Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:35 PM   #51
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
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)?
From TFA:

Quote:
I have said on various occasions that first Office actions and other non-final Office actions are just preliminary. Many patent claims that are rejected at this stage do ultimately survive. There are many steps inside the USPTO, followed by a potential appeal to the Federal Circuit (and in a few cases even the Supreme Court).
This is just one step in the process. I've even had patents of my own that came back from the dead after a "final" office action.

This is kind of like an opening bid.

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   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:37 PM   #52
PeterQVenkman
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
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!
Sounds like a straw man.
PeterQVenkman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:37 PM   #53
dashiel
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
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/
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.
dashiel is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:38 PM   #54
STiNG Operation
macrumors 6502a
 
STiNG Operation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Zoo
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!
There is a better image out there but this is all I could find
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	samsung-phones-before-and-after-iphone-was-launched.png
Views:	632
Size:	362.6 KB
ID:	382175  
__________________
Any tips?
STiNG Operation is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:39 PM   #55
LagunaSol
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
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.
And the sheep that cheer for them.

Advertising-driven generic commodity crap for everyone! Hooray!
LagunaSol is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:39 PM   #56
Peppa
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatlinerG View Post
At this point, I'm seriously questioning the entire purpose of the patent system.
Only now? This is the point? lol
__________________
15" MacBook Pro 2012 Kindle Paperwhite Verizon Galaxy S3
Peppa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:42 PM   #57
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell0W0rld View Post
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.
As opposed to crushing every new player on the field by simply taking their ideas.

Quote:
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.
Wow. Talk about idealistic theory with no regard for reality.
BaldiMac is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:44 PM   #58
AppleScruff1
macrumors 604
 
AppleScruff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gates View Post
I smell a few lawsuits from some very unhappy companies that have been bullied by Apple...

Image
What goes around comes around. All that bad karma is returning.
AppleScruff1 is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:46 PM   #59
PsychoLogicXen
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SoCal
I'd rather watch the Gangnam Style music video on repeat for hours than hear or read another word about patents, lawsuits, litigation, or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
PsychoLogicXen is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:47 PM   #60
Krazy Bill
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Maybe I'm blind but looking at the list of patent holders reaffirms my belief that Apple only hires Males. (Or at least puts only males in high-profile positions).

Seriously... where are all the gals at Apple?
Krazy Bill is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:49 PM   #61
NorEaster
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
For all the Apple fanatics out there crying foul and expressing shock/outrage and wondering "how is this possible?! Damn the USPTO!": just remember that you were the ones quick to denounce Samsung and loved to use the USPTO's patent grants to Apple as canon for these lawsuits. Please keep the hypocrisy to a minimum when you attack the USPTO or the patent filing/granting process.

Also, please read the link that KnightWRX posted. The "rubber banding" patent that Apple claimed their own (and that you all love to use as proof that Samsung infringed) was invalidated. There is prior art.

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/
NorEaster is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:51 PM   #62
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazy Bill View Post
Maybe I'm blind but looking at the list of patent holders reaffirms my belief that Apple only hires Males. (Or at least puts only males in high-profile positions).

Seriously... where are all the gals at Apple?
They were too ashamed to put their signature under this phony patent
lilo777 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:51 PM   #63
jmpnop
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
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!
So Apple invented rounded corners and flat surfaces?
__________________
Sent from my iPod Shuffle.
jmpnop is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:52 PM   #64
drakestan
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Good!
drakestan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:53 PM   #65
teejaysyke
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Oh, I like the looks of this. I love Apple but suing to nullify competition is not a good look. Karma is coming
teejaysyke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:54 PM   #66
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC2009 View Post
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.
So the question then is, how many patents survive reexamination?

As luck would have it, I have a patent reexamination paper in my files. Here is the overall finding, using USPTO supplied statistics for the years 1981 to 2006:

Click image for larger version

Name:	patent_reexamination.png
Views:	60
Size:	21.8 KB
ID:	382176

The upshot is that only 29% of reexamined patents came through untouched, with all orginal claims valid.

That percentage of fully upheld patents drops to only 13% if the USPTO itself initiated the reexamination, btw.
kdarling is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:56 PM   #67
dashiel
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorEaster View Post
For all the Apple fanatics out there crying foul and expressing shock/outrage and wondering "how is this possible?! Damn the USPTO!": just remember that you were the ones quick to denounce Samsung and loved to use the USPTO's patent grants to Apple as canon for these lawsuits. Please keep the hypocrisy to a minimum when you attack the USPTO or the patent filing/granting process.

Also, please read the link that KnightWRX posted. The "rubber banding" patent that Apple claimed their own (and that you all love to use as proof that Samsung infringed) was invalidated. There is prior art.

Speaking of jumping to denounce, you should probably actually, you know read the article and not just parrot what an effusive anti-Apple troll spouts as fact. The patent was not invalidated for prior art, it was invalidated because the USPTO thought it was obvious.

Quote:
The USPTO, however, has reviewed the patent, and determined that some of the claims in Apple's filing are "anticipated." Other claims, the office says, are "obvious."
The issue for Apple is that "anticipated" and "obvious" indicate that the company's technology is a logical step in improvement, and not a true invention that supersedes previous technologies.
dashiel is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 03:58 PM   #68
slapple
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarra View Post
I find this amazing. How can you retract a patent? The decision process to award it in the first place would be pretty involved, and once awarded that is that! You can't just change your mind as the rest of the world catches up!
Seems like the Patent Office is swamped with applications so they just grant ANYTHING. Then only when the patent is challenged do they take a closer look. That would explain how someone was able to patent a method for a child swinging on a swingset:

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten...atents-01.html
slapple is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:00 PM   #69
genovelle
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
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.
What's interesting is Apple has never tried to maintain dominance in anything. They look to create interest where there was non, then others copy their moves. Even then as long as they can sell as many of their items as they can build, I don't think they care how many crappy Android products are sold. The key is don't copy them by stealing their design efforts. They should shoot every bullet they have when ever it comes up so people with pause before they do. It sounds like you love Android and want it to have the features we get from Apple that makes them different in the market. You should not want any of that. If you do buy an Apple product, Period!!
genovelle is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:04 PM   #70
rrandyy
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
There are 2 grounds to invalidation :

- Prior art
- Obviousness.
You're thinking about 35 USC 102 "anticipation" and 35 USC 103 "obviousness." Prior art is used for both anticipation and obviousness.

Further, there are many grounds upon which a patent can be invalidated. These are just the most common.
rrandyy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:05 PM   #71
cppguy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
If it is invalid, why was it ever issued in the first place.
If a doctor made a diagnosis, why would you ever want a second opinion? If a judge made a verdict, why would you ever want to appeal? Because people make mistakes, that's why.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro; Nikon D800; iPhone 5
cppguy is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:08 PM   #72
raremage
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Orlando, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
The real issue I have here is of course these effects and evolutions are obvious now. In 2007 - not so much. It's impossible for a reviewer to objectively state these are obvious evolutions now that the patent has been used (and arguably violated) to make the effects in question ubiquitous.
raremage is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:10 PM   #73
bloggerblog
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
The USPTO is another totally useless federal agency that is incapable of serving its sole purpose of protecting blatant ripoffs of ideas, designs, and inventions.
bloggerblog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:15 PM   #74
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not you again View Post
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.
Sorry, I haven't re-read the article indeed. I was going by memory, but you're right, it was Samsung that presented prior art for it during the August trial, but the USPTO's decision was based on obviousness.

Obviousness btw is not for the laymen, it is for people initiated in the art. Something that is often missed by most people when discussing patents. It doesn't have to be obvious to Joe sixpack on the street, but if we're discussing software, obviousness can be for other programmers/software developers. They don't think like most people do when it comes to software, so while something might not seem obvious to others outside the art, it is for those that work in it day in and day out.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by raremage View Post
The real issue I have here is of course these effects and evolutions are obvious now. In 2007 - not so much. It's impossible for a reviewer to objectively state these are obvious evolutions now that the patent has been used (and arguably violated) to make the effects in question ubiquitous.
Tests for prior art or obviousness are based on evidence prior to filling obviously. No one argues based on today's standards when trying to oppose a 10 year old 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   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2012, 04:16 PM   #75
NorEaster
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashiel View Post
Speaking of jumping to denounce, you should probably actually, you know read the article and not just parrot what an effusive anti-Apple troll spouts as fact. The patent was not invalidated for prior art, it was invalidated because the USPTO thought it was obvious.
HAHAHAH.... are you kidding? YOU should read the article AND the actual ruling from the USPTO. The patent office states: "The following rejections are utilized by the Examiner below, referencing the proposed prior art listed on pages 23-85 of the Request".

Feel foolish yet? Oh wait...no, you're a fanatic that will efffusively spout how great Apple is and how horrible everyone else is without any shame (or without even the inclination to do some research to back your claims).
NorEaster is offline   6 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 07:15 PM.

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

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