Well tourists don't want to go there so the government had to do something to bring money in to the local economy. It's non-seasonal and keeps the hotels and cafe full. All you need to do is select the right Judges. The only other option is poker machines.
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 and Other Tech Companies Face Lawsuit Over Wireless Email Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well tourists don't want to go there so the government had to do something to bring money in to the local economy. It's non-seasonal and keeps the hotels and cafe full. All you need to do is select the right Judges. The only other option is poker machines.
Some people are MASSIVE hypocrites on this forum.
Apple sue people over a patent = all is good, GO APPLE, **** YEA!!!
company sues apple over patent = poor apple, **** patents.
Apple sue people over a patent = all is good, GO APPLE, **** YEA!!!
company sues apple over patent = poor apple, **** patents.
Notwithstanding the poverty claims of "poor" inventors who can't manage to sell their invention or bring it to market..
I think there is a tremendous amount of difference between someone copying patented technology to compete with its originator in the market, and someone copying patented technology to bring it to market to begin with when the IP holder is just sitting on it and doing nothing with it.
I have no idea how Apple/HTC, Apple/Kodak, Apple/Nokia, etc. will turn out, but at least they all make something, and I hope the proper inventors (whoeever they are) get their due.
I have zero interest in NTP making money off of other people's efforts to bring technology to consumers.
But NTP was doing something with it - they were attempting to license it to companies that were in the business of making stuff. The idea that only people who sell stuff should be allowed to have patents would bankrupt a lot of university research institutions, for example.
Different situations.
Apple has patents for the technologies in the products they make and sell.
This ******** company owns patents, but doesn't do anything else. They sue other companies as their sole method of making money. That's ********. If you don't make the ****ing product, you shouldn't be able to have a patent for it, and ESPECIALLY you shouldn't be able to sue other companies just to make money.
Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison are rolling over in their graves.
Those are true inventors who staked their very lives on taking the product to market.
This current patent model of "phony inventing" something (i.e.: coming up with an idea that nobody has thought of just for the future slot machine style potential patent value) for a product that never exists and patenting it for future lawsuits is like holding stock in a company.
Then they sell it to legal firms and let the lawyers take over if the slot machine ding dings.
I'm in total agreement with John Stossel... the greatest threat to America might be terrorism,
but the 2nd greatest threat is LAWYERS!
And this has nothing to do with whether Apple has abused other patents like Nokia where I think Apple will end up paying. At least Nokia makes something.
PS: I think I'll scheme up something crazy today and patent it. You never know. LOL
How many of you guys actually read the patent?
And in 1992, a wireless email system is novel, un-obvious and useful (qualification for a valid patent). Even RIM didn't argue over those points. The fighting focused on "prior art".
In 2010, everyone would take it as granted (just like how we think about light bulbs). However, you must rewind yourself to the filing date to make a judgement on the patent.
And in 1992, a wireless email system is novel, un-obvious and useful (qualification for a valid patent). Even RIM didn't argue over those points. The fighting focused on "prior art".
In 2010, everyone would take it as granted (just like how we think about light bulbs). However, you must rewind yourself to the filing date to make a judgement on the patent.
How about a compromise.. a patent without a saleable product would become unenforceable in, say, 5 years?
Universities would be in the business of selling their patents to people who can make stuff, not collecting license fees.
There's also a huge difference between the RIM implementation and Apple's here. RIM has their own separate email system pushing stuff through to their devices. Apple has.. SMTP, POP, IMAP, and MS Exchange operating via TCP/IP.
If you invent something but it's just a tangible idea you should still get payed for it. If you design a perfect transistor but the technology at the time isn't there to create it but in the future someone uses your research and current technology to build it you don't think you should be paid?
NTP doesn't want to sue companies over their patents, they want to license their stuff to make money. When a company infringes on their patents they sue. It's their right. Now while it's a great business model for making money, I do believe it's a little questionable ethically (in the spirit of what patents were intended to do) for a company to absorb and collect them for the sole purpose of licensing.
So can you patent your own cells and DNA then? Will we have to?
If so, a question then would be the legality of any forensic investigation based on your patented cells or DNA without CIA:Miami obtaining licencing rights to use it.
So if I patent, say, a bionic eye that can capture video and divert it to a neuro-electrical interface on my head and which can then be diverted for storage - I should be paid when some company works for years and actually makes the product?
I know it's technologically not feasible at all right now - but maybe, in 200 years it will be - point is, why should someone get paid for their imagination when they have not partaken in the actual production of the idea?
No kidding. Dont hear anyone calling apple a patent troll. Suing HTC and Nokia for multitasking, content sensitive menus, minimizing windows and a lockscreen? gtfoh
The problem is that you have robbed universities of the value of their patents. Since they can't collect license fees, and they have 5 years, they have no bargaining position in any negotiations.
The current system works fine.
You can't get a patent for something unless your written description enables a person having ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. It's called the "enablement" requirement.
Does anybody Google?
There does appear to be prior art. The judge appears to have ruled it out. This may be in part due to RIM playing games both with regard to dated material and the rules of the court. Reading the actual judgement is sobering. The RIM lawyers were amateurs. See this opinion.
In addition there is clearly prior art. See page 7 in the judgement where the judge states that 'RIM's Blackberry success affirms the satisfaction of a long felt need therefore proving nonobviousness. I miss the logical jump but maybe someone else will get it. The iphone is successful and it was just an evolution- polishing as it were. The question is does it go far enough to imply patent law's definition of obvious. Maybe the first judge was so ill disposed of RIM that he threw out the Teknow testimony. The appeals court will generally defer unless the judge's behavior is egregiously wrong on the record. See the 132 paragraph.
Finally after wading through all the crap assertions, innuendo and fluff in this thread I continue to be amazed by the lack of effort and intelligence displayed. Like my grandkids : "she touched me" "did not" "did too" ad infinitum. This is discourse?
Nature Lover
There does appear to be prior art. The judge appears to have ruled it out. This may be in part due to RIM playing games both with regard to dated material and the rules of the court. Reading the actual judgement is sobering. The RIM lawyers were amateurs. See this opinion.
In addition there is clearly prior art. See page 7 in the judgement where the judge states that 'RIM's Blackberry success affirms the satisfaction of a long felt need therefore proving nonobviousness. I miss the logical jump but maybe someone else will get it. The iphone is successful and it was just an evolution- polishing as it were. The question is does it go far enough to imply patent law's definition of obvious. Maybe the first judge was so ill disposed of RIM that he threw out the Teknow testimony. The appeals court will generally defer unless the judge's behavior is egregiously wrong on the record. See the 132 paragraph.
Finally after wading through all the crap assertions, innuendo and fluff in this thread I continue to be amazed by the lack of effort and intelligence displayed. Like my grandkids : "she touched me" "did not" "did too" ad infinitum. This is discourse?
Nature Lover
It shows you that you are clueless clueless and totally clueless on what a patent is.
A patent is about teaching. A person with ordinary skill in the field should be able to make the product from your description.
So, if you really know how to make it, then patent it and you should be rewarded for it. Stop being clueless about patent and use something "technologically not feasible" for your argument.
Exactly. In addition to the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112, it also has to be feasible or it doesn't satisfy the utility requirement of 35 USC 101.
psst. apple is a patent troll too u kno
psst. No their not. The hold a lot of patents but their business model isn't making money off of licensing only. NTP sole purpose and the only way they make money is off of licensing.
****in lame excuse apple boy, apple is still a patent troll, regardless of the fact they make money from other projects. The multi-tasking patent is one of the worst I have heard of.
Elisha Gray would be rolling in his grave if he could here this. We'll probably never know if his lawyer was an idiot or bribed by Bell, we'll never know, but if Gray hadn't listened to his lawyer, he would have had the patent for the phone and would have died a lot richer.
Which of course wasn't invented by either of them, but by Philip Reis. And by today's (totally broken) standards, Innocenzo Manzetti would have the patent for being the first to come up with the idea of the phone.
The standard for "obviousness" has changed since the RIM court case. At that time, if there was an invention A and an invention B, then it was considered non-obvious to combine both inventions, unless there was prior art suggesting such a combination. That is not the case anymore. It is now considered obvious that someone with ordinary skill trying to solve a problem would look for patented inventions solving part of the problem, and would try to combine them, even if there is no suggestion in prior art suggesting such a combination.
An example involving light bulbs: I bet Edison didn't think of putting a light bulb into the boot of your car so you can see what's inside, and combining it with a switch that turns the light on if the boot is open. By today's standard, that use wouldn't be patentable anymore, because switches that turn on things when a door is open are well-known, light bulbs are well-known, and someone who wanted to solve the problem (I want to see what's in the boot of the car, but not waste energy when the boot is closed) would look for known inventions and combine them.
Apple uses their patents in their own products. NTP has no intention of ever designing or making their own products. NTP is a patent troll. Apple is not. NTP will cost consumers worldwide hundreds of millions of dollars per year. The patent system is out of control and should be abolished.