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.
Jury Rules Apple's iPhone Infringes Three Patents in MobileMedia Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple in no way shape or form 'created' the mobile market or smartphones.
You can certainly argue the mobile market would be the same today regardless if Apple entered it or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sick 'Em Kodak!
Wait... Didn't Kodak come up with the first digital camera? Thus everyone else copied off of them? Kodak should sue the whole lot, win billions, and then be back in business!!
Wait... Didn't Kodak come up with the first digital camera? Thus everyone else copied off of them? Kodak should sue the whole lot, win billions, and then be back in business!!
Maybe if we called them "superphones" like Google tried to, this argument would be a bit clearer. But a rose by any other name...
Sure. But it would be a pretty silly argument.
To some, there were no smartphones, tablets, streaming video devices, or mp3 players before Apple came out with their products. This is like saying Michael Jordan created basketball because everybody wants to play like Michael Jordan.
Apple benefited from the errors of early companies who laid the foundation for today's gadgets. I can't even name the last time Apple actually created a device that wasn't already created or out in the market from a competitor. Probably have to go back to the 80's/early 90's for the AIO desktops.
Last edited by a moderator:
Baldi, you're right about the original patent, but once Apple realized there were other obvious methods, they went back later and piled on more claims using patents that were "extensions" of that one.
That's another one of my favorite examples of obviousness.
Presented with the need to scroll different areas of a multi-touch screen, what would you do? Wait. You need two different kinds of gestures on a screen that recognizes more than one finger? Maybe, oh I don't know, use different numbers of fingers for this?
You bet. Then patent it just because no one else had.
The patent Apple infringed is for a device (of almost any kind) with a camera, which then transmits the camera image (or an edited version) via radio "to another location".
Another USPTO gem. I swear, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
No. It says one of the patents was for the camera. The camera itself comprises many parts, bits of software, and similarly, many patents.
I wish we could get a patent trial free version of Apple. Their incessant litigation is an indication that they don't have much more to innovate and their focus is protecting what they have.
Exactly and that is a much tougher job. Anyone who knows what can be done with the current technology can go ahead and make some "new" device which nobody will use. Making one that people actually use is the trick regardless of its originality. Apple didn't make the first smartphone, but Apple changed the smartphone industry. Apple didn't make the first mp3 player but they changed the music industry. Making the first of any category is good for one thing, and that's patents.
Sorry bro, the technology to remove patent threads from message boards is patented.
Wait... Didn't Kodak come up with the first digital camera? Thus everyone else copied off of them? Kodak should sue the whole lot, win billions, and then be back in business!!
They didn't. But ironically Kodak directly stole polaroid technology from polaroid, who went out of business when the lawsuit was occuring (I think $800M to polaroid in damages, largest suit at the time).
And I guess that's a point, patents will not save a failing firm. They're more like error terms and the cost of doing business for large companies. Just like regulatory filings and Sarbanes Oxley compliance. I think there's only about 3000 lawsuits each year, of which only about 10% go forward. Again, in the grand scheme of things, not worth freaking out over.
MobileMedial is a firm that "takes care of" patents for Nokia and some other company. Those patents that iPhone infringed on were Nokia's not mobilemedia's
Wow. And racist posts like yours belong nowhere on these forums. He made a single statement and you go popping off at the mouth calling people redneck hillbillies. You are trash.
Haha I agree about the obvious aspect but that won't stop apple from trying to throw it's weight around enforcing it.
So Apple is the ONLY company with a camera in a phone????
This is just companies with no products, going down hill and looking to cash in.
I wish I had gone to law school and become a judge. I would have concentrated on IP law and thrown these people out of my court with prejudice the moment they showed up.
This is just companies with no products, going down hill and looking to cash in.
I wish I had gone to law school and become a judge. I would have concentrated on IP law and thrown these people out of my court with prejudice the moment they showed up.
LOL You think Google or samsung has been fair to you? Samsungs suing apple for frand patents. Wireless and 3g patents should be for everyone. Without it no phone would be able to operate. Remember when google was taking your information without asking you on safari? Google has the worst privacy ever. Google wants people to be tracked. Google forces things down people's throats. Google went and bought MOTOROLA just to sue Apple. Now people wont be getting phones that were as good from motorola as they use to. Google sued apple over siri. Sure apple has made their mistakes in the past but saying that apple is not fair and companies like google and samsung are? wow.
UH... apple didn't file this lawsuit. Many of these lawsuits are leeches trying to cash in on apple. WHAT, they shouldn't defend themselves?
----------
yes because Apple is the only phone maker with a camera in the phone.
What's with the name calling? Are you a child?
Anyways, most of his points are accurate, so instead of calling him names, you should raise some valid points, if you have any.
Yes somebody might even try to patent the shape of a tablet soon, how laughable would that be?
Oh wait.......
Clearly, way too many patents granted to Apple and others have had way too high a threshold for obviousness. Multi-touch gestures? "Buy" button? RADIO transmission of images generated by a camera integrated into a phone? BACK COVER on a phone? You're right, it's hard to imagine a patent application that would be rejected. (Hey, can I get a patent on the process of applying for patents? Just think of the royalties, the settlements, and the jury awards! I know the idea is obvious, but that clearly doesn't matter, just so long as it isn't yet patented, right?)
What really gets me, though, is that a jury just UPHELD these ridiculous patents. At least some of Apple's silly patents are being reviewed or rejected. Apple legal team fail on this one.
Last edited:
If Apple isn't actively developing it within three years of filing, then it should absolutely go public domain. I know you think you're super edgy and think that I must be an Apple fanboy because I think patent trolls are the scum of the earth.
If all patents on electronics and software had a limit of three years, we would have a lot less trouble with patent trolling, while still giving inventors a bit of a leg up and some incentive to continue inventing.
After three years, most tech is outdated anyway.