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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 10, 2014, 11:12 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Wins Another Legal Battle with Google's Motorola Unit Involving Push Notifications




The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued a decision (PDF) upholding a previous ruling by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that Apple did not infringe upon a patent held by Google's Motorola unit. The ITC had ruled in Apple's favor last May, but Google/Motorola appealed that decision to the federal courts.

The item in question, Claim 12 of Patent Number 6.272,333, addresses methods for communication between wireless devices and fixed data networks. The specific disagreement between Apple and Motorola centered around whether the deletion of applications capable of receiving of push notifications, thus requiring a status update be sent to the fixed network in order to halt sending of notifications, is covered by the patent. The ITC ruled that such action as implemented by Apple is not covered by the patent, and the appeals court has affirmed that decision today.
Quote:
Put simply, the change in accessibility of deletion is not the change in accessibility that is communicated to the fixed portion of the network. Rather, what is communicated to the fixed portion of the network is a message indicating that push notifications for the application should be cancelled. This message only indicates that push notifications have been cancelled for the application; it does not inform the fixed portion of the network that the application has been deleted.
The court also ruled that Motorola failed to satisfy a requirement that it demonstrate a technical example of the claimed invention with its Droid 2 handset. According to the court, the Droid 2 and Apple's devices do use the same relevant features with respect to registering and unregistering for push notifications, but in line with the previous rationale those devices do not implement the exact invention described in the patent.

Apple has faced off with a number of Android device manufacturers in patent battles over the last several years, most notably Samsung, but for the most part Google and Apple have avoided directly targeting each other. But Google became directly involved in the disputes when it acquired Motorola Mobility and its patents in 2011, thereby inheriting existing lawsuits between Apple and Motorola.

Article Link: Apple Wins Another Legal Battle with Google's Motorola Unit Involving Push Notifications
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 11:23 AM   #2
Nickerbocker
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
I feel daft reading these things.

Is my understanding of this ruling correct?
Moto patent says "if you delete an app, a message going to the server will say 'this app is deleted' and therefore stop sending notifications"

And the way Apple got around this patent is by doing things in a very slightly different way: "if you delete an app, a message going to the server will say 'push notifications are no longer needed' and therefore stop sending notifications"

Essentially the only difference is the message ("app deleted" vs "no more push please"), the outcome of the transaction is the same.

Is that right? If so, its whack on both angles. The initial patent is whack, and the way Apple got around it is kinda whack too.
Nickerbocker is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 11:29 AM   #3
Autrement
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Apple Wins Another Legal Battle with Google's Motorola Unit Involving Push Notifications
WE WON A BATTLE! YEAH! Take that you copy-infringing pieces of . . . .

Wait, what is this case about again?

Oh. That's pretty boring.
Autrement is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 11:41 AM   #4
alexgowers
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
stupid patent with an even more stupid legal case with a weirder outcome than the original patent.

common sense says that you can't patent an idea merely how you achieve it technically. this patent is not a technical patent merely a obvious function of any device receiving push notification. and push is in the lightest sense of the word too as most is actually fetch.

patent reform is coming and the patent troll will get burned so bad, their investments will finally be as worthless as they actually are.
alexgowers is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:02 PM   #5
keysofanxiety
macrumors 6502a
 
keysofanxiety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In a house that defies physics by being colder than absolute zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexgowers View Post
common sense says that you can't patent an idea merely how you achieve it technically.
If I may politely disagree by presenting a somewhat ridiculous hypothetical.

If Apple found a way to store liquid nitrogen safely in their laptops to help with cooling. They patent the method how this is done, and how it distributes this to the components.

Then another manufacturer suddenly uses liquid nitrogen to aid with cooling, and a few years down the line everybody does it. "It keeps it cooler than fans ever do", the fanboys would spit. "There was no other way to keep it cooler, it's natural progression."

I'd go as far to say that how you achieve something technically is one of the most important parts of a patent. You can't patent multi-touch, but if you patent how your multitouch works, (giving the outcome of the experience being better than the competition), you have the right to defend this.
keysofanxiety is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:03 PM   #6
WildCowboy
Administrator/Editor
 
WildCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickerbocker View Post
I feel daft reading these things.

Is my understanding of this ruling correct?
Moto patent says "if you delete an app, a message going to the server will say 'this app is deleted' and therefore stop sending notifications"

And the way Apple got around this patent is by doing things in a very slightly different way: "if you delete an app, a message going to the server will say 'push notifications are no longer needed' and therefore stop sending notifications"

Essentially the only difference is the message ("app deleted" vs "no more push please"), the outcome of the transaction is the same.

Is that right? If so, its whack on both angles. The initial patent is whack, and the way Apple got around it is kinda whack too.
Yes, that's basically correct.

What's also amusing is the second part...that the Droid 2 that Motorola submitted as an example of the patented invention in use (and which behaves the same as Apple's devices...says "no more push please" instead of "I've been deleted") was ruled to not be covered by the patent.
__________________
Editor in Chief, MacRumors
WildCowboy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:10 PM   #7
theFly
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickerbocker View Post
Essentially the only difference is the message ("app deleted" vs "no more push please"), the outcome of the transaction is the same.
In this case, the patent is on the process to solve a technical solution, not the solution itself.

So the patent is non-enforcable since Apple developed a different process for the same solution.
__________________
theFly
theFly is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:25 PM   #8
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
If I may politely disagree by presenting a somewhat ridiculous hypothetical.

If Apple found a way to store liquid nitrogen safely in their laptops to help with cooling. They patent the method how this is done, and how it distributes this to the components.

Then another manufacturer suddenly uses liquid nitrogen to aid with cooling, and a few years down the line everybody does it. "It keeps it cooler than fans ever do", the fanboys would spit. "There was no other way to keep it cooler, it's natural progression."
Keep in mind that you can't patent something obvious, or something that only has one way to achieve an end result. Like if Apple were to find a way to distribute liquid nitrogen through their system, but in practice it's functionally the same as a standard watercooling setup, just with a few material changes to compensate for a much colder liquid, Apple couldn't patent that.

Or, say, if liquid nitrogen could only be safely transported through iridium piping, which is used as a standard elsewhere, Apple couldn't show up and make a patent like "method to cool computer components via thermodynamic heat transference using liquid nitrogen distributed through iridium piping", they couldn't claim it's valid because it's for computers. It's obvious that if anyone were to cool a computer using liquid nitrogen, they'd have to use iridium.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:40 PM   #9
Nevaborn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
People bash Apple a lot for protecting its copyrights and yet this is one of the worst I have heard of.
Nevaborn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:42 PM   #10
keysofanxiety
macrumors 6502a
 
keysofanxiety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In a house that defies physics by being colder than absolute zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Keep in mind that you can't patent something obvious, or something that only has one way to achieve an end result. Like if Apple were to find a way to distribute liquid nitrogen through their system, but in practice it's functionally the same as a standard watercooling setup, just with a few material changes to compensate for a much colder liquid, Apple couldn't patent that.

Or, say, if liquid nitrogen could only be safely transported through iridium piping, which is used as a standard elsewhere, Apple couldn't show up and make a patent like "method to cool computer components via thermodynamic heat transference using liquid nitrogen distributed through iridium piping", they couldn't claim it's valid because it's for computers. It's obvious that if anyone were to cool a computer using liquid nitrogen, they'd have to use iridium.
If I'm interpreting your post correctly (I hope I am):

Apple create a cooling system which uses liquid nitrogen and iridium piping (I'm taking your word for this, as the limit of my knowledge with liquid nitrogen is Heston Blumenthal's cooking ). Iridium piping has been used elsewhere, before Apple.

Apple use similar techniques to water cooling in order to cool the components. It's the same setup as water cooling, which has been done elsewhere and has been done before.

Yet Apple spend millions developing and perfecting this, to make absolutely sure it works before releasing it to the public. But because each thing has been done before, Apple shouldn't have a patent on it -- and the competitors are welcome to strip it down and copy Apple's efforts without getting punished.

Yes, it's all been done before. The question is: why hasn't it been done before? Most of Apple's patents are so simple and obvious that people think: why didn't people do it before? Simple fact is that it's so easy and usable, now people think there isn't another way to do things.

It takes more to innovate simplicity, in my opinion. I'm not saying people should patent left right and centre. I'm just saying that simplicity takes a lot of work, and you should be allowed to patent a 'Eureka!' moment.
keysofanxiety is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 12:45 PM   #11
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
After reading the 11 page ruling, what stuck out is that Google maintains a registry of all apps on your phone. So it know not only what you have downloaded but what is still running. I am sure they sell that to vendors who profile you based on apps for targeted messages.

Apple's victory is basically saying just becasue they send a message to stop sending notifications, they are not saying if the app was actually deleted or not. Pretty trivial on the surfice, but as I think about it, when I go to the app store it tell me what i have purchased and of those it know what I have installed and what I can down load again. So I guess ultimately Apple too has a registry.
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 01:08 PM   #12
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
If I'm interpreting your post correctly (I hope I am):

Apple create a cooling system which uses liquid nitrogen and iridium piping (I'm taking your word for this, as the limit of my knowledge with liquid nitrogen is Heston Blumenthal's cooking ). Iridium piping has been used elsewhere, before Apple.

Apple use similar techniques to water cooling in order to cool the components. It's the same setup as water cooling, which has been done elsewhere and has been done before.

Yet Apple spend millions developing and perfecting this, to make absolutely sure it works before releasing it to the public. But because each thing has been done before, Apple shouldn't have a patent on it -- and the competitors are welcome to strip it down and copy Apple's efforts without getting punished.

Yes, it's all been done before. The question is: why hasn't it been done before? Most of Apple's patents are so simple and obvious that people think: why didn't people do it before? Simple fact is that it's so easy and usable, now people think there isn't another way to do things.

It takes more to innovate simplicity, in my opinion. I'm not saying people should patent left right and centre. I'm just saying that simplicity takes a lot of work, and you should be allowed to patent a 'Eureka!' moment.
Admittedly, I don't know much about liquid nitrogen either, other than it's cold, and iridium piping sounded kinda neat, so...

To simplify the argument, patents are (or should be) about methods and processes. The what, not the where. Even if no one had done a liquid nitrogen system in a computer before Apple did, if they didn't invent any new method to push that liquid through that small space, then they claim any right to. Spending a lot on R&D to make sure something works well isn't the same as inventing something entirely new. But if they create a clever new way to push liquid nitrogen through a computer, or they improve upon a previous patent that does the same thing, then they can claim ownership of their specific implementation.

To give you a real world example, we'll take the Macbook Air. Only a couple of companies were making really thin computers before the Air came out. They were expensive, and only gave you so so performance. But then Apple spent a ton of money researching the best way to get full sized laptop performance out of a very thin machine, and the end result was arguably the first successful ultrabook.

But because Apple didn't use any exclusive methods or new inventions to create the Air, no specifically designed motherboards using entirely new technologies, no new ways to efficiently cool a machine that small, no new manufacturing processes, nor any specific hardware parts, they can't claim ownership of laptops that size.

...but if they did, they'd have rights to the specific parts and layouts that make up their design of a small laptop, but still wouldn't have the rights to the concept of a thin laptop as a whole.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 01:20 PM   #13
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
After reading the 11 page ruling, what stuck out is that Google maintains a registry of all apps on your phone. So it know not only what you have downloaded but what is still running. I am sure they sell that to vendors who profile you based on apps for targeted messages.
Of course, they don't directly sell that valuable info. Instead, they sell anonymous ad spaces to companies interested in people who have those kinds of apps.

Quote:
(snip)... but as I think about it, when I go to the app store it tell me what i have purchased and of those it know what I have installed and what I can down load again. So I guess ultimately Apple too has a registry.
Yep. Moreover, Apple does the same thing with that info as Google:

Apple sells ad space based on the apps we own... along with almost everything else Apple knows about us from our iTunes accounts (location, income level, sex, app and media preferences, etc).

Click image for larger version

Name:	iads_blurb.png
Views:	36
Size:	26.2 KB
ID:	455800
kdarling is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 01:22 PM   #14
keysofanxiety
macrumors 6502a
 
keysofanxiety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In a house that defies physics by being colder than absolute zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Admittedly, I don't know much about liquid nitrogen either, other than it's cold, and iridium piping sounded kinda neat, so...

To simplify the argument, patents are (or should be) about methods and processes. The what, not the where. Even if no one had done a liquid nitrogen system in a computer before Apple did, if they didn't invent any new method to push that liquid through that small space, then they claim any right to. Spending a lot on R&D to make sure something works well isn't the same as inventing something entirely new. But if they create a clever new way to push liquid nitrogen through a computer, or they improve upon a previous patent that does the same thing, then they can claim ownership of their specific implementation.

To give you a real world example, we'll take the Macbook Air. Only a couple of companies were making really thin computers before the Air came out. They were expensive, and only gave you so so performance. But then Apple spent a ton of money researching the best way to get full sized laptop performance out of a very thin machine, and the end result was arguably the first successful ultrabook.

But because Apple didn't use any exclusive methods or new inventions to create the Air, no specifically designed motherboards using entirely new technologies, no new ways to efficiently cool a machine that small, no new manufacturing processes, nor any specific hardware parts, they can't claim ownership of laptops that size.

...but if they did, they'd have rights to the specific parts and layouts that make up their design of a small laptop, but still wouldn't have the rights to the concept of a thin laptop as a whole.
I think we both agree and disagree.

A thin laptop is not patentable. I'm sure we know that's ridiculous! However, the method in getting the thinness surely is. The MacBook Air displaces most of its heat through the aluminium casing, rather than just sticking to fans. This allows it to be thinner.

The UltraBook market has really taken off, and a lot of their design is just ripped from the MacBook Air. They take them apart, and think 'how can we do this not as well, but cheaper?'

Apple made the plunge with the MBA. Everybody laughed. Apple stuck to their guns, took the flack, and spent the money. They made it thinner, more powerful, more affordable, with better battery life. Then the rest rip it off.

I'd argue Apple don't do enough suing. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a technology market kick off without Apple having put it into gear.
keysofanxiety is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 01:39 PM   #15
Mike MA
macrumors 6502a
 
Mike MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Germany, Europe
Go for it Apple! Nearly the complete two years I owned an iPhone the mail push service was down in Germany due to the Motorola dispute

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autrement View Post
Wait, what is this case about again?
See above...
__________________
Macbook Air 13" (late 2010) - Apple TV2 - Time Capsule - Galaxy S4
Mike MA is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 01:53 PM   #16
Icaras
macrumors 601
 
Icaras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
But because Apple didn't use any exclusive methods or new inventions to create the Air, no specifically designed motherboards using entirely new technologies, no new ways to efficiently cool a machine that small, no new manufacturing processes, nor any specific hardware parts, they can't claim ownership of laptops that size.
I thought the idea of the machined unibody enclosure was an entirely new and clever way of being able to design such a compact machine. Although I couldn't find a patent on it.

Actually, I was searching just now and I was never aware of this, but Apple apparently patented the Macbook Air "wedge" shaped design last year. It's all about rounded rectangles and wedges for Apple
__________________
iMac (27-inch, Late 2012) iPad Air iPhone 5 Apple TV (3rd Generation) Airport Time Capsule OS X Mavericks iOS 7 Logic Pro X
Icaras is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 02:01 PM   #17
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
I think we both agree and disagree.
That's the wonderful thing about patents, you can split hairs down to the freaking atoms to attempt justifying one, then do the same to try and invalidate it. It's the reason why patent lawyers are making a mint these days. Case in point...

Quote:
A thin laptop is not patentable. I'm sure we know that's ridiculous! However, the method in getting the thinness surely is. The MacBook Air displaces most of its heat through the aluminium casing, rather than just sticking to fans. This allows it to be thinner.
That depends on how they do it, not what it does. All laptop cases are designed to distribute heat, and aluminum is a natural heatsink. The implementation Apple might be clever, but method itself is oldschool. They'd have to go really far out to claim ownership of that.

Quote:
The UltraBook market has really taken off, and a lot of their design is just ripped from the MacBook Air. They take them apart, and think 'how can we do this not as well, but cheaper?'

Apple made the plunge with the MBA. Everybody laughed. Apple stuck to their guns, took the flack, and spent the money. They made it thinner, more powerful, more affordable, with better battery life. Then the rest rip it off.
WHOA EDITORIAL! I could point you to at least 3 ultrabooks that I'd argue are better than the MBA.

Though taking something apart and finding a way to make it cheaper and easier to produce could also be considered innovation. It's an improvement upon a previous idea, and could be patentable itself if it goes far enough from the method it's based off of.

Quote:
I'd argue Apple don't do enough suing. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a technology market kick off without Apple having put it into gear.
I've always said that Apple doesn't invent much themselves, but that their skills lie in taking other peoples ideas, streamlining them, and making them easy to use and stylish. They're the industries design and ergonomics company.

They also have a knack of being able to introduce technologies the moment they become affordable, and when they become most useful. With the Air, there had already been thinner laptops out before it. One of them even had a wedge shaped body. But they were expensive, and hard to find. Apple took that idea, waited until the technology allowed them to make a powerful, easy to use computer at that size, then released a really stylish one at a relatively low price.

In other words, Apple doesn't invent whole new categories, but they do kick them off by releasing the right product at the right time.

This puts into a position where I think Apple deserves tons of praise and accolades, but not too many patents. There are a few things they've done that are worthy of patents. Like the magsafe adapters, and their trackpads. Those are just about exclusively Apple. And guess what? Those are two things you won't find anywhere else in the PC world. Everything else they do can be covered by copyright or trade dress.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 02:11 PM   #18
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icaras View Post
I thought the idea of the machined unibody enclosure was an entirely new and clever way of being able to design such a compact machine. Although I couldn't find a patent on it.
It's clever, but not entirely new. It's one of the things that makes an Apple an Apple, but it also one of those things that falls under the "...but on a computer" catch. Plenty of things have used unibody design to house something or other. Stuffing a motherboard in it doesn't make it unique.

...unless they have a very specific way to mill those unibody chassis.

Quote:
Actually, I was searching just now and I was never aware of this, but Apple apparently patented the Macbook Air "wedge" shaped design last year. It's all about rounded rectangles and wedges for Apple
...which is weird, because that super thin Vaio used a wedge shape. Maybe it has to be a very specific wedge measuring to the exact dimensions of the one used in the Air. But hell, that should be trade dress, not a patent.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 03:13 PM   #19
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
...which is weird, because that super thin Vaio used a wedge shape. Maybe it has to be a very specific wedge measuring to the exact dimensions of the one used in the Air. But hell, that should be trade dress, not a patent.
Apple patented a wedge with a domed lid. The Vaio is a different shape, top and bottom.

Click image for larger version

Name:	wedge_patent.png
Views:	10
Size:	75.5 KB
ID:	455816
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 03:23 PM   #20
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Apple patented a wedge with a domed lid. The Vaio is a different shape, top and bottom.
Are there any specific functional reasons why that shape should be covered by a patent, though?
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 03:40 PM   #21
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Are there any specific functional reasons why that shape should be covered by a patent, though?
Sorry, I wasn't clear.

It's a design patent. As you know, those cannot cover anything functional. Only ornamental items.

(E.g. if the dome shape was necessary to provide structural support, then it could not be protected by a design patent.)

So you're right that it's related to trade dress.
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 04:09 PM   #22
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wisdom mule sez: there are literally zero jungles in Vermont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Sorry, I wasn't clear.

It's a design patent. As you know, those cannot cover anything functional. Only ornamental items.

(E.g. if the dome shape was necessary to provide structural support, then it could not be protected by a design patent.)

So you're right that it's related to trade dress.
Yeah, the little caption underneath the diagram stating it was an "Apple Design Patent" should've clued me in on that. :P
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 07:05 PM   #23
N64
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Lost Woods
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexgowers View Post
patent reform is coming and the patent troll will get burned so bad, their investments will finally be as worthless as they actually are.
Source?
N64 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2014, 07:19 PM   #24
Tanegashima
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Keep in mind that you can't patent something obvious, or something that only has one way to achieve an end result. Like if Apple were to find a way to distribute liquid nitrogen through their system, but in practice it's functionally the same as a standard watercooling setup, just with a few material changes to compensate for a much colder liquid, Apple couldn't patent that.

Or, say, if liquid nitrogen could only be safely transported through iridium piping, which is used as a standard elsewhere, Apple couldn't show up and make a patent like "method to cool computer components via thermodynamic heat transference using liquid nitrogen distributed through iridium piping", they couldn't claim it's valid because it's for computers. It's obvious that if anyone were to cool a computer using liquid nitrogen, they'd have to use iridium.
You can try to patent it anyways, but in court, it will be extra hard to prove your worth.
__________________
Not to worry
Tanegashima is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2014, 12:10 AM   #25
Urban Joe
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Sure, a lot of patents are ridiculous.

This is a wonderful result of moral relativism.

Sometimes I wonder if & how many people in the USPTO are actually taking bribes to rubber stamp certain applications from certain people/organizations? I wish I knew...but then ignorance is bliss.
Urban Joe is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 AM.

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

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