The problem is that patent officers have so much patents to review and too little time to review them, hence sometimes they miss details. It's only when opposition pops up and digs up prior art or claims obviousness that the reviews go ahead and sometimes, patents are invalidated after being granted.
If the USPTO had more examiners, they could be more torough in the reviews. But then again, even after many rejections and amendments by the submitter, it becomes tedious and grants go through.
Obama administration payoff to Schmit and Google for outstanding contributions to Bozo's re-election campaign.
Oh yeah, I'm sure Obama is using his Galaxy S3 in his office right now saying " I WON STEVE JOBS! MUWAHAHAHAHAhAHA! " Apple contributed to Obamas campaign heavily as well.
The fact that this patent will probably be invalidated should not surprise anyone.
It integrated a whole mess of already existing technologies, in a wonderful, innovative way. But there wasn't really a whole lot of actual "inventing" going on.
Here ya go, bolded what ya need to squelch the rage http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/311
There is a better image out there but this is all I could find
With all due respect, an innovative way of combining existing technologies is an invention. I mean, the lightbulb was a combination of existing technologies - would you say that wasn't an invention?
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.
The patent system is a joke. It's difficult and unfair to blame those filing for patents - be it Jobs or Samsung - because the system is ridiculous!
Certainly patenting a rectangle (Apple) is ridiculous, but patenting cellular radio innovations (Samsung) isn't so silly.
Filing ridiculous patents is the problem, compounded by a patent office that's unable to discover "prior art" even when devices using "prior art" have been on sale for years, and unable to decide on "obviousness".
Apple's "thermonuclear war" may end up being directed against the patent system, and the fallout may be that a large number of Apple's patents will be invalidated.
And when/if that happens, we can thank Steve Jobs for helping to push some sense into the patent process.
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.
Obama administration payoff to Schmit and Google for outstanding contributions to Bozo's re-election campaign.
Bad comparison. It would apply only if Apple actually invented the touchscreen smartphone.
And yet Apple is #1 in the smartphone industry. Hmm...
And it has already been invalidated based on prior art. It's "ingenious", but Apple didn't come up with it :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57537912-37/uspto-nixes-apple-patent-used-in-victory-over-samsung/
The level of idiocy in this thread is astounding. I've come across people here masquerading as patent experts only to have others call them out for making stuff up. But calling for an investigation of the USPTO? Conspiracy theories about corruption and kickbacks by Google? That kind of lunacy is something you'd only hear on a Fox News!
WTF?!
I don't recall being this loony in grade school. What're they teaching kids in school these days?!
Except no prior art has been presented...
Never trust articles. Do the research yourself and avoid embarassment.
The bounce-back patent was invalidated for multiple reasons, including being anticipated by prior art.
View attachment 382181
Looks like Google's spy finally worked her magic.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/...y-head-us-patent-office-silicon-valley-branch
Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps?
Yes, there were a lot of app stores out there like Handango, Pocketgear, etc.
And the original iPhone didn't had any app
They invented a certain type of touchscreen smartphone. Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps? Were smartphones mainstream? Did people use their smartphones as music players?
And before the iPad, the only time I ever heard the word "tablet" was in reference to ancient Roman writing boards or Windows-based laptops that have touch-sensitive surfaces for using a stylus.
As for stifling innovation, that's demonstrably false. For example, think of the hundreds of thousands of apps written without any patent protection.
Seems like USPO officials have recently apperared on someone's payroll. Nice try, Samsung. Although a little short-sighted...
With all due respect, an innovative way of combining existing technologies is an invention. I mean, the lightbulb was a combination of existing technologies - would you say that wasn't an invention?
There were app stores out there. My friends' flip phones had app stores. So did iPods. But nowhere did anyone ever say anything like "get this app" or "there's an app that does that" until the iPhone had an app store.
They invented a certain type of touchscreen smartphone. Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps? Were smartphones mainstream? Did people use their smartphones as music players?
And before the iPad, the only time I ever heard the word "tablet" was in reference to ancient Roman writing boards or Windows-based laptops that have touch-sensitive surfaces for using a stylus.