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 Facing New Patent Lawsuit Over iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, with this ridiculously broad patent this guy could try going after every single smartphone maker (with wifi and cellular capability), every single wifi/cellular capable notebook computer and hardware manufacturers for the cards/dongles used to make them capable, every single cellular provider's home network options (like TMobile's @Home), and probably the hardware used for their commercial hotspots, too.
Think he could actually win?
Think he could actually win?
Does anyone know when the iPhone patent was issued? I thought it was prior to this even?
Which iPhone patent? In any event, no iphone patent can possibly have a priority date earlier than 1997.
LOL
in that case, doesn't Paramount have some kind of patent on that idea since Star Trek had them since the late '60s?
My guess is it would not of been. Back in 1997 wifi was a pretty rare thing and not talk about much. It was not until much later did we start see wifi start becoming more common in house holds. In 2003 most people hard wired into everything. Texas Tech started providing Wifi in main buildings around then and it took a few years before they rolled it out to most of the class rooms.
Now wifi is standard in almost all computers and most homes have wifi but in 1997 not so much.
Given that it would be pretty safe to assume the switching form Cellular network to wifi for email would not of been though of. The biggest company that I can think of that would of had hope of doing something like that would of been RIM but I do not think it was likely they even did that.
Keep in mind that while I paraphrased into wifi/gsm, the claims don't require that. You need two types of wireless, with two power levels. One involving a local base station.
Now, just because something didn't exist back then doesn't mean it wouldn't be obvious. Under KSR, it's likely enough that an engineer, asked to solve a problem (even a problem no one knew existed back then), would think to try the patented solution.
What is wrong with trying to sue Apple after 3 years? By law he can wait 6 years. Further, he cannot sue until Apple actually starts infringing the patent.
I'm seriously waiting to see if someone gets pissed enough and just knocks him off...mysteriously of course...lol
What does that exactly mean with the under KSR.
If it is an obvious solution it can not be patented? That is something that always has confused me.
"KSR" is a Supreme Court case from a couple of years ago that clarified what is required to prove that a patent is obvious under 35 USC 103. The law is that if a person having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention (the thing in the "claims" of the patent) obvious at the time of the invention (the priority date, not the date the patent was granted), the patent is invalid. Obviousness is one of several ways to invalidate a patent. Another is lack of novelty under 35 USC 102 (in other words, someone else has already invented the claimed invention).
Obviousness arises when the differences between existing inventions and the claimed invention would be obvious - typically it is proven by combining multiple pre-existing inventions (for example, combining two publications, each of which contains some of the elements of the claimed invention).
Most Apple patents are not implemented either. I hate those patent trolls
Which unimplemented patents has Apple sued anyone for? There is a difference in getting a patent you have not implemented and getting a patent you will never even attempt to implement so you can sue other people.
Of the 20 patents in the HTC suit, which are not actually in use in current Apple products (hint: They all are). If you don't see the difference, it is a personal problem.
Your own patents don't help against patent trolls. They only help in a match like Apple vs. Nokia where you can be sure that each side has dozens of patents that the other side infringes on (unavoidable the way stupid patent laws work) so you have a mexican standoff and in the end they hopefully all agree and shake hands and go home. What could you sue a patent troll for who doesn't produce anything?
Apple has to show prior art, or show that the patent is obvious, and/or prove that the patent is not infringed by Apple, and/or show that the damage is minimal.
I think you do not quite understand the purpose of the patents. It's totally OK for inventors to patent ideas for things they are not going to produce themselves. The patents create an incentive for people to invent and publish their ideas. You see how this works... The guy invented something great in 1997 then 10 years later Apple used his idea to produce great phone. The system works. Too bad Apple tried to play it by not paying the guy
I think you do not quite understand the purpose of the patents. It's totally OK for inventors to patent ideas for things they are not going to produce themselves. The patents create an incentive for people to invent and publish their ideas. You see how this works... The guy invented something great in 1997 then 10 years later Apple used his idea to produce great phone. The system works. Too bad Apple tried to play it by not paying the guy
If you read the patent, you'll see why they didn't pay the guy. If I go back into my time machine to 1996, and find an engineer with some experience designing systems for wireless communication of digital transmissions (a "person having ordinary skill in the art" - PHOSITA), and I say to him:
"Mr. PHOSITA, you are aware that there are mobile devices which can send email. You've heard of wireless systems like WaveLAN, of course. You've also heard of GSM. Both of these things already exist. In fact, even if you haven't heard of them, here is every publicly available publication ever written on them.
Now, Mr. PHOSITA, you are also of course aware of the fact that sending information a long distance takes more power than sending it a short distance. And since you know that mobile devices use batteries, you know that more power means shorter battery life.
And, of course, you are aware that digital information could include, for example, email.
Now, taking all that into account, and assuming you could build radios as small as you'd like so they are practical to fit into your mobile device, how might you solve the problem of maintaining long battery life while maintaining ubiquitous communications?"
If Mr. PHOSITA would find it "obvious to try" the combination of GSM with wavelan, for example, using local base stations and remote communications in the manner described by those claims, then the patent claims are invalid.
I am guessing Mr. PHOSITA would indeed combine those things.
The dependent claims add additional things that Mr. PHOSITA would have to do or try, and it's not black-or-white, but there's a good chance this patent goes bye-bye.
You very well may be right. I do not have a clue as far as technical merits are concerned. I just do not believe that every Apple patent is inherently good whereas every other patent is evil.
This man/company could of sued Apple since day one when iPhone was released to the public. He chose not too. Come three year later, a huge success by Apple, and a revolutionary phone, and now he's trying to halt the production and have Apple possibly re-design everything? Might as well just sue the rest of the mobile phone companies around the world! This guy may not even have a product under that patent. We don't even know this company because it changes its names every time there is a lawsuit he is trying to do.
Go ahead, sue Apple. Get your money and run. But don't be wasting your time when you could of three years ago.
What a complete freaking joke. I can't believe this patent got approved! It describes everything from a cell phone to a netbook. I think whoever approved this stupid patent should pay half of the legal fees when it gets thrown out.
Should be rejected for obviousness, but...
The patent only has 2 independent claims, this is good. What is bad is that it says, you need two types of wireless signal, one that is close, and one that is further away. You must receive and transmit to both but not necessarily at the same time, and you use differing power levels depending on which type of wireless signal you are transmitting, lower power for the close one, and higher power for the further one. Furthermore you must support voice (claim 7), and the data *INCLUDES* data formatted for email.
The last requirement was probably added to get the examiner to accept that this particular configuration was unique. The patent was filed in 1997, and issued in 2006 -- a looong time, even for the USPTO.
So, in order to claim obviousness the prior tech must use at least 2 different power levels from a handset to two different radio's and must deliver both voice and data formatted as email. I can't recall if that existed then but certainly cell-phones, and wave-lan existed. Whether someone had publicly shown a device supporting both, I don't recall. Wonder if RIM had anything similar back then? They may have, just not sure.
The patent only has 2 independent claims, this is good. What is bad is that it says, you need two types of wireless signal, one that is close, and one that is further away. You must receive and transmit to both but not necessarily at the same time, and you use differing power levels depending on which type of wireless signal you are transmitting, lower power for the close one, and higher power for the further one. Furthermore you must support voice (claim 7), and the data *INCLUDES* data formatted for email.
The last requirement was probably added to get the examiner to accept that this particular configuration was unique. The patent was filed in 1997, and issued in 2006 -- a looong time, even for the USPTO.
So, in order to claim obviousness the prior tech must use at least 2 different power levels from a handset to two different radio's and must deliver both voice and data formatted as email. I can't recall if that existed then but certainly cell-phones, and wave-lan existed. Whether someone had publicly shown a device supporting both, I don't recall. Wonder if RIM had anything similar back then? They may have, just not sure.
This man/company could of sued Apple since day one when iPhone was released to the public. He chose not too. Come three year later, a huge success by Apple, and a revolutionary phone, and now he's trying to halt the production and have Apple possibly re-design everything? Might as well just sue the rest of the mobile phone companies around the world! This guy may not even have a product under that patent. We don't even know this company because it changes its names every time there is a lawsuit he is trying to do.
Go ahead, sue Apple. Get your money and run. But don't be wasting your time when you could of three years ago.
I'd say power to the smart guy
. If he is allowed to sue within 6 years it would be stupid to do it on day one. Don't you agree? I also understand that it is Apple's responsibility to do the patent research.Careful there! It might very well be the same guy who approved Apple patents.
