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

alexhasfun28 said:
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.
:apple:
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are hung up on the three years ago thing. It is incredibly common and completely understandable to wait before filing a lawsuit. Among other things, it takes time to perform the analysis required under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also might be that they don't feel that earlier models, or earlier OS versions, infringed their patent. It also may simply be that Apple just became the largest smartphone seller in the US, and hence the biggest target. It may be that they've been talking to Apple about a license for 3 years, and negotiations finally broke down.

There is no requirement to "have a product under that patent," nor should there be.
 
It would be more productive if this guy just went to law school himself.

He's already got the nerve, all he needs now is a degree.
 
haha Never in forever.

This lawsuit sounds amazing. Apple doesn't have to do anything until something is decided, so business as usual. Because I seriously doubt this lawsuit will stop the phone, just bog down some lawyers for a few years, if that.

They probably want a "shut your mouth for big bux" settlement.
 
Keep in mind that due to recent case law, it is very difficult to get an injunction if the plaintiff is not practicing the patents. No need to worry about anything other than monetary damages.
 
bluehat1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

RIM didn't even have a phone until after 2000. Smartphones with WiFi didn't exist until 2004-2005.

Prior to that, ummm... I dunno, can't think of any consumer item with two radios. There might've been something with a CF slot that could take a CDPD or other data card. Things were pretty primitive back then.
 
kdarling said:
RIM didn't even have a phone until after 2000. Smartphones with WiFi didn't exist until 2004-2005.

Prior to that, ummm... I dunno, can't think of any consumer item with two radios. There might've been something with a CF slot that could take a CDPD or other data card. Things were pretty primitive back then.
Click to expand...

May be some analogous prior art in things like satellite phones which also had cell connections. Or, for that matter, cell phones that had two radios, one for the old analog network and one for digital.
 
Nikola Tesla's going to come here in his time machine from the year 1909 and sue EVERYONE.

tesla-quote.jpg
 
kdarling said:
RIM didn't even have a phone until after 2000. Smartphones with WiFi didn't exist until 2004-2005.

Prior to that, ummm... I dunno, can't think of any consumer item with two radios. There might've been something with a CF slot that could take a CDPD or other data card. Things were pretty primitive back then.
Click to expand...

First phone maybe but you need to remember RIM started out as a company making modems to transmiting information wireless for like inventory in Coke machines. From there they started making 2 way pagers that would work with exchange email system in 1998.

http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-guides/the-history-of-the-blackberry-88296/
cmaier said:
May be some analogous prior art in things like satellite phones which also had cell connections. Or, for that matter, cell phones that had two radios, one for the old analog network and one for digital.
Click to expand...

Well given that a lot of phones would of had to do the multi cell networks. I want to say there were phones out there back then that worked on both CDMA and GSM networks. Lets not forget that you have all the 3G GSM phones out there that had to flip between W-CDMA and TDMA.

Or what about Nexttell. It used a cell network and its radio network. and had to flip between them.
 
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...
Uh-oh... that describes my old Nokia 9300i perfectly! :eek:

Lucky for Nokia they announced the phone in 2005.
 
Patent filed by homo neandertalensis 100 000 b.C., claiming the invention of fire and, in another patent, to communicate over distances beyond the voices' reach with smoke.

Everybody can see that the iPhone is just a direct development of the invention of fire.
 
JAQ said:
So he filed for a patent on something so broad and obvious that it covers the whole concept behind the smartphone, got lucky enough to get a bad patent examiner trained to act on bad precedent, and now he's trolling companies that actually develop the concepts into devices. US patent law is even more fscked up than copyright law, and should be ruled unConstitutional since it no longer "promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Click to expand...

Considering who is repping each side, broad patents like this are ripe for invalidation based on prior art work. The Treo has shipped years before this patent was filed. You could site that and go from there.

My guess is this owner is looking for a "go away check" or is interested in selling the patent to Apple pay off his mortgage.
 
I have concluded, that the only good thing that disputes courts are good for are etching money away from annoying retailers. :D

My Dad's Laptop died and the retailer wouldn't honour the warranty. We paid $40 for two sessions and forced them to cough up a new laptop. While the company also lost $10k+ because the idiots hired lawyers. :cool:
 
Any Lawyer can chime in with whatever they would like to say, however, in my opinion,The US Patent system is broken, outdated, and needs to be replaced and, or, overhauled. (that is a fully legal run-on sentance)

I don't think this simply because Apple is being sued. I feel this way due to all the lawsuits going on nationally with regards to broad patents that are simply designed to bring no name Ditzs boatloads of money out of frivolous lawsuits. (second run-on sentence, I hope I didn't break any patents by posting two run-on sentences)
 
cmaier said:
May be some analogous prior art in things like satellite phones which also had cell connections. Or, for that matter, cell phones that had two radios, one for the old analog network and one for digital.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Or maybe emergency radios with medical info transmission.

Schicksal said:
Phones have been able to do that since before 2006. IMO he'll lose the lawsuit and the patent.
Click to expand...

I think the point was that the patent was filed back in 1997 (?).

That's why we're trying to remember if there was anything like it back then, with voice, data and two radios.
 
Schicksal said:
Phones have been able to do that since before 2006. IMO he'll lose the lawsuit and the patent.
Click to expand...

Why ? He filed in 1999...

I guess now all you have to do to invalidate a patent is release a product based on it 7 years later... :rolleyes:

Seriously, at least try to read the darn thing before commenting.

CFreymarc said:
Considering who is repping each side, broad patents like this are ripe for invalidation based on prior art work. The Treo has shipped years before this patent was filed.
Click to expand...

The first Treo phone (Treo 180) shipped 2002. Patent was filed in 1999...

Again, what about 2002 makes it years before 1999 ?
 
Schicksal said:
Phones have been able to do that since before 2006. IMO he'll lose the lawsuit and the patent.
Click to expand...

It needs to have done it before 1997. The patent has a 1997 priority date. (Filed in 1999 claiming priority to a 1997 application)

For other posters:


Why do you people keep declaring the patent invalid based on it's ABSTRACT? Thats not how patents work. Read the CLAIMS - I've posted them for you.

I guarantee you that your phones from 1997 didn't do what the claims say.
 
kdarling said:
Hmm. Or maybe emergency radios with medical info transmission.



I think the point was that the patent was filed back in 1997 (?).

That's why we're trying to remember if there was anything like it back then, with voice, data and two radios.
Click to expand...

HAM radio has had multi-band transceivers for decades. Many (including some hand held units) could transmit on one frequency while receiving on an other. You could transmit slow scan TV (Video of sorts), while also working with Voice on the same rig in HF (High Frequency) . Hence, video chat (video and voice) form the same unit over multiple frequencies.

HAM radio has also used GPRS and GPS frequencies within the same rig for over a decade now too.
 
lol, good luck Dick!

patents need to be done away with entirely. we are all tapping into a sort of collective consciousness energy in one way or another anyway, even if we're not aware of it; how the **** else did evolution happen? technology will still move forward regardless.

again, this kind of crap is all thanks to your local capitalist, profit-driven market society. it slows us down more than anything. if we would just share all of our ideas (apple included) and stop worrying about MONEY, we'd be centuries ahead of where we are now.
 
atheistpally said:
lol, good luck Dick!

patents need to be done away with entirely. we are all tapping into a sort of collective consciousness energy in one way or another anyway, even if we're not aware of it; how the **** else did evolution happen? technology will still move forward regardless.

again, this kind of crap is all thanks to your local capitalist, profit-driven market society. it slows us down more than anything. if we would just share all of our ideas (apple included) and stop worrying about MONEY, we'd be centuries ahead of where we are now.
Click to expand...

I think it was tried for 70+ years in the Soviet Union. The country ended up decades behind the rest of the world.
 
will792 said:
I think it was tried for 70+ years in the Soviet Union. The country ended up decades behind the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

can't honestly expect it to work that well when the rest of the world is still being selfish and controlling though can ya?

it isn't a failure until the world as a whole tries it, not just a few countries, because it takes the cooperation of the entire planet to work.
 
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