Patent law does specify that obvious ideas are not generally patentable. Otherwise, we'd have to pay license fees for using a wheel.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Added to Bluetooth Patent Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Patent law does specify that obvious ideas are not generally patentable. Otherwise, we'd have to pay license fees for using a wheel.
But for recent technologies, the patent clerks aren't qualified to recognize the next "wheel". Thus this bluetooth lawsuit.
Considering it's named after the legendary Danish king Harold BlueTooth, maybe the next version should be named after his son, Sven Forkbeard; Forkbeard Wireless!
I think there should be a law which states that you need to sue a company soon after they release a product that infringes on your patent, not 5 years later when you know you can get more money. I'm sure people knew that laptops and phones and such were using Bluetooth a long time ago. Sue then, not later.
Also, if you bring up other companies into your lawsuit even though they didn't infringe on a patent (and only bought a product that may have infringed on a patent), you should be fined.
Also, if you bring up other companies into your lawsuit even though they didn't infringe on a patent (and only bought a product that may have infringed on a patent), you should be fined.
Correct Me if I'm Wrong - BT
But didn't Ericsson create the technology & name it Bluetooth?!
Also didn't they produce the first bluetooth chips and the naming convention of BT Stacks for 1.0/1.0b initially and with 1.0b combine global uptake or 'globalization' of Bluetooth with companies like Nokia & Red-M? Long before Palm ever released a BT device or even other manufacturers ERICSSON was at the forefront.
First device using BT was the Ericsson T36 - phone.
http://www.mobic.com/oldnews/2000/06/ericsson_unveils_the_first_bluet.htm
(press release copied/archived but date is around 2000 early 2001 this didn't fully ship in Europe as the R520m was the true first to ship worldwide - Triband phone - with BT then the T39m).
First headset using BT Ericssson HBH -something the big "HONKER" of a device.
First AP utilitizing BT is by Red-M I think. Their also the first to setup a scatternet using BT in a public space along as being the first to incorporate WiFi 802.11b (even in its infancy) with BT in one device (an Access Point) also the first to use it in a public environement when BlueFish worked with Palm for m500 sleds & Vx sleds utilizing BT ALL done even though technologist/press reporters and so called wireless experts defuncted WiFi & BT on the 2.4Ghz range together as non do-able.
Well my point ... the technology and its hoping scheme and radio frequency along with Stacks is ALL the same for each version & the most recent 2.0+EDR specific chips are NO different because their standardized by the Bluetooth qualification board. So HOW does one company sue for using the technology in its chips that other company's are using if they've paid to use those chips???
BIZARRE & unfounded says I.
But didn't Ericsson create the technology & name it Bluetooth?!
Also didn't they produce the first bluetooth chips and the naming convention of BT Stacks for 1.0/1.0b initially and with 1.0b combine global uptake or 'globalization' of Bluetooth with companies like Nokia & Red-M? Long before Palm ever released a BT device or even other manufacturers ERICSSON was at the forefront.
First device using BT was the Ericsson T36 - phone.
http://www.mobic.com/oldnews/2000/06/ericsson_unveils_the_first_bluet.htm
(press release copied/archived but date is around 2000 early 2001 this didn't fully ship in Europe as the R520m was the true first to ship worldwide - Triband phone - with BT then the T39m).
First headset using BT Ericssson HBH -something the big "HONKER" of a device.
First AP utilitizing BT is by Red-M I think. Their also the first to setup a scatternet using BT in a public space along as being the first to incorporate WiFi 802.11b (even in its infancy) with BT in one device (an Access Point) also the first to use it in a public environement when BlueFish worked with Palm for m500 sleds & Vx sleds utilizing BT ALL done even though technologist/press reporters and so called wireless experts defuncted WiFi & BT on the 2.4Ghz range together as non do-able.
Well my point ... the technology and its hoping scheme and radio frequency along with Stacks is ALL the same for each version & the most recent 2.0+EDR specific chips are NO different because their standardized by the Bluetooth qualification board. So HOW does one company sue for using the technology in its chips that other company's are using if they've paid to use those chips???
BIZARRE & unfounded says I.
I don't think this is practical.
Most of the innovation in this industry comes from small companies (Apple is more of a "very early-adopter" of new technologies, than an innovator), who wouldn't be able to implement their concepts as fast as larger companies. So the small companies would create the concept, and the larger ones would implement, patent and own it.
It's ironic that these small companies who provide the innovation in this industry are the least able to afford to protect it. Remember, you need a separate patent for every country, and while the cost of the application is chicken-feed for a company like Apple, it's a non-trivial cost for a small start-up, especially in markets where there isn't much venture capital. Plus, if you don't have the funds to fight the court case, you might as well not have the patent in the first place.
It does, but the definition of "obvious" is objective. The Amazon one-click patent being a case in point.
If patents are awarded for very specific, non-obvious IP, they can do precisely what they're intended to - prevent copycat products which due to the lack of R&D can undercut the original innovator.
If patents are too easily awarded, they have the opposite effect. They can be used for IP squatting for profit, or as a cheap 'n' easy way of gaining and holding a monopoly.
I understand your point. I have been granted a patent, and have a few more being reviewed, so I am fully aware how they can be abused
. True, i would say about 80% of patents are unwarranted. However the remaining do need patent protection.If I have a truly breakthrough technology that is innovative, and cost me a lot to develop it, I need to be protected for my hard work and expense. If I release my invention and some shmo reverse-engineers it and starts cranking it out, the price is reduced because they are standing on my shoulders, stealing my hard work and profiting from it. Why would I even consider inventing if my hard work wasn't protected? I would just give up because it isn't worth it. I have to eat...
patent law is like democracy, it's not the best system, but it works (sometimes)
And in other news, Apple is also being sued by humanity, for naming their product Mac - which means "son'. Humanity have backed up their claims, by providing several billion examples of "prior art".
I personally like "Snaggle Tooth"! Fits in with the cat theme lately.
Sounds like they are testing their patents applicability. The probably asked for royalties and everyone told them to jump in a lake.
Isn't there a high speed Blue Tooth protocol making its way through the standards committee? I wonder how this will affect that issue. Maybe Apple is looking to get rid of the iPod docs and use it in some future generation of Mac.
Sounds like they are testing their patents applicability. The probably asked for royalties and everyone told them to jump in a lake.
Isn't there a high speed Blue Tooth protocol making its way through the standards committee? I wonder how this will affect that issue. Maybe Apple is looking to get rid of the iPod docs and use it in some future generation of Mac.
Apple, forced to rename their long lived computer moniker, enters the Stevie Wonderbox era. In financial news, Apple Inc. (APPL) stock plummets.
Before there were pattents people inovated and invented products and processes. Not having patents is not going to keep companies from creating somwthing that they can sell, they just have higher risk.
The ones that lose big time if there are no patents are the laywers, and I do not think at this time they are a protected species.
You bet, bluetooth has been around for a while, they wait until those infringing are making big money, then they demad payment or sue. It is all about greed.
I wish this would end bluetooth and kick-start wireless high-speed USB. We have the technology, but first the leading company will want to charge an insane amount for the wireless high-speed USB. Bluetooth is overrated, I am glad Apple never released wireless BT headphones. Which makes me wonder BTW, how will the headphones connect to the iPhone and where does the SIM chip go?
The iPhone has a 3.5mm jack and I guess the Sim chip must have a slot.
Ibm
I could have sworn IBM invented this technology almost 10 years ago.
Oh... wait... I am partially wrong...
According to the wikipedia entry...
"In 1998, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, and Nokia, formed a consortium and adopted the code name Bluetooth for their proposed open specification. In December 1999, 3Com, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, and Motorola joined the initial founders as the promoter group. Since that time, Lucent Technologies transferred their membership to their spinoff Agere Systems, and 3Com has left the promoter group."
Could someone pleeeeease explain to me where this so called, Washington research fits into this?
I could have sworn IBM invented this technology almost 10 years ago.
Oh... wait... I am partially wrong...
According to the wikipedia entry...
"In 1998, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, and Nokia, formed a consortium and adopted the code name Bluetooth for their proposed open specification. In December 1999, 3Com, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, and Motorola joined the initial founders as the promoter group. Since that time, Lucent Technologies transferred their membership to their spinoff Agere Systems, and 3Com has left the promoter group."
Could someone pleeeeease explain to me where this so called, Washington research fits into this?