Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 7, 2012, 10:55 PM   #151
Imhotep397
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
The USPTO needs to be investigated for bias and/or collusion with certain companies to bring this "re-examination" at this particular time when Samsung has has basically made the same position their mantra fro the last however many months.

The "prior art" claims are a sham...anyone can draw whatever they want, but the patent really should only be valid if there's something functionally executing the processes described in the patent in the real world. Can you imagine what kind of world it would have been if all of Bell Telephone's patents had been invalidated years after the actual real products were on the market? I guess we may see what it might have looked like in the near future if this goes through.
Imhotep397 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 10:58 PM   #152
kdarling
macrumors G5
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kockgunner View Post
I don't disagree that Apple has some broad patents, but I think people don't realize how the phone landscape was back in 2007. People thought Apple was going to introduce a phone with a click wheel. That shows how "obvious" the iPhone was.
You're right, lots of fan concepts had a clickwheel. Of course, Apple played with doing a clickwheel based iPhone, so we're lucky they changed their minds.

However, there were some fan concepts that got pretty close. I came across the following in this 2006 video of iPhone/iPod/iPad fan predictions:

Click image for larger version

Name:	iphone_concept1.png
Views:	33
Size:	52.9 KB
ID:	382239
Name:  iphone_concept2.png
Views: 570
Size:  141.7 KB

Fans even came up with several rounded rectangular flat-screened iPad metal edged concepts, such as the following.... four years before it came out:
Name:  ipad_concept3.png
Views: 568
Size:  122.5 KB
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 11:07 PM   #153
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
The "prior art" claims are a sham...anyone can draw whatever they want, but the patent really should only be valid if there's something functionally executing the processes described in the patent in the real world. Can you imagine what kind of world it would have been if all of Bell Telephone's patents had been invalidated years after the actual real products were on the market? I guess we may see what it might have looked like in the near future if this goes through.
Some of the registered design claims by Apple never ended up as products. These aren't all in real products. If Bell's patents were invalidated years later, the products could have remained on the market. That they're invalidated now just means they never should have been granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
However, there were some fan concepts that got pretty close. I came across the following in this 2006 video of iPhone/iPod/iPad fan predictions:
Some of those look like jokes, but Apple may have gone through a multitude of design concepts prior to moving forward with any of them.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 11:16 PM   #154
iWe
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWe View Post
From Wired:

"It is simply too early to make any sweeping conclusions at this point," Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, said. "Office action rejections during re-examination are common and rarely are fatal to the entire patent."

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/...ively-invalid/
Not that rarely. See my previous post #67 which presents USPTO supplied statistics:

In one out of eight cases (12%), ALL the claims are invalidated. In 70%, at least some of the claims are rescinded or modified.
Well, from my perspective your 12% is in line with what the man said. Thanks for the numbers though.
iWe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 11:26 PM   #155
kdarling
macrumors G5
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
Can you imagine what kind of world it would have been if all of Bell Telephone's patents had been invalidated years after the actual real products were on the market?
No need to imagine it.

Everyone lived in that kind of world for a hundred years.

No need even for forced invalidation years later. Patents expire automatically all on their own.

That's one reason why companies keep innovating. Sitting still only works for so long, even if everything goes right.
kdarling is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 01:54 AM   #156
xanagu
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Hahahaaa... so Samsung has to pay like 100k $ now?

better hurry up and take what you can


Quote:
Originally Posted by STiNG Operation View Post
There is a better image out there but this is all I could find
"INVALIDATED" LoL RoFlMaO

I can totally picture Samsung executives dancing Gangnam Style with this news
xanagu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 02:13 AM   #157
Switchback666
macrumors 65816
 
Switchback666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Caribbean
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanagu View Post
Hahahaaa... so Samsung has to pay like 100k $ now?

better hurry up and take what you can




"INVALIDATED" LoL RoFlMaO

I can totally picture Samsung executives dancing Gangnam Style with this news


__________________
What is The B.D.S Movement ? Check it out !
FREEDOM, JUSTICE & EQUALITY !
Switchback666 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 02:18 AM   #158
mallwitt
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis, MN
I'm sorry, while the iPhone certainly did an excellent job integrating software and creating a smooth user experience, I look at it and see nothing but the obvious. Look at this Palm based phone (Kyocera 6035) from 2001 and tell me the iPhone isn't the obvious result of better technology and software polishing.

Apple makes nice shiny things, but in the end, they are predictable nice shiny things made possible by technological progress. I'm un-surprised to see their patents being invalidated on the grounds of obviousness and prior art.

__________________
Why QA loves me "That's cool, was it supposed to do that or is it just a fortunate bug?"
mallwitt is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 03:43 AM   #159
palebluedot
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
The USPTO needs to be investigated for bias and/or collusion with certain companies to bring this "re-examination" at this particular time when Samsung has has basically made the same position their mantra fro the last however many months.

The "prior art" claims are a sham...anyone can draw whatever they want, but the patent really should only be valid if there's something functionally executing the processes described in the patent in the real world. Can you imagine what kind of world it would have been if all of Bell Telephone's patents had been invalidated years after the actual real products were on the market? I guess we may see what it might have looked like in the near future if this goes through.
Here ya go, bolded what ya need to squelch the rage http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/311

(a) In General.— Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent. The Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the Director determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of the review.
(b) Scope.— A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
palebluedot is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 03:43 AM   #160
THOPMedia
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mallwitt View Post
I'm sorry, while the iPhone certainly did an excellent job integrating software and creating a smooth user experience, I look at it and see nothing but the obvious. Look at this Palm based phone (Kyocera 6035) from 2001 and tell me the iPhone isn't the obvious result of better technology and software polishing.

Apple makes nice shiny things, but in the end, they are predictable nice shiny things made possible by technological progress. I'm un-surprised to see their patents being invalidated on the grounds of obviousness and prior art.

Image
Na, not even close mate. The only thing coming even close to resembling the iPhone in that pic is the icons, and they look more like windows icons than iPhone icons. The touch screen doesn't bring it closer to the iPhone either.
THOPMedia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 05:53 AM   #161
harlequinn
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashiel View Post
That article mentions nothing about prior art, rather it states that the patent was rejected for being obvious, but facts and reading comprehension have never played much part in your little anti-Apple crusade.

Scratch this - I see someone else already pointed it out to you:

"What you write is true in that this particular article does not mention prior art. But the rubber band patent in question was still invalidated partly from prior art.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10...-apple-patent/"

Last edited by harlequinn; Dec 8, 2012 at 05:59 AM.
harlequinn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:03 AM   #162
zhenya
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by mallwitt View Post
I'm sorry, while the iPhone certainly did an excellent job integrating software and creating a smooth user experience, I look at it and see nothing but the obvious. Look at this Palm based phone (Kyocera 6035) from 2001 and tell me the iPhone isn't the obvious result of better technology and software polishing.

Apple makes nice shiny things, but in the end, they are predictable nice shiny things made possible by technological progress. I'm un-surprised to see their patents being invalidated on the grounds of obviousness and prior art.

Image
What Apple does better than any other tech company is pick and choose the best of what is currently feasible, and polish it until it all works perfectly together in a way that no other company has been reliably able to do. Sometimes that means they use other people's ideas, sometimes it means that in the process of polishing those ideas they come up with new ones that themselves deserve patents, and sometimes they do novel work themselves.

Picking and choosing how this device had that before the iPhone and this company had that idea somewhere in their R&D dept. misses the point. Putting together all of those technologies in a cohesive package for the original iPhone changed everything about the phone market after it. If our patent system has no way of recognizing and protecting the very real skill it takes to put technology together in this way, that's a real shame. In many ways what Apple did is far more difficult than inventing any single technology and there should be a mechanism to protect them.
zhenya is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:05 AM   #163
harlequinn
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoledman View Post
Bounce-back effect is an important patent because nobody thought it was "cool" until Apple did it and it caused iPhones to sell in massive quantities.
It bugs me. I've never liked it. And I've been through lots of iPhones.
harlequinn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:09 AM   #164
jack99
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoDaKat View Post
I'm so sick of this crap. How can they grant a patent, and then nullify it years later? Whats the point of getting the patent in the first place? No one out there should invent anything because people will just steal it from you. Talk about stifling innovation.

Because Apple invented multitouch?

You must be a legal expert. Harvard JD? Years spent on the Supreme Court bench? Tell us more!


Psssst. Protip: Patenting a concept you never invented doesn't encourage innovation. It actually stifles it.
jack99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:16 AM   #165
bushido
macrumors 603
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Espaρa y Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanagu View Post
Hahahaaa... so Samsung has to pay like 100k $ now?

better hurry up and take what you can




"INVALIDATED" LoL RoFlMaO

I can totally picture Samsung executives dancing Gangnam Style with this news
i fail to see whats so wrong with this picture. i'm glad one company takes the "idea" of another one as long as they improve said idea and twist it into their own (note 2 for example)

are u telling me u'd rather have an iPhone and all those "other phones"?

do u think apple would have bothered with an app store, let alone a 4inch screen if it wasnt for the competition catching up?
bushido is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:16 AM   #166
harlequinn
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
You're right, lots of fan concepts had a clickwheel. Of course, Apple played with doing a clickwheel based iPhone, so we're lucky they changed their minds.

However, there were some fan concepts that got pretty close. I came across the following in this 2006 video of iPhone/iPod/iPad fan predictions:

Fans even came up with several rounded rectangular flat-screened iPad metal edged concepts, such as the following.... four years before it came out:
Those are great pictures.
harlequinn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:20 AM   #167
jack99
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by slffl View Post
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcatrp View Post
How do you know if Google had any hand in this. If you assume this then you could assume apple payed off someone to get this through. Someone challenged it, got reviewed and the facts came out.
+1 for getting it right. Just like rounded corners. Give me a break. There are plenty of things made prior with rounded corners. If you believe apple deserves a patent for rounded corners, I'll sell you some ocean front property in Kansas, with rounded beaches!
QFT.

We can't just assume that Apple can do no wrong and that they're making use of the patent system in ways that are benefiting mankind. Let's disavow ourselves of such notions and seriously ask ourselves with a more objective eye to the facts whether we should be allowing companies to claim ownership to shapes and concepts authored by someone else. What kind of precedent do we set for future owners.

Given just how bad the system is, any idiot can sue a large corporation if they can just fill out the forms and claim ownership to a blatantly obvious concept that pre-existed the patent's filing.

Bigger picture. Let's not obsess over supporting anything that benefits Apple and only Apple.
jack99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 06:49 AM   #168
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanagu View Post
Hahahaaa... so Samsung has to pay like 100k $ now?
This patent wasn't included in the California trial that came to a verdict last august. See my earlier post :

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
This patent was not used in the California ligitation nor is it included in the Jury's 1B$ verdict. So this action by the USPTO has no bearing on that case.

Section 28. of the Amended complaint

Only 3 utility patents listed on the verdict form, none are the '949 patent.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 07:36 AM   #169
mjaco002
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Looks like Google's spy finally worked her magic.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3...-valley-branch
mjaco002 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 08:41 AM   #170
bearcatrp
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boon Docks USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjaco002 View Post
Looks like Google's spy finally worked her magic.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3...-valley-branch
OUCH for apple. This is a bad idea to allow this.
__________________
2010 2.66 Mac Mini(SL), ATV3, iPhone 6P, Dual X5670 2.93 Westmere Win7 PC w/48gb ram & 4930K w/32gb ram Win7.
bearcatrp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 08:48 AM   #171
thejadedmonkey
macrumors 604
 
thejadedmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pa
Send a message via AIM to thejadedmonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post
Why the "bounce back effect" (elastic scrolling)? That is an ingenious part of the iOS user interface. Any app that doesn't implement it feels like it's broken.
It's a digital means of alerting the user to the end of the document (or list, whatever). If you remove the word "digital", you're left with "a means of alerting the user of the end of a document". This could mean: The end of a piece of paper, a back cover flap, the words "The End", etc...

It's just as dumb as Lodsys getting a patent for DLC, but you don't see anyone standing up for Lodsys here either.
__________________
MacBook • 17" MacBook Pro • iPod Nano • Apple TV
PS4 • Custom Windows 8.1 Desktop • WP8.1
"Good judgment comes from experience,
experience comes from bad judgment."
- Mulla Nasrudin
thejadedmonkey is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 09:17 AM   #172
NorEaster
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
Obvious at the time of the application or obvious now.

It's easy to look back and say something is obvious but was it at the time? If the answer is no, it wasn't then the claim should stand
@charituna - did you not bother to read the article, read the USPTO's rejection response, or the ensuing responses to this thread? The USPTO invalidated the claim not just on obviousness, but also on prior art. In fact, if you bother to actually read the prior art references that were submitted, you'll see that one of the references describes rubber-banding pretty much exactly as how Apple designed it...but they documented it (and patented it) 3 years earlier than Apple did.

Please do some research before you embarrass yourself.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
The USPTO needs to be investigated for bias and/or collusion with certain companies to bring this "re-examination" at this particular time when Samsung has has basically made the same position their mantra fro the last however many months.

The "prior art" claims are a sham...anyone can draw whatever they want, but the patent really should only be valid if there's something functionally executing the processes described in the patent in the real world. Can you imagine what kind of world it would have been if all of Bell Telephone's patents had been invalidated years after the actual real products were on the market? I guess we may see what it might have looked like in the near future if this goes through.
Did you read the references to prior art? How do you know they are a sham? Please explain how or why the prior art doesn't "functionally execute the process", since I'm assuming you're a patent lawyer and can enlighten all of us to your expertise.
NorEaster is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 10:44 AM   #173
somethingelsefl
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
The US patent office is a hot mess. They are like deaf and blind referrees for a game where all of the tech giants are slugging it out.

It's fun to watch, but eventually nobody wins until someone redefines the game. Apple needs to stop.
somethingelsefl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 11:06 AM   #174
kdarling
macrumors G5
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STiNG Operation View Post
There is a better image out there but this is all I could find
Click image for larger version

Name:	before_iphone.png
Views:	45
Size:	69.9 KB
ID:	382299
Samsung created a more complete view, claiming that a lot of their phone line-up didn't change (click to zoom):
Click image for larger version

Name:	2006_samsung_designs.png
Views:	168
Size:	302.4 KB
ID:	382298

The most important thing that Apple did with the iPhone, was to make all the other manufacturers realize that they could (and should) bring their concepts more quickly out of the lab, and into the marketplace. That move would've come even without Apple, but it would've taken longer to happen.
kdarling is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2012, 12:28 PM   #175
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcatrp View Post
OUCH for apple. This is a bad idea to allow this.
It's a good idea to have a leader in the patent office who says "Low-quality patents and escalating legal costs are currently hurting the ability of U.S. companies to compete globally".

And yes, that sounds like an OUCH for Apple.
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
AidenShaw is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 01:31 PM
Apple's Massive 'Steve Jobs Patent' for the iPhone Reconfirmed in its Entirety MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 126 Oct 20, 2013 01:32 AM
Steve Jobs iPhone Keynote Invalidates Apple's Rubber-Banding Patent in Germany MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 178 Oct 1, 2013 06:01 PM
Key Claim of Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Once Again Found Invalid by U.S. Patent Office MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 130 Apr 10, 2013 09:10 AM
USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 218 Dec 26, 2012 11:49 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC