Copyright does not protect design, copyright protects an integral work for verbatim copying. Design Patents do. But this patent is not a design patent, it's a utility patent, it's about technology and software methods.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Copyright does not protect design, copyright protects an integral work for verbatim copying. Design Patents do. But this patent is not a design patent, it's a utility patent, it's about technology and software methods.
This is Sweet !
I smell a few lawsuits from some very unhappy companies that have been bullied by Apple...
I smell a few lawsuits from some very unhappy companies that have been bullied by Apple...
No one made clones of anything. Patent infringement is not about cloning or copying at all. 1:1 copies are not required for patent infringement.
Or are you saying Apple copied Creative Labs and Klausner and everyone else who holds patents Apple infringed upon ?
And then every other design in any other product. Everyone should be able to copy everyone. Sounds like a great idea!
LOL, you make it sound as if iDevices only have those three things going for them.
Its no wonder Android is starting to take over Apple's mobile dominance.
However, Apple has asserted this scrolling-direction patent against Motorola, HTC and Samsung in other trials here and around the world, including the one that Judge Posner dismissed before it even began.
Interestingly, Posner supported the broad wording of the claims, even though everyone else (including the Apple patentees themselves) thought that the use of the term "heuristics" was overly vague.
For the same reason that it's impossible for developers to check their daily work against all the thousands of software patents they might infringe. It's just too much effort. Especially with software, where developers can EASILY invent the same thing without knowing someone else already did.
In some countries, patents are given without hardly any review at all. It's only when someone challenges the patent, that a full check takes place.
The US isn't quite that bad, but Apple is well known to present an application over and over again, changing a few words at a time, until the examiner (who is reviewed yearly for productivity) gives in.
You don't have to copy to infringe. That's the problem.
Software patents tend to favor companies with the resources to pursue them. As Judge Posner put it, getting one doesn't automatically confer the right to go after everyone else. He believes in reviews by tech experts, not juries or non-techie judges.
As for stifling innovation, that's demonstrably false. For example, think of the hundreds of thousands of apps written without any patent protection.
Last edited:
Glass Houses
This patent is like the Family Jewels.
If it is invalid, why was it ever issued in the first place. I think that the Patent Office needs to make up its mind.
But it doesn't really mean anything because Apple has more than one patent.
Apple will win.
This patent is like the Family Jewels.
If it is invalid, why was it ever issued in the first place. I think that the Patent Office needs to make up its mind.
But it doesn't really mean anything because Apple has more than one patent.
Apple will win.
Apple finally getting what it deserves
It will take two years before that "might" happen.
FWIW the standards for these have also been undergoing some changes within the USPTO. It used to be that for something to be considered prior art it had to have all the features of the proposed invention in one document. Around the time this patent was being considered they changed the rules to allow the patent examiner to combine two documents and still use that to reject claims.
Sometimes the patents they reach for have little to do with the subject matter at hand.
Even during initial prosecution first office actions usually reject the vast majority of the claims. It's generally cause for celebration if you get some of he claims you really wanted that are just objected to instead of rejected outright.
B
After years of observing similar disputes, I've noticed that this type of thing is hardly an indicator of the show being over. This is far from over. Not sure why there are people acting like it's the end of days for Apple. *shrug*
It's an interesting development, for sure, but not nearly the end by any measure, imho.
It's an interesting development, for sure, but not nearly the end by any measure, imho.
For those who don't know how this process works....
Folks -- a preliminary invalidation is a non-event. Every patent you apply for is almost always initially rejected. It is the way the patent examiner pushes the burden back on the inventor. They reject, you appeal, they reject, you appeal, patent issues.
Typically the findings for an initial patent application are really weak and easy to overcome.
The re-examination process is the same way. The patent examiner places himself in the position of the person trying to shoot the patent down. That is because the other party to communicate with is the original inventor and obviously they are going to push for maintaining the application. So in order to do proper due diligence, the examiner needs to find reasons to refute the patent, and then there is an appeal, and then possibly another invalidation, and another appeal and then the patent likely holds in some form.
In short... nothing to see here... move along.
I don't know the actual percentage, but I'd bet 99.9% of all patents for which a reexamination was requested receive a preliminary invalidation. And I don't think the patent office can refuse to do a reexamination on a patent.
Folks -- a preliminary invalidation is a non-event. Every patent you apply for is almost always initially rejected. It is the way the patent examiner pushes the burden back on the inventor. They reject, you appeal, they reject, you appeal, patent issues.
Typically the findings for an initial patent application are really weak and easy to overcome.
The re-examination process is the same way. The patent examiner places himself in the position of the person trying to shoot the patent down. That is because the other party to communicate with is the original inventor and obviously they are going to push for maintaining the application. So in order to do proper due diligence, the examiner needs to find reasons to refute the patent, and then there is an appeal, and then possibly another invalidation, and another appeal and then the patent likely holds in some form.
In short... nothing to see here... move along.
I don't know the actual percentage, but I'd bet 99.9% of all patents for which a reexamination was requested receive a preliminary invalidation. And I don't think the patent office can refuse to do a reexamination on a patent.
Either you haven't read the article to which you linked or it was your intention to mislead. The USPTO hasn't said that there's prior art for the 'rubber banding' patent, just that, in the reviewer's opinion, it was an obvious logical improvement to an existing technology.
One thing's for certain; whoever decided that it is an obvious improvement wouldn't ever have come up with it.
What "In some countries"? The US patent office is world known for issuing bad patents. Thanks to a new law of prior art we can finally have a chance to get the wrinkles ironed out.
********, if this were actually going to do what you think it's going to do it would actually take us back to the days when the innovators had no ground in the mobile industry. And I'm not just referring to Apple here.
Are you implying Apple attorneys are smarter than HTC attorneys ?
Because it takes two to tango .
And then every other design in any other product. Everyone should be able to copy everyone. Sounds like a great idea!
It's a great idea....to end ideas
Why not?
If someone makes the same product you are forced to bring in new features. That's progress, bro.
The alternative would be a stagnating market or no new companies at all, because a few big ones would crush every new player on the field with their patents.
Why do we have patents?
Historically they were designed to allow inventors like e.g. that light-pulp-guy to make a living from their invention.
The trouble is in those times it was easy to be one man, who could make a new invention, today it is next to impossible to make the next big ios-android-device as a one man show. Well you could do it, but you would be 80 when you are finished and your product would be outdated like 50 years ago, assuming you start in your twenties.
And this is why the patent system does not work anymore, today you do not have one guy, you have companies and they don't need as much protection as an individual.
But what about R&D, shouldn't that be protected?
Yes and no, let me explain. Let's assume we abandon the patent system altogether, the logical fear is that no company would do R&D anymore and our technologie would stagnate on the status Quo. That is wrong. Because, if technology would simple stop evolving, no customer would buy any new product anymore, companies fear that, so they would be forced to develop new technologies. The one thing that might happen in this scenario is that some companies would not get their R&D-costs back and would fall, but that would make place for new companies with a different vision of reality and new products.
Another alternative would be to make patents limited time only, let's say 3 years, that's the time Apple abandons old iphone designes anyway so they and other companies should get enough money back.
It's far from over. And I highly doubt that the patent will be fully invalidated