The problem with patents is that you don't have to actually have a product to protect to have the patent rights, just a concept or theory. This is where these trolls come into play. In a way, Tom raises a good point. Anyone who has created a DRM protected product on the Android platform has committed infringement under patent. The question begs to stand should the patent have been allowed in the beginning given the era of software and the fact that DRM has previously existed on other software platforms, would it be considered a tactic in common use in software programming that should not have received a patent at all and refute the patent?

 

I'm on LR's side on this one. A process that is designed and engineered by someone is something that should be protected, but as I have learned in programming, there is more than one way to program a cat. The end result should not be patented but the actual algorithm should be. If someone comes up with a very sophisticated and efficient way of doing something that is industry specific, the algorithm should be patented to prevent a competitor from releasing a similar product with the same feature with the same effectiveness as it has the same code behind the process. If someone else comes up with the same feature, but uses a different algorithm to accomplish the task, the patent should not cover all options. If you do it on your own without using someone else's work as a foundation, copyright and patent should not have any ground.

The patent in question is... questionable.

 

The base premise of the patent has been in use on personal computers longer than UNILOC has existed. Some 'genius' wrote the idea (that was already in use on personal computers) down and stated as being an original thought/process because it was to be used on a cell phone. It's not 'original' by any stretch of the imagination... but, the patent office really doesn't have a clue and thus an invalid patent is awarded.