U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone

[dejo]

Originally Posted by Konrad9

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/...public-giving/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...ll.html?pg=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-..._b_935874.html

http://blogs.ajc.com/business-beat/2...-his-billions/

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/com.../2006/01/70072

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...jobs-and-apple

"Moreover, Jobs had closed Apple’s philanthropic programs when he returned to the company in 1997 and never reinstated them despite $14 billion in profit last year, the Times reported."

How is that for citing sources?

Thanks. That helps. Of course, none of these sources prove that Steve Jobs never gave any money to charity; they simply prove he never publicly gave any money to charity. Heck, even your first source qualified their claim with:

And, of course, it is very possible that Mr. Jobs, who has always preferred to remain private, has donated money anonymously or has drafted a plan to give away his wealth upon his death.

You made it pretty clear when you didn't say anything to condemn it, or in any way say it might be a bad idea.

Ah, so because I didn't object, I obviously agreed. Sorry, but that's a logical fallacy known as "silence implies consent". Oh, by the way... it might have been a bad idea.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Windows Mobile wasn't even released until 2000.

Oops - try 1996....

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Oops - try 1996....

Windows CE was released in 1996. According to Wikipedia, Pocket PC 2000 is what later became Windows Mobile. Whatever.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by samcraig

That I didn't typo. Whether it was the 90s or 2000s - it is still legitimate to state that Windows OS wasn't the one of choice. It either didn't exist (not an option) or did (and still not an option).

Since you like semantics so much

I'd have to agree with Baldi man. Either way, it just seems like you're lying now as its pretty hard for "late 90s" to be a typo for "2000's"...

It just seems like he caught you in a lie and you're trying to backpedal out of it. Who exactly did you work for anyway Sony or Palm?

I'm sure that in some forseeable future they were going to go touchscreen. But every implementation pre-iPhone was just terrible. The original iPhone was so groundbreaking that Rim thought it was a lie at first. People within other companies like Microsoft and Nokia share common stories.

The fact is, I STILL don't think that other smartphone makers have nearly as good of a touchscreen as Apple. Most Andorid screens are terrible and the multitouch and overall feedback is far less refined. It reminds me of using a crappy laggy non-glass touchscreen from my prior 2005 GM H2 Hummer..

[samcraig]

Believe whatever you want. I was working on a document citing the 1990s and some relevant facts when I posted that. My mind simply didn't shift. Nothing more than that.

I didn't work for Sony or Palm. Who I worked for is irrelevant.

As for your assessment of iPhone vs Android - it's all subjective. I have a few phones and have had all the iPhones except the 5. I currently (primarily) use my Skyrocket. I find both the iPhone and Skyrocket to BOTH be EXCELLENT phones and pretty comparable. That's my opinion.

Originally Posted by jctevere

I'd have to agree with Baldi man. Either way, it just seems like you're lying now as its pretty hard for "late 90s" to be a typo for "2000's"...


The fact is, I STILL don't think that other smartphone makers have nearly as good of a touchscreen as Apple. Most Andorid screens are terrible and the multitouch and overall feedback is far less refined. It reminds me of using a crappy laggy non-glass touchscreen from my prior 2005 GM H2 Hummer..

[sazivad]

Originally Posted by GoodWatch

Are you trying to say that Steve Jobs would not allow a ruling by an independent body? Or are you speaking in irony?

Irony, my good man.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by dejo

Thanks. That helps. Of course, none of these sources prove that Steve Jobs never gave any money to charity; they simply prove he never publicly gave any money to charity.

If you need proof, his biographer says that Jobs did not believe in charity:

CEO-author Walter Isaacson, who wrote Steve Jobs' eponymous, authorised biography, says the iconic co-founder of Apple Inc didn't believe in throwing his money away in charity and instead thought his products would help people live better.

"(While writing Steve Jobs) I asked him about charity. He said that he would be able to do more to reform education, for example, by creating an iPad that had interactive textbooks than by being a philanthropist giving his money away.

Note that when he was at NeXT, Jobs did start a Steve Jobs Foundation that supported vegan research and such, IIRC. The guy running it wanted to do more social stuff, but Steve had no interest or time for that, and before long, he shut the foundation down for good.

[jctevere]

Originally Posted by kdarling

If you need proof, his biographer says that Jobs did not believe in charity:



Note that when he was at NeXT, Jobs did start a Steve Jobs Foundation that supported vegan research and such, IIRC. The guy running it wanted to do more social stuff, but Steve had no interest or time for that, and before long, he shut the foundation down for good.

This might be a good read for you (if you haven't already read it):

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/...public-giving/

It is a bit dated, as Apple now does have an employee matching program, up to $10,000 I believe. Also, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't mention Apple's support of ProductRed (for years) for aids.

It does however, show some of the many things he has done to support causes (while not financially) at least with appearances, support and legally.

Also, there is a very high possibility that he donated anonymously, as the article also talks about - especially given how he likes everything to be private.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Whether you're a millionare, billionare, or an average Joe - nobody is obligated to donate money.

I personally don't like to donate money to charities. I like seeing my effort directly, I do a lot of volunteer work or donate toys, food drives, etc.

[louis.b]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Because they don't think Apple sucks. You think they do because you choose to see discussion as this "black and white" thing. Reality cannot be denied and history does not need rewriting to make Apple's contribution look bigger than it was.

Really? Even so you're really one to talk since I only see you post in EVERY negative post about Apple.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by louis.b

Really? Even so you're really one to talk since I only see you post in EVERY negative post about Apple.

I also post in a lot of postive posts about Apple. What's your point ? Again, you choose to see what you choose to see and not the truth.

[WhoDaKat]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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.

We need jobs right? Obama, are you listening? Hire more patent examiners.

----------

Originally Posted by jack99

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.

Pssst. How does it stifle innovation if all your competitor needs to do is have it reexamined? If the patent is legit, then the patent holder innovated, if its found someone else did the innovating then the patent is nullified. Sounds right to me.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by WhoDaKat

Pssst. How does it stifle innovation if all your competitor needs to do is have it reexamined? If the patent is legit, then the patent holder innovated, if its found someone else did the innovating then the patent is nullified. Sounds right to me.

Because getting an invalidation or reexamination going is costly. It raises the barrier of entry to the market whereas a smaller player with a great new innovative product that happens to infringe on an otherwise invalid but granted patent (be it because of prior art existing or obviousness) wouldn't have the money to fight it and thus will drop its idea instead of marketing it.

That's how it stiffles innovation. Especially in the software field.

[GoodWatch]

Originally Posted by sazivad

Irony, my good man.

Check.

[fpsBeaTt]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Where I have lessened the App Store?

Ejem, the claim was that there was NO application stores before the Apple ones

The comment was clearly made in the context of discussing the prior existence of anything comparable; must you interpret things so narrowly?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by fpsBeaTt

The comment was clearly made in the context of discussing the prior existence of anything comparable; must you interpret things so narrowly?

Originally Posted by faroZ06

Before the iPhone, did you ever hear about downloading smartphone apps?

So no, I still don´t see anything wrong with my comment and noewhere there is any lessening

[Asia8]

Originally Posted by slffl

Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.

Since when was China Googles friend?

[palebluedot]

Originally Posted by psxndc

FYI, that's the old version. It says you can request reexam based only on printed publications (not products) and only based on prior art/obviousness.

The new version: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...1%29%29%3ACITE says ANY means of rejection.

Is that from the America Invents Act? Doesn't that only apply to things post-2013?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Asia8

Since when was China Googles friend?

MacRumours exists in an alternate reality....

[CodeJingle]

Originally Posted by BuckusToothnail

Oh really? Please provide examples of these "ridiculous patents" that "all the big companies" have if you wish to speak with any CREDIBILITY, which at the moment you have ZERO.

Your huge long-winded response to my original one-liner sort of proves my point. If you were a true tech junkie you'd know the good and bad for all of the big players, then you'd know in the end Apple isn't much better or worse than most anyone else. It is all about choice. You should know already, I don't have to explain or prove anything.

[applebook]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

And when/if that happens, we can thank Steve Jobs for helping to push some sense into the patent process.

One thing remains certain: anti-Apple zealots will never thank Jobs or Apple for anything.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by applebook

One thing remains certain: anti-Apple zealots will never thank Jobs or Apple for anything.

Didn't I just promise to do that?