It doesn't matter if it doesn't LOOK like TimeMachine because its a patent on the "concept" of moving backwards and forwards within a list of backups... hence TimeMachine does infringe on their patent.
Ryan... it doesn't matter if the software product looks like something or not, its the "concept/idea" behind it that the patent was granted for. Quite clearly, Apple's TimeMachine does breach the patent that "Mirror Worlds" holds.
Mind you, I agree with someone else here and I also ask "who the hell allows these vague patents through"?!?!?
I thought you cant patent "ideas/concepts" just technology and executions. If Time Machine operates in a different manner than this companies product then Apple didn't infringe.
@Nick - although I agree about airy-fairy patents about just ideas or concepts, it appears 99% of American patents ARE allowed for stuff like this :(
BTW if you read Mirrow Worlds patent (and Engadgets comments) their patent is for a "highly visual system that displays a line of documents and other items dating back (or forward) in time along with the option of searching these items to retrieve and edit them." - is this exactly HOW TimeMachine displays its data, thus Apple have breached the patent.
You need to forget about WHAT actual data the program is dealing with (whether it be system backups, file listings, music listings (in the case of CoverFlo) etc... its just *the process itself* for accessing that data that Mirrow Worlds have a patent.
I dont care about that the type of data that is being restored, I care about how apples system goes about retrieving and logging the information. If it is not the same way of doing it as this Mirror company, then Apple isn't infringing. If it goes to court, a smart judge will ask if Apples code infringes on Mirror's code. If it doesn't then there isn't infringement. You cannot patent ideas.
When patents on ideas are rewarded they often times are voided by the court. As has happened recently due to the flood of patents applications that came in in the early-mid 90's that were approved by non-tech people. Non tech people in the patent office having to approve patent submissions for technology that they know nothing about causes "ideas" and "common knowledge" to get patents that are often times overturned and revoked in time.
I'm not saying Apple is innocent, but lets get off what it looks like and look at how it works. How they index the backups and how they retrieve the backups and how they restore the backups.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ryan @ Mar 18th 2008 8:38PM
too bad this patent looks nothing like time machine and somehow this file the person is backing up changes everyday(and file type)
Glen @ Mar 18th 2008 10:11PM
It doesn't matter if it doesn't LOOK like TimeMachine because its a patent on the "concept" of moving backwards and forwards within a list of backups... hence TimeMachine does infringe on their patent.
Glen @ Mar 18th 2008 9:40PM
Ryan... it doesn't matter if the software product looks like something or not, its the "concept/idea" behind it that the patent was granted for. Quite clearly, Apple's TimeMachine does breach the patent that "Mirror Worlds" holds.
Mind you, I agree with someone else here and I also ask "who the hell allows these vague patents through"?!?!?
Nick @ Mar 18th 2008 11:31PM
@ Glen
I thought you cant patent "ideas/concepts" just technology and executions. If Time Machine operates in a different manner than this companies product then Apple didn't infringe.
Glen @ Mar 19th 2008 12:12AM
@Nick - although I agree about airy-fairy patents about just ideas or concepts, it appears 99% of American patents ARE allowed for stuff like this :(
BTW if you read Mirrow Worlds patent (and Engadgets comments) their patent is for a "highly visual system that displays a line of documents and other items dating back (or forward) in time along with the option of searching these items to retrieve and edit them." - is this exactly HOW TimeMachine displays its data, thus Apple have breached the patent.
You need to forget about WHAT actual data the program is dealing with (whether it be system backups, file listings, music listings (in the case of CoverFlo) etc... its just *the process itself* for accessing that data that Mirrow Worlds have a patent.
Rob K @ Mar 19th 2008 8:30AM
@ Glen
By posting the same idea twice, I think your post at 10:11pm might legally infringe on the idea/concept of your post made at 9:40pm.
Nick @ Mar 19th 2008 12:48PM
I dont care about that the type of data that is being restored, I care about how apples system goes about retrieving and logging the information. If it is not the same way of doing it as this Mirror company, then Apple isn't infringing. If it goes to court, a smart judge will ask if Apples code infringes on Mirror's code. If it doesn't then there isn't infringement. You cannot patent ideas.
When patents on ideas are rewarded they often times are voided by the court. As has happened recently due to the flood of patents applications that came in in the early-mid 90's that were approved by non-tech people. Non tech people in the patent office having to approve patent submissions for technology that they know nothing about causes "ideas" and "common knowledge" to get patents that are often times overturned and revoked in time.
I'm not saying Apple is innocent, but lets get off what it looks like and look at how it works. How they index the backups and how they retrieve the backups and how they restore the backups.