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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 7, 2012, 02:58 PM   #26
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by throttlemeister View Post
Design isn't supposed to be patented. Design is protected by copyright, amongst other things. Patents are supposed to be about technology and inventions. Design elements are not that.
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.
__________________
"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   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 02:59 PM   #27
Mr. Gates
macrumors 68020
 
Mr. Gates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: --Redmond --------- ----------------Washington---
This is Sweet !

I smell a few lawsuits from some very unhappy companies that have been bullied by Apple...

__________________
This is a RUMOR site For speculation and discussion.Not a Fan-Club. Just because we are interested in Apple rumors it doesn't mean we should be frothing at the mouth with Apple rabid comments.
Mr. Gates is offline   15 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 02:59 PM   #28
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by kockgunner View Post
Everything has been done in some form or another. Does that mean everyone should be able to make clones of products?
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 ?
__________________
"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   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 02:59 PM   #29
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slffl View Post
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.
wikus is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:07 PM   #30
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
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.
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.

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?
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.

Quote:
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.
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 by kdarling; Dec 7, 2012 at 03:19 PM.
kdarling is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:07 PM   #31
sofila
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
the first two names in the list of inventors are not part of Apple's resources anymore
sofila is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:08 PM   #32
Ashin
macrumors 6502a
 
Ashin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Apple finally getting what it deserves
Ashin is offline   17 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:10 PM   #33
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
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.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:10 PM   #34
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gates View Post
I smell a few lawsuits from some very unhappy companies that have been bullied by Apple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashin View Post
Apple finally getting what it deserves
It will take two years before that "might" happen.
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:13 PM   #35
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
There are 2 grounds to invalidation :

- Prior art
- Obviousness.
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
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:15 PM   #36
duervo
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
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.
duervo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:15 PM   #37
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
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.
Are you accusing the USPTO of corruption?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:16 PM   #38
BC2009
macrumors 68000
 
BC2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
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.
BC2009 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:18 PM   #39
Not you again
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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_3-57...-over-samsung/
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.
Not you again is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:18 PM   #40
Frosties
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
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.
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.
Frosties is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:21 PM   #41
Radio
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphone495 View Post
Whattt?
lol

They just spit on steve Jobs grave!

anyways this is good news for consumers.
Radio is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:24 PM   #42
Iconoclysm
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio View Post
lol

They just spit on steve Jobs grave!

anyways this is good news for consumers.
********, 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.
Iconoclysm is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:24 PM   #43
SeanR1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battlefield Fan View Post
This isn't promising for Apple in future court cases.
Maybe that's why they called a truce with HTC?
SeanR1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:29 PM   #44
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanR1 View Post
Maybe that's why they called a truce with HTC?
Are you implying Apple attorneys are smarter than HTC attorneys ?

Because it takes two to tango .
Peace is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:29 PM   #45
FlatlinerG
macrumors 6502a
 
FlatlinerG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Prince Edward Island, Canada
At this point, I'm seriously questioning the entire purpose of the patent system.
__________________
Late 2011 MBP 13"
2TB Time Capsule, 2nd Gen AppleTV
16GB Black iPhone 5, 32GB Black iPad 2
...and many more.
FlatlinerG is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:30 PM   #46
psingh01
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by slffl View Post
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
psingh01 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:33 PM   #47
kavika411
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alabama
Apologies if this has been answered, but where does it go from here? Does Apple have a right to appeal? Is it over? Does Apple reapply with a different proposal (for lack of a better word)?
kavika411 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:33 PM   #48
STiNG Operation
macrumors 6502a
 
STiNG Operation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Zoo
MacRumors must have been hacked
__________________
Any tips?
STiNG Operation is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:34 PM   #49
Hell0W0rld
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kockgunner View Post
Everything has been done in some form or another. Does that mean everyone should be able to make clones of products?
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.
__________________
RIP Steve Jobs - 10/5/2011
Hell0W0rld is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:35 PM   #50
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavika411 View Post
Apologies if this has been answered, but where does it go from here? Does Apple have a right to appeal? Is it over? Does Apple reapply with a different proposal (for lack of a better word)?
It's far from over. And I highly doubt that the patent will be fully invalidated
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 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 01:16 AM.

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

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