Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52
Like Tree26Likes
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by ajmboy View Post
    One thing is for sure about corporations, there is allot of forward thinking. So I'm sure there is master plan.
    At least there is supposed to be. But as things get shuffled or there are major market shifts, they sometimes go out the window. Assuming leadership actually has a good forward thinking plan.
    Last edited by Grabber5.0; 01/27/2014 at 05:28 PM.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Preemptive View Post
    I have better things to do, but I may as well throw my own uninformed opinion in!

    I think:
    Access owns PalmOS - a proprietary platform
    Qualcomm now owns (all?) the Palm patents, hardware and software. Hardware will cover aspects of H/W design and application rather than specific devices (but remember the infamous, `Smartphone patent'). Software will include Legacy webOS.
    I'm not clear whether Enyo was developed at Palm or by them later at HP or if this was a Pre-existing HP Project applied to the TP and partially to phones. As they apparently continue to support development, they may have retained patents to Enyo(?). HP recently returned to mobile and may see Enyo as part of the future.
    HP have likely granted themselves a license to use the technology - probably in perpetuity.
    LG bought `webOS' in the sense of all the code, development resources, staff etc. and a license (in perpertuity?) to develop and use it.

    So, LG are free to use webOS & Enyo. They are doing so.
    HP is possibly free to do the same, but only appear to be involved in Enyo.
    Qualcomm have the patents, so they can very likely:
    1. Make money from licensing the patents.
    2. Develop devices (webOS or not) with significant patents protection.
    3. Develop and sell webOS (unless someone like LG had some kind of exclusivity clause)

    Feel free to correct any errors. I speculate, because I doubt we will know the exact ownership and rights picture for some time, but we can make reasonable guesses about it and the implications.

    For me two questions remain:
    1. LG is going bigger with webOS than anyone really expected. Why did they not buy the patents?
    2. What is the relationship in law between Patents and Open source? Is there any possible effect on webOS-Ports? I would guess not, but to be simplistic, could the patents impede the open-source project or did the open-sourcing void any claims (it was originally done by the holder) ?
    I thought that the point of Open was to remove any patent issues and make it entirely open source. Otherwise what was the point of the entire Open exercise? (I do realize who we are talking about here, so that is likely a silly question.)
  3. i2y4n's Avatar
    Posts
    278 Posts
    Global Posts
    294 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by joeytino View Post
    I thought that the point of Open was to remove any patent issues and make it entirely open source. Otherwise what was the point of the entire Open exercise? (I do realize who we are talking about here, so that is likely a silly question.)
    People don't seem to understand that there are two operating systems. The old webOS is proprietary, LG (I believe) own the rights to that one.

    The new Open webOS can be used by anyone, however, it is just a shell of it's former webOS self. The opening sourcing process was not finished and things are in an unusable state right now. Hence, why you don't see Open webOS running on any devices.
  4. #44  
    That's not really correct -- Open webOS is quite usable and is similar to 3.0.5, minus a lot of the synergy services. There are significant architectural designs in the original webOS code, however, which make it a bit of a pain in the *** to run on hardware other than what it was designed for.

    I can't speak for who owns all of what anymore, because it's all so tangled and twisted, but I'd guess that Qualcomm probably now has all of the hardware patents. Don't forget, Palm was a hardware business, as well as a software business. And most or all of their stuff included Qualcomm components, so it's probably quite a natural fit for that stuff to be there now.

    Also, don't forget, that patents and open source can still co-exist. It is perfectly legitimate for Palm, HP, Qualcomm, or LG to hold patents to open source things. That gives them leverage against other people claiming patent protection on same or very similar things. It doesn't really give them leverage against people actually using the code from open source, though.

    Patents on open source products allow the owning entity to protect those who use the open source, as well as to protect against people making similar claims.

    Patents are not necessarily a vehicle for good or bad or whatever, they are just a protection mechanism that can be chosen to be employed in certain circumstances. They are not trademarks, that MUST be enforced.
    Author:
    Remove Messaging Beeps patch for webOS 3.0.5, Left/Right bezel gestures in LunaCE,
    Whazaa! Messenger and node-wa, SynerGV 1 and 2 - Google Voice integration, XO - Subsonic Commander media streamer, AB:S Launcher
    (1:39:33 PM) halfhalo: Android multitasking is like sticking your fingers into a blender
    GO OPEN WEBOS!
    People asked me for a donate link for my non-catalog work, so here you are:
    Preemptive likes this.
  5. #45  
    Yes patents are a protection mechanism designed to allow a creator to profit from an idea for a limited time, whilst simultaneously making the technology publicly available for future use. The alternative is the trade secret - if your idea is hard to discover - maybe the Google search algorithm(?) or Coke's recipe - you continue to earn for years, but can't stop others if they find it out or invent it independently. You CAN prevent another patent through demonstration of your 'prior art'.

    So, while the open-source project is clearly allowed - even encouraged, could the patents ever be used to shut it down?

    I guess it depends on how much of the system methods are patented. Wave launcher? Synergy? Often people wonder why other system's haven't yet taken all of webOS' features, but maybe they can't.
  6. #46  
    not that LG needed it but im assuming they have all the inductive charging stuff as well, giving them more options than what they have already, esp as most "how too" vids/threads you see typically start with how to use the palm induction tech to mod other phones/tablets, i wonder what unreleased stuff they have access too as well and if its of any use.
    Touchpad Keyboard Themes - >> Click Me <<
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by geekpeter View Post
    not that LG needed it but im assuming they have all the inductive charging stuff as well, giving them more options than what they have already, esp as most "how too" vids/threads you see typically start with how to use the palm induction tech to mod other phones/tablets, i wonder what unreleased stuff they have access too as well and if its of any use.
    I suspect LG just bought the software. Not that the devices contain anything new that I'm aware of. Inductive charging? That was probably Tesla, though he was a bit more ambitious...
    Wardenclyffe Tower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1901... That's over a century ago!

    Also, didn't LG already do that Qi one for the Nexus 4 or 5? Not very good apparently. I think the newer one was supposed to be better and Qi is a standard, so I expect if that ever happens they'll go with Qi and hopefully use the magnets or similar for positioning.
    Qi_(inductive_power_standard) - Wikipedia
    Last edited by Preemptive; 01/28/2014 at 05:46 AM.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Preemptive View Post
    So, LG are free to use webOS & Enyo. They are doing so.
    HP is possibly free to do the same, but only appear to be involved in Enyo.
    Qualcomm have the patents, so they can very likely:
    1. Make money from licensing the patents.
    2. Develop devices (webOS or not) with significant patents protection.
    3. Develop and sell webOS (unless someone like LG had some kind of exclusivity clause)

    ....

    For me two questions remain:
    1. LG is going bigger with webOS than anyone really expected. Why did they not buy the patents?
    2. What is the relationship in law between Patents and Open source? Is there any possible effect on webOS-Ports? I would guess not, but to be simplistic, could the patents impede the open-source project or did the open-sourcing void any claims (it was originally done by the holder) ?
    Great post.

    Who knows what is exactly right. Even my pyschic can't figure it out. But that's why blogs were created - to help speculate.

    I think the irony of these patents, is they seem so valuable, yet they entail litigation for the most part. At least these days. That costs money. And bad results can impact share value. Which as we know with HP .... what does it take, to take down a CEO. A drop of 40% will do.

    I would think some companies prefer not dealing with Patents and everything involved. Just pay my licensing fee, and make my money elsewhere. Without wasting time in court - no matter how good your representation is.

    .
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Lansing2002 View Post
    Great post.

    Who knows what is exactly right. Even my pyschic can't figure it out. But that's why blogs were created - to help speculate.

    I think the irony of these patents, is they seem so valuable, yet they entail litigation for the most part. At least these days. That costs money. And bad results can impact share value. Which as we know with HP .... what does it take, to take down a CEO. A drop of 40% will do.

    I would think some companies prefer not dealing with Patents and everything involved. Just pay my licensing fee, and make my money elsewhere. Without wasting time in court - no matter how good your representation is.

    .
    Patents these days are "currency" needed not only to sue for infringement, but to avoid being sued. Sort of like the cold war arms race. Company A tries to keep a large patent portfolio so if Company B threatens to sue them over some patent Company B holds, Company A says, "Well, odds are good you infringe on patents we hold, so let's just create a cross-licensing agreement and call it a night." Sort of a ....patent poker.
    Preemptive likes this.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by NCCaniac View Post
    Patents these days are "currency" needed not only to sue for infringement, but to avoid being sued. Sort of like the cold war arms race. Company A tries to keep a large patent portfolio so if Company B threatens to sue them over some patent Company B holds, Company A says, "Well, odds are good you infringe on patents we hold, so let's just create a cross-licensing agreement and call it a night." Sort of a ....patent poker.

    yes, corporate currency, i see this move not as QC obtaining patents for some future device, but HP yard saling to scrape up some loot. i also suspect LG didnt need to buy them to do what it intends with their smart appliance plan. but QC would not pass up a deal for intellectual prop.

    again, so much potential, yet our dreams still will not come to fruition. So-- who owns the trade Mark for Palm now?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Preemptive View Post
    1. LG is going bigger with webOS than anyone really expected. Why did they not buy the patents?
    2. What is the relationship in law between Patents and Open source? Is there any possible effect on webOS-Ports? I would guess not, but to be simplistic, could the patents impede the open-source project or did the open-sourcing void any claims (it was originally done by the holder) ?
    To try to answer my own questions (more speculation):
    1. The license deal is so good that they don't have to (and anyway, open-source, owning the dev team)
    2. It may be possible to use patents against Open-source (there is I believe a fund to defend OSS against attempts to patent it by others), but as the former patent holder (HP) did the open-sourcing, it would be hard for anyone to 'take it back'. Qualcomm can't very well claim to have been ignorant of the open projects when they paid up.
  12. #52  
    again, we don't even know what the patents purchased cover, do we? i suspect that qualcomm is probably only interested in hardware stuff, it would be really out of character for them to be into all the high level stuff.

    It could also be that they got the whole kit and kaboodle, and other people still have unterminable licenses to them.
    Last edited by eblade; 01/29/2014 at 06:04 PM.
    Author:
    Remove Messaging Beeps patch for webOS 3.0.5, Left/Right bezel gestures in LunaCE,
    Whazaa! Messenger and node-wa, SynerGV 1 and 2 - Google Voice integration, XO - Subsonic Commander media streamer, AB:S Launcher
    (1:39:33 PM) halfhalo: Android multitasking is like sticking your fingers into a blender
    GO OPEN WEBOS!
    People asked me for a donate link for my non-catalog work, so here you are:
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. HP (Palm) Patents list.?
    By akitayo in forum Open webOS General Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09/08/2012, 11:35 PM
  2. A Look At Palm Hardware Patents
    By clutch1222 in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07/16/2010, 06:38 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04/28/2010, 11:17 AM
  4. Palm's Patents
    By nerbe in forum Palm Pre and Pre Plus
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03/19/2010, 07:21 PM

Posting Permissions