Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
The pot seems to be boiling over. Apple may wish it had never entered the
battles.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
this is only like 30 million dollars. most of that billion was tradedress. it
softens
the inpact but not by much. putting a lite kevlar vest on with a 50 cal shot.
lol it
still gets ya. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
has Apple kept the USPTO abreast of all litigation involving
this Patent? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
If you go read the Arstechnica article, you find the absolutely hilariously
ironic tidbit that it's invalidated by one of Apple's own prior patents.
A 2005 patent granted in 2010, invalidates the 2007 patent granted in 2009. :)
You can't make this stuff up. :)
Oh, combined with a European AOL patent from 2008 if I remember correctly.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
Now we can download code to enable this feature on our Dorids. How can I do
this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
That's gotta hurt.
The USPTO ...
... the body that grants lots
of patents it shouldn't be granting in the first place ...
... disagrees
with the Jury that the patent is no longer valid in it's current state due to
prior art.
Ouch!
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
.
What can they possibly submit? Certainly not prior art. Did
they leave something out? How can they distinguish it from
the prior art? Velvin could help them.
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
Apple seems to have been quite dead-set expediting any hearings on matters
Samsung has wanted to get moving along in the case.
Are there now any matters where the shoe goes on the other foot - things Apple
would like to have heard before the patent rejection could become final?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
...called by the USPTO.
The irony!
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gibus on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
Note that the first and main reason for the rejection should have been that this
patent is about abstract subject matter, namely an algorithm.
I've analyzed in
detail this patent, in order to show how the damage currently known in the US
patent system would spread into Europe would the current patent reform (unitary
patent) be adopted: How the thermonuclear patent war would explode in
Europe with the unitary patent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
The PTO has a lower standard to meet when invalidating a patent as
compared
to a jury in district court. Also, the PTO interprets claims more
broadly than
the district court does. I am not saying that the jury got it right,
all I am
saying is that the PTO finding a patent invalid that a jury found valid is
not
inconsistent under US patent law. That exact situation is why
reexamination is
so attractive as compared to invalidating patents in district
court.
With respect to Samsung's reputation, why didn't they file this
over 2 years
ago when this case got started instead of waiting until this past
May to file? I
don't really feel sorry for them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PTO and jury apply different standards - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Are you a lawyer? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- Are you a lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Are you a lawyer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- non sequitur - Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- non sequitur - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- non sequitur - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 12:10 AM EDT
- one of the problem with software patents is a pure matter of practicality - Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- PTO and jury apply different standards - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- About that link ... - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 01:07 AM EDT
|
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
It is helpful for the first comment on a news pick to
include a clickable link to the pick. Remember to post
in HTML mode and follow example in red. Don't forget,
that 'preview' is your friend.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
It will be interesting to see if core android is patched
roads this functionality in.
The blue glow workaround has some nice features, but it
would be interesting to know if it was Duarte's primary
vision for Android or if it was a legally necessary
compromise.
Either way I would expect it to show up in manufacturer
skins again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
Apple's other
patent shouldn't hold either. The Star
7 demonstrated this
over a decade earlier (look at 4:26). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/09/apple-wins-german-ban-against-motorola-c
an-pay-e25m-to-enforce-it/
Knocking out the rubberbanding, this knocks out far more as alluded to in the
article.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
For some reason, I remember reading about people who were stuck paying damages
from invalid patents. Is that normal and will Samsung get stuck with that, or
have I been reading too much news from East Texas?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
..his latest blog seems a bit more even handed and dispassionate, and it seems
he was fairly quick to get his copy out.
I won't link to it, for obvious reasons, but any expert review would be
interesting....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
There's an article from August 7, 2012 The Apple patent Steve
Jobs fought hard to protect, and his connection to its inventor on The Next
Web that points out the importance of this patent to Steve
Jobs:
NetworkWorld pored through comments made by Senior VP of iOS
software Scott Forstall, where he explained the importance of Apple’s ’381, ’915
and ’163 patents, which are all currently being asserted against Samsung in a
Californian District Court.
Forstall explained his delight at being able to
create an iPhone that utilised pinch-to-zoom (the ’163 patent on which he is
listed as an inventor), he also detailed Steve Jobs’ close connection to Apple’s
’381 patent — a technology that covers the ”rubber band” (or inertial scrolling)
effect that occurs when a user attempts to scroll past the end of a displayed
document or webpage.
Jobs’ affinity for the inertial scrolling has been
demonstrated over the years. In 2010, he told attendees at an AllThingsD
conference about the rubber band effect and how it had spurred the creation of
the iPhone. The Apple co-founder was also reported to have entered negotiations
with Samsung in the same year, where he identified the patents that the Korean
company was allegedly infringing upon and invited them to work out a deal, prior
to the lawsuits we are witnessing today.
When asked about Jobs’
negotiations, Forstall said: “I don’t remember specifics. I think it was just
one of the things that Steve said, here’s something we invented. Don’t – don’t
copy it. Don’t steal it.”
We also read Bas Ording is a graphical
designer responsible for the Dock icon magnification in OS X, shown off at an
interview at Apple, and hired by Jobs after being rejected as a
candidate.
Go back to those teaching computer graphics as in Foley, vanDam,
Feiner and Hughes in Computer
Graphics Principles and Practice where we see very little early patenting
and there is a distinction between hardware or algorithmic centralism in
describing graphical display and user interface and visual effect, which
the algorithmic underpinnings of is the subject of a lot of Apple patents.
Extend that to user interface things like touch gestures and Apple is claiming
ownership of methods of communications by describing methods of causing visual
effects.
Without meaning to be mean spirited the inspiration for the iPhone
can be found in those who came earlier (e.g. Lira). Nothing is 'invented' in a
vacuum. And should language (signs, semiotics) be limited by patents?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mind boggling - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 09:01 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
Do not be convergent. This thread is different than the
article it is attached to.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:41 PM EDT |
I don't know about US law, but recently a British Judge found that Samsung did
not copy the Ipad and demanded Apple put adverts up to say Samsung didn't and
post a notice on its (UK) website. Does a Judge in the USA have the power to
request this? BBC
article [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
It seems to me electronic slot machines did this rubber banding a long time ago,
emulating their mechanical predecessors. The first video slots were introduced
in 1975.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
For those hardy souls who transcribe court documents about
Microsoft's dirty tricks from the "Comes v. MS" trial.
See link above for "Comes v. MS" for further details.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
This is great news! Now we only need to invalidate the
software patents that M$ is using to aggressively pursue
open-source competitors, and open source will be freed from
their shackles![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
Are the other SW and design patents also being re-examined? Is
anyone able to find out?
Maybe the judge will ask the parties to lay open any re-
examinations they are aware of.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
Apple has a new patent on something this news article calls "Cover Flow",
8,296,656. Whatever that is. I can tell you what it patented. An application
that has been on the Internet since at least 2002. A viewing scheme for photos
that's almost a decade old or more, and this is a patent application from 2009,
which is a continuation of a patent from 2006. A patent on an application
I use called Gallery. It creates a "media browser" within a screen (like a
browser). here's a link to Gallery.
Version 1 was out in 2005 or
earlier. Man someone needs to fire everyone in the patent office and hire
some qualified people.
Here's a link to a closed bug from 2002
talking about the slideshow feature being broken in the 1.3RC version. The
feature Apple claims to have invented. The first bug reported is in July of
2000, around the time the project moved to SourceForge at the time version 1.3
was in development. I just can't comprehend how Apple can honestly claim to have
invented this feature.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
Didn't Hogan say something about the patent office upholding the patent?
Mouse The Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
> Think of the loathsome headlines about Samsung being a copycat and a
willful infringer.
What I didn't get right from the start, not the least based on what I could read
on groklaw, is why Samsung didn't react much stronger to Apple. It appeared to
me that Samsung never attempted to get in the driver seat, and instead was
steam-rolled by Apple.
My impression is while Apple made one aggressive move after the other, Samsung
was sitting there like a duck. I was expecting much more aggressive behaviour
from them, too.
Maybe the needed some more aggressive lawyers from the beginning, too. That
episode where the Samsung lawyer gave the judge an earful was probably coming to
late.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
Apple lost its patent case in the Netherlands too!!
<a
href="http://www.nu.nl/gadgets/2941154/apple-verliest-nederlandse-patentzaa
k-van-samsung.html">nu.nl</a>
Marc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
Though this was an unrelated, wanted to know if anybody is aware of appeal over
this patent(6,826,762) by Microsoft.
Wondering how anyone could get a patent over API's(that mimic standard
specification as claimed in the patent itself) to access radio interface in a
cell phone!
Who can evaluate the "Good faith" over trying to enforce these kind of
patents?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|