nose is out of place. What a whiney article, truly pathetic. And you're a lawyer. Ha! Whiner!

JoeNorth5 said...

I re-read the patent about inductive charging and he get's 95% right. He also points to another patent talking about how this inductive system will work in the bigger picture which is providing valuable context. Patently Apple has also covered Apple's patent about the Smart Cover integrating Solar Panels for power on the go. In the big picture Patently Apple is a great service to the Apple community. You seem to have gotten your nose out of joint with Patently Apple attacking the copycat Samsung. Is this your true beef. Because anyone who is fair will see that Patently Apple presents more than fair take on Apple's patents using the patent language found in the patent. Most people would send in a comment about something they disagree with, whereas you border on slander. Hmm, perhaps you're a Galaxy fan or representing Samsung. I'd try to fix this boring site before judging others.

Mark Summerfield said...

I agree with you completely that 'interesting' is better than 'boring'.

But if all you care about is whether something is interesting and entertaining, without regard to the truth, then I recommend the fiction section of you local library or favourite bookstore!

And Patent Bolt suffers from exactly the same problems as PatentlyApple with regard to its analysis of the patents discussed.

Boring, or difficult, as it may be, some things actually require a certain level of expertise in order to get the facts right. Once you've done that, by all means make it interesting!

Mark Summerfield said...

Two comments in less than 30 minutes! And you say I'm the one with my nose out of joint?!

And, by the way, written defamation would be 'libel', not 'slander'. And 'truth' is a defence to either one.

JoeNorth5 said...

I see that you're against Apple in many reports which is now understandable why you attack someone who is in favor of Apple.

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/12/apple-v-samsunglegal-privilege-and-in.html

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2011/11/how-apple-punches-above-its-weight-in.html

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-design-patents-and.html

A little one sided I see. Your true colors are evident. Hypocrite!

JoeNorth5 said...

"Without regard to the truth" my lord you're full of yourself. Patently Apple is quoting from the patents and doesn't an excellent job. Anyways, you're a smart ass lawyer who can talk up a storm and point fingers because it's what you do for living. Truth? Patent trolls are the ones damaging the patent system in the billions per year and you waste our time picking on a small blogger. Wow, we see where your "truth" is focused on. Hypocrite. Samsung defending hypocrite at that. We see your true colors no matter how you wiggle out of it.

Mark Summerfield said...

If you think those three articles are anti-Apple, then you either did not read them, or your reading comprehension skills are poor. Or perhaps you are just viewing them through your own bias? It is particularly incomprehensible to me how you could read 'Apple punches above its weight in smartphone wars' as being against Apple! That article is particularly about how smart Apple has been in the way it manages its intellectual property.

But other readers can make up their own minds.

BTW, did you read this one: http://blog.patentology.com.au/2011/10/vale-steve-jobs-but-your-influence-will.html ?

Andy M said...

It is very interesting to see that the PatentlyApple blog in a way criticizes Samsung in an article and yet features ads of Samsung smartphones in the frames of the blog post.

On a more serious note, I believe it is important to make the general public more aware about what the Patent system does and possibly alleviate some of the misconceptions that are reflected in blogs such as PatentlyApple and negative public commentary including comments in this post. I hope that the general public becomes more "patently-aware" and stops entertaining social groups like Cancer Voices Australia and blog such as Patently Apple.

As a matter of fact, while blogs such as PatentlyApple are tabloids, negative portrayal of the Patent System in the mainstream media like a Four Corners episode (ABC) aired a few years ago which referred to the "Myriad Patent" can potentially cause the general public to develop a negative perception towards the Patent System.

Mark Summerfield said...

Thanks for your comment, Andy - it's good to know somebody understands what I am trying to get at here!

I am sure those ads are a nice earner for PatentlyApple. Its Alexa.com traffic rank is about 85,000, which puts it well ahead of the world's leading patent law blogs, patentlyo.com and ipwatchdog.com (although it sits in between them on US ranking alone). I understand that the operators of both of those sites earn a decent income from their sponsorships.

axman6 said...

The problem is PatentlyApple don't make the distinction between what is disclosed in the description of a patent, and what is claimed in the claims, and they often do not make it clear exactly what the inventive concept is. This leads to people believing things like Apple has patented the unlocking of a phone, rather than what actually may be claimed, a specific method of locking a phone (just to use an illustrative example, not talking about any specific patent here).

A single article calling a out the distressing errors of a pro-apple blog doesn't make the author an Apple hater of a Samsung fanboy. It's an important role many in the media fill (like the ABC's MediaWatch) and helps ensure a better quality of journalism. I think it's quite fair to bring to the attention of readers of PatentlyApple that they are not patent experts, and routinely get it wrong, which is an assumption many seem to make. For reference, I say this as someone who uses at least three Apple devices daily and has been a customer of theirs for a long time (long before the Intel switch). Bad journalism is bad journalism, whether you agree with it or not. Trying to split people into camps is just unhelpful and misses the point.

axman6 said...

The problem is that PatentlyApple don't make the distinction between what is disclosed in the description of a patent, and what is claimed in the claims, and they often do not make it clear exactly what the inventive concept is. This leads to people believing ideas like Apple has patented the unlocking of a phone, rather than what actually may be claimed, a specific method of locking a phone (just to use an illustrative example, not talking about any specific patent here).

A single article calling a out the distressing errors of a pro-apple blog doesn't make the author an Apple hater or a Samsung fanboy. It's an important role many in the media fill (like the ABC's MediaWatch) and helps ensure a better quality of journalism. I think it's quite fair to bring to the attention of readers of PatentlyApple that the authors are not patent experts, and routinely get it wrong, but many seem to assume that they are indeed experts. For reference, I say this as someone who uses at least three Apple devices daily and has been a customer of theirs for a long time (long before the Intel switch). Bad journalism is bad journalism, whether you agree with it or not. Trying to split people into camps is just unhelpful and misses the point and you should learn to be more critical of the websites you read in future.

axman6 said...

So you'd prefer to be lied to and have people believe things which are clearly false, than have someone call them out for their (really quite impressive) errors? The reason there is so much uproar about the patent system at the moment is because people do not understand how it actually functions, and blogs like PatentlyApple make the whole situation even worse. There is a hell of a lot of misinformation out there, perhaps you could stop whinging about this being a personal attack and actually read what it is saying and learn something. I'd love to hear your take on how the patent system works, I have a feeling it would be quite amusing.

Mark Summerfield said...

Thanks Andy, I appreciate the support. Clearly you 'get it', though sadly we live in a world where dull old 'facts' appear to be increasingly devalued.


I agree with you also about the unproductive nature of dividing people into 'camps'. Yet it seems that overtaxed minds naturally prefer to simplify issues by defining a small number (preferably two) of pigeon-holes, into which each person/argument must be classified. This practice eliminates nuance, and makes genuine progress difficult to achieve. Ironically, given the subject matter under discussion here, this kind of restricted thinking is also one of the greatest barriers to innovation.


It is not enough to think outside the box, you need to think outside all of the boxes!


Mark

fettemama said...

So you think that patenting a rect with oval corners is a sign of a working patent system? Lol @ u.

JoeNorth5 said...

The fact is that lawyers are focused on claims which is what is fought over in court. However, 90% of every patent is made up of a summary and detailed description of the invention. It describes what the patent is intended to be used for. This is what Patently Apple focuses on and 90% of what is described in the actual patent verbiage. Therefore, you guys don't have a leg to stand on.

If you're a lawyer, look up the patent yourself and do an analysis on the claims that you love so much. But that's different from what Patently Apple covers. If you don't like a point, you simply make a comment on the site. But to go on and on about how this guy is damaging to the patent system makes you irrational. Your own ilk that love to "defend IP" who buy patents to argue claims, is the problem. You really look like idiots focusing on a small blog. Really. What kind of lawyer losers are you?

JoeNorth5 said...

The fact is that lawyers are focused on claims which is what is
fought over in court. However, 90% of every patent is made up of a
summary and detailed description of the invention. It describes what the
patent is intended to be used for. This is what Patently Apple focuses
on and 90% of what is described in the actual patent verbiage.
Therefore, you guys don't have a leg to stand on.

If you're a lawyer, look up the patent yourself and do an analysis on the
claims that you love so much and publish them. But that's different from what Patently
Apple covers. If you don't like a point, you simply make a comment on
the site. But to go on and on about how this guy is damaging to the
patent system makes you sound irrational. Your own ilk that love to "defend
IP" who buy patents to argue claims even though you don't make a damn thing is the problem with the patent system. You really look like idiots focusing on a small blog. Really. What kind of lawyer losers are you?

Mark Summerfield said...

Joe, your comments have been getting sent automatically to moderation due to your use of abusive language. I have approved them for publication this time, but please tone it down. This is not the kind of blog where such things are tolerated. You can express your opinion without using insults.

Mark Summerfield said...

This is another example of a widespread misconception regarding the scope of Apple's rights.

The 'round-cornered rectangle' patent is a design patent, not a utility patent. Everywhere in the world, other than the US, we would call this a 'registered design' or an 'industrial design'. It is really more like a copyright than a patent, in that it protects the way something looks, rather than the way it works.

The design does not cover round-cornered rectangles in general. It covers a particular design for a tablet computer - basically corresponding with the iPad.

Aside from in Germany, Apple has not had much luck enforcing the iPad design right. The courts quite rightly recognise that a round-cornered rectangle is quite a generic design, and require a very close similarity before they will consider that infringement has occurred. A UK judge, for example, found that Samsung's Galaxy Tab (which is also a round-cornered rectangle) did not infringe the registered design because (among other reasons) it is 'not as cool'!

Stan E. Delo said...

Hi Mark-



Thanks for taking a bit of time to present your take on
the situation, which I fear is painfully true. I happen to know a fair amount
about the *software wars* that have occured in the past, since I grew up about
30 miles away from the Mickey-Soft main campus in Redmond, WA, USA. As you
mention very appropriately, it has morphed into a different arena, where large
entities tend to be getting down to brass tacks, so to speak, since US patent
law has *evolved* quite a lot since the late 70's and 80's. While Apple was not
apparently involved implicitly in the devaluation of US patent rights through
the passage of the America Invents Act, several other large IT companies here in
the US most definitely were, including notably Intel, Cisco, IBM, GE, Microsoft,
and the Coalition for Patent Fairness, which included dozens of other large
corporations seeking to get patent laws here in the US *designed* in their
favor. Notably the main sponsor of several *patent reform* efforts over about 8
years has been US Senator Patrick Leahy, who hails from Vermont, sometimes known
as the "IBM State". I dare say he will get re-elected for several more terms if
he decides to remain in the Senate, but he seems to be getting a bit senile in
my humble opinion. He was offered the chairmanship of a different Senate
committee, but unfortunately he turned it down to remain as the Chairman of the
Senate Judiciary committee, much to my regret. American patent rights shouldn't
be for sale to the highest bidder, but that seems to be what has
happened.



They and Congress didn't seem to even consider what the
AIA might do to smaller entities in their rush to *modernize* and *streamline*
US patent law. All we have left here in the US is the remote possibility that
the US courts will overturn some of the more damaging aspects of the AIA as
written, but I tend to not be very optimistic in that regard. Best wishes in
your travels, and try not to take any wooden nickels!



Best regards as always,

Stan~

Stan E. Delo said...

Joe- I haven't read many of your messages, but perhaps what Mark is talking about is what is known in the English language as "invectives." They can be either true or false, but in both cases they can be described as a "Noun" - 1) An abusive expression or speech. or 2) Abusive language [adj]

In my opinion Mark writes very well and thoughtfully, so I really don't see any need for invectives or personal insults to be allowed. If you want to see lots of that, perhaps you should subscribe to Dennis Crouch's Patently-O, where there is a virtual blizzard of that type of behavior.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/first-sale-doctrine-authorized-foreign-sales-exhaust-us-copyrights-and-us-patents.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatentlyO+%28Dennis+Crouch%27s+Patently-O%29
Cheerio mate-
Stan~

Mark Summerfield said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Stan.


The patent system in general, and the US patent system in particular, is under pressure from a number of different angles. As I see it, the main problem is that there are a number of 'bad actors' - including aggressive patent assertion entities ('trolls') and some corporate heavies - upsetting the traditional patent bargain.


The US system is a magnet for aggregators and trolls, because the features which make it well-suited to small participants (including individual inventors) also make it well-suited to those who would acquire their patents and/or bankroll litigation. I am afraid that horse has bolted. You are probably right to see the system as being 'weakened', from the perspective of the little guy, by the provisions of the AIA. Personally, however, I think that the IP world has changed, and that particular shift in the balance was inevitable and necessary. In practice I suspect little real harm will be done. I think the real impact on inventors and other small entities will be minimal, because the benefits of the former system had become largely theoretical. For example, what good is it to be first to invent if you cannot afford interference proceedings anyway?


Speaking as someone accustomed to working with inventors in a first-to-file system, with a very similar prior art & grace period regime to that under the AIA, I really believe that you will find this 'brave new world' not to be as bad as you fear!


The SHIELD Act, on the other hand, is a terrible idea. It is a step too far that will cause collateral damage well beyond the trolls it targets. And there will be plenty of cashed-up assertion entities that will be unaffected by it, anyway.


Mark

Mark Summerfield said...

Thanks for the support, Stan.


There are a number of keywords, commonly used in (as you rightly identify) invective, which will cause comments to be sent for moderation. This blog will not be permitted to descend to the depths of Patently-O's comments section! It's fine for Dennis, as an academic, to take a laissez faire approach. But my professionalism (and, by association, my employer) is likely to be judged by what goes on here!


Cheers,


Mark

Andyman said...

I am so happy to have found your article. Not only dies it speak truths it shows the website for what it is. Ive had bad experiences w the moderator over at patently Apple. I'm an android user since the Eris and wanted to throw a neutral perspective on a couple of his blog posts. If you look, each of your comments are moderated so that he can bend and twist them to his liking. 3/5 of my comments were dramatically truncated to bend them to seem pro apple or to an incoherent sentence which is later ridiculed. This guy is a joke. Steer clear of patently apple and tell your friends to do the same. There are too many quality blog site to have to settle for that internet trash.

Mark Summerfield said...

Thanks for your insight.

I consider it morally wrong to edit comments, especially if this results in a change of meaning, intent or quality of expression.

Indeed, in countries where the copyright law recognises moral rights (including Australia but regrettably not the US) this would normally be a violation of those rights.

My own policy is 'all or nothing'. If a comment is not a violation of my published policy, it stays, no matter how much I might disagree with it, or how

Post a Comment


Copyright © 2014
Creative Commons License
The Patentology Blog by Dr Mark A Summerfield is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.