Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Facing New Patent Lawsuit Over iPhone

sportguy0913 said:
Do they really think they can just stop the iPhone production? Seriously people...
Click to expand...


Never say never
"7th June 2004 13:44 GMT - Research in Motion will make its last stand today (Monday) in the battle for the Blackberry, specifically for the right to sell the Blackberry in the US.

It is appealing an injunction issued against it preventing it from selling or servicing the device in the US. The injunction was granted in August last year when the court found RIM had infringed upon several patents held by IP holding company, NTP, but was stayed pending an appeal."
:confused:
 
i have a patent for the use of "exotic materials, that are lighter, stronger, and cheaper than carbon, steel, aluminum, and magnesium, in a consumer and/or enterprise device that runs off electricity."

just waiting now for a company to find something that fits that definition and i'll be bank!!!
 
notjustjay said:
I'm going to patent "a method of communication using a system of simple discrete glyphs which, when rearranged in specific orders, form infinitely variable representations of concepts, places, and objects."

Every single one of you is using my alphabet invention! Pay up!
Click to expand...

Is anybody aware of any patents that were accepted which were intentionally designed to reveal the foolishness of the USPTO?

I imagine patenting written language might actually be possible, if you keep it abstract and base your examples on a fictitious language.
 
NetAirus, my suggestions for you are:

1. please get prepared to be humiliated for such baby patent
2. next time, go to inventhelp.com, inventionhome.com or uspto.gov and get some orientation first
:)
 
Doctor Q said:
The patent says
A small light weight modular microcomputer based computer and communications systems, designed for both portability and desktop uses. The systems make use of a relative large flat panel display device assembly, an expandable hinge device, battery power source, keyboard assembly, and wireless communications devices.​
iPhones aren't designed for desktop use and don't have a hinge or keyboard. Does the patent really still apply if only some of these conditions are met? After all, there are lots of devices that meet some of these conditions.
Click to expand...

Balls to that, there are a ton of devices that meet all those conditions. Basically, he describes a laptop, and how long have "wireless laptops" been around?

Oh that's right, since at least 1999 when Apple introduced Wi-Fi into their iBook line.

And this guy got a patent on it in 2006 :O

Even Wi-Fi enabled PDAs existed years earlier than 2006, so this is just a complete ******** patent!
 
It must have been Apple's earnings report which is the cause of this lawsuit. I'm surprised more companies don't crawl out of the woodwork to go after Apple's deep pockets. Shameful.
 
Man screw being an electrical engineer and actually creating things. I am just going to become a patent troll, seems like a far easier life. All I gotta do is win 1 lawsuit and I will probably be set.
 
gnasher729 said:
I like the German system. Very first thing in a lawsuit, the judge decides what the value of the case is. If you ask me to pay $100,000,000 and I offer to pay you $10, then we arguing about the difference, $99,999,990. Then he takes a table and checks: For $100,000,000, there is say $3,000,000 due to the court, and $3,000,000 due to each side's lawyers (numbers are not exact, but about the right order of magnitude). At the end, the judge decides how much will be paid. If he decides I should pay you $5,000,000 then that's 5 percent of the case value, so I pay 5% of three times $3,000,000 on top. You didn't get $95,000,000 which is 95% of the case value, so you pay 95% of three times $3,000,000 cost. You will notice that even though I lost the case, you ended up paying almost $4,000,000 because of your greed.

If the lawyers' bill is more than $3,000,000, that is tough for them. They won't actually get paid. So a big company can't sue you for $10,000 and bury you with lawyer costs if they don't like you; worst case you could lose $10,000 (as in the USA) plus a few hundred for court and lawyers, even if they paid $10,000,000 to their in-house lawyers. And the judge will put a stop to it if they think the case is too long for the court's fee.
Click to expand...


yeah here in the states we have that whole problem called "due process" LOL
 
Anyone have the full patent number?

As usual everyone is reacting based ont he abstract, and the abstract means absolutely nothing.
 
Ok, found it.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...ess+Handset+Communication+System".TI.&OS=TTL/

1. A method for handset unit communication comprising the following steps in any order: a) transmitting first data via wireless communication to a local area communication base unit a relatively short distance away; b) receiving second data via wireless communication from the local area communication base unit a relatively short distance away; c) using said handset unit to communicate, selectively, the first and second data to and from the local area communication base unit and to communicate third and fourth data to and from an external wide area network, wherein the communication of the first, second, third and fourth data are not necessarily performed simultaneously, and wherein the transmit power level of the handset unit when transmitting to the local area communication base unit is lower than when transmitting to the external wide area network; and d) wherein the first and second data include data formatted for computer e-mail.
Click to expand...

7. A method for handset unit communication comprising the following steps in any order: a) directly communicating bi-directional wireless voice and computer data including wireless data networking communicating data selectively to and from a local area base unit and an external wide area network; b) transmitting a first wireless radio frequency (RF) signal comprising said data selectively to said local area base unit and to the external wide area network, wherein the data is not necessarily transmitted simultaneously to the local area base unit and to the external wide area network and wherein the first wireless RF signal transmit power level transmitted to the local area base unit is lower than the power level required to transmit the signal to the external wide area network; c) receiving a second wireless RF signal comprising said data from said local area base unit; and d) wherein said handset unit data includes data formatted for e-mail.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it has to do with using wifi and 3G to send email.
 
it seems for every valid claim that is brought through, there seems to be at least one or two of these which brings down the validity of actual claims.
 
Well, my take on it is that the patent is entitled to a 1997 priority date, which means prior art likely would have to exist prior to 1996. The independent claims deal with switching from wi-fi to edge/3G, essentially. The dependent claims, being narrower, may be valid. Seems to me the independent claims are unlikely to survive at least a 35 USC 103 attack, but the dependent claims might be ok.
 
Dear joy! What a joke. It's a cellphone already, this patent is literally old aged off of a telecomunication system. I say this is just page 2 news, and a total waste cause it's obvious this guy is going to loose. First of all, it's already a communication device, it's 3 years late already, halting the iPhone? What a douche. Get the money and run. He probably doesn't have a product explaing this patent, and he changes names? Like what the ****. Just stick to your own name and represent yourself for once.
 
alexhasfun28 said:
Dear joy! What a joke. It's a cellphone already, this patent is literally old aged off of a telecomunication system. I say this is just page 2 news, and a total waste cause it's obvious this guy is going to loose. First of all, it's already a communication device, it's 3 years late already, halting the iPhone? What a douche. Get the money and run. He probably doesn't have a product explaing this patent, and he changes names? Like what the ****. Just stick to your own name and represent yourself for once.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Apple files frivolous patent lawsuits, Apple should get them. In fact, in a sick twisted way I almost hope Apple's love of the severely patent-encumbered H.264 comes to bite them back. But then again, I don't, because it'd hurt everyone else in the same process...
 
The US is the most litigation happy country in the world. You'll find that almost every time a large manufacturer reports favorable earnings, they all of a sudden become the target of one or more patent squatters (e.g. entities that don't actually produce anything) looking to make a quick buck.

Patents are intended to protect inventors from the possible financial ruin that can result from infringement. But all too often, we see "consulting firms" applying for frivolous patents even after a successful product is brought to market using such IP. So if Company X begins shipping a product in 2004 and fails to patent something as seemingly silly as a sliding a switch a certain way - and in the meanwhile, Mr. Patent Squatter takes advantage of this and applies for a patent that gets granted in 2006 - Mr. Patent squatter now has ammunition to sue for all units shipped by Company X (or any other company, for that matter) from that date forward.

There's really no reform in place for this. US patent law is set up in a way where ideas can be legally patented with no intention to produce an actual product. All you really need to patent an idea is technical drawings, precise documents describing function and the $150 ($75 for small entities) fee for filing. Thomas Edison was perhaps the greatest patent squatter of all time. The majority of patents he filed were ideas invented by others who failed to do so themselves.
 
wallinbl said:
Make an effort to actually make a product, or take your patents and shove off. Patenting things with no intention to make a product should be illegal. Patents are to promote progress, not to prevent it.
Click to expand...

Most Apple patents are not implemented either. I hate those patent trolls ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back