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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 7, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    FOSS Patents reports that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a notice preliminarily ruling that Apple's massive iPhone patent popularly referred to as "the Steve Jobs patent" invalid in its entirety upon reexamination.

    [​IMG]
    The patent, issued as Patent No. 7,479,949, had been granted in January 2009 and incorporated several prior patent applications dating back to September 2006 before the company publicly unveiled the device. Steve Jobs is listed as the first inventor on the patent, and FOSS Patents notes that it is probably the most famous of the over 300 patents credited at least in part to Jobs.
    Apple has asserted the patent against a number of its competitors, including Samsung and Motorola, and an ultimate finding of invalidity in the reexamination process would substantially weaken Apple's cases against those companies, although it is far from the only weapon in Apple's patent arsenal.

    Article Link: U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    decimortis

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto
    #2
    Where da maps app at?

    D.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    Now this is something Steve Jobs really wouldn't have allowed.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    wikus

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Planet earth.
    #4
    Next on the list should be:

    - rounded corners
    - flat glass surfaces
    - bounce back effect
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #5
    I preliminarily declare this post is a complete lie.
     
  6. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #6
  7. macrumors 6502a

    GoodWatch

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    #7
    Are you trying to say that Steve Jobs would not allow a ruling by an independent body? Or are you speaking in irony?
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC CANADA
    #8
    Why the "bounce back effect" (elastic scrolling)? That is an ingenious part of the iOS user interface. Any app that doesn't implement it feels like it's broken.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    #9
    This is disgusting. :apple:
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #10
    Generally, some of a patent's individual claims are invalidated, not the entire patent. I thought MacRumors got it wrong but I looked it up, the entire Jobs patent is indeed (preliminarily) invalidated. I'm no patent attorney, but I would think that that's pretty darn uncommon (unless you have a patent with only a couple claims).

    My guess is that when they revisit this, and deem some claims valid and others invalid.
     
  11. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #11
  12. macrumors regular

    kanesw

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #12
    "user created widget"
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Location:
    Bloomington, IL
    #14
    The patent drawing looks boxier and clunkier than the Galaxy S III...if that's possible.
     
  15. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #15
  16. macrumors newbie

    Jarra

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    Perth Western Australia
    #16
    No way!

    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!

    Fight this Apple. This is wrong.:mad:
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    slffl

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #17
    Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    #18
    LOL now known infamously as "Apps"..
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Battlefield Fan

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    #19
    This isn't promising for Apple in future court cases.
     
  20. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    slffl

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #21
    And then every other design in any other product. Everyone should be able to copy everyone. Sounds like a great idea! :rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Location:
    Up your ass.
    #22
    Trolls rejoice ...
     
  23. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #23
    There are 2 grounds to invalidation :

    - Prior art
    - Obviousness.

    Obviousness should be detected during the initial patent review by the examiner. The problem is that obviousness is for someone trained in the art. All patent examiners aren't electronics engineers or software developers. So when a patent holder asserts their patent against a competitor, obviousness can be argued by actual experts trained in the art with supporting evidence, things the examiners might not have considered.

    For prior art, well obviously, it came before the patent, so the patent was not novell and should never have been granted. So really, it's not that the world caught up, it's that the world had the invention granted in the patent before the patent was filed! It should not have been granted either. But then again, some prior art can be pretty obscure and it doesn't surface until someone really does his research, as when a patent holder asserts the patent against a competitor.

    So really, it's great that patents can be invalidated this way, so that if they were granted in error, no foul is done and the patent holder suddenly can't monopolize something that was available to someone else before.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    kockgunner

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #25
    Everything has been done in some form or another. Does that mean everyone should be able to make clones of products?
     

Share This Page