Apple Hit With $625 Million Judgment in Patent Suit Over Cover Flow, Spotlight, Time Machine

[TexasAggie]

No, I assure you algorithms are NOT patentable under U.S. law. Your example proves my point - the algorithm is NOT claimed in the patent. The patent covers a SYSTEM, not an algorithm.

While I have no problem with software patents, I do have to disagree here. The "marching cube" patent included a method claim. An "algorithm" is just a fancy way of saying a "computer implemented method." If you patent a method that is implemented on a computer, you have patented the algorithm.

What's interesting about the "marching cube" patent identified at the link is the discussion of how people came up with another approach to get around the patent. The "marching tetrahedrons" approach actually resolved some problems with the "marching cubes" approach. This is exactly what the patent laws are meant to do -- you disclose an idea and get a limited monopoly for that invention, and then others can improve on your idea.

Software is copyrightable, but it is also patentable. Software is not, as others have said, just "math." Software is instructions for causing a computer to do something. It might rely on math, but it is a process -- store this data, use that data, display this, receive input from that. The Supreme Court just recently ruled that some business methods might be patentable, and it refused to rule that all business methods are unpatentable. In light of that, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule that software, which is much more useful than business methods, is unpatentable.

 

[Masquerade]

Can i patent the concept of processor and stop humanity from using computers?

 

[TexasAggie]

Can i patent the concept of processor and stop humanity from using computers?

Only if you invent a time machine and go back several decades. You could also patent the time machine, although the patent office will likely make you prove that it works first.

 

[iJed]

Major patent reform is now long overdue especially in the case of software. There is no way that people should be allowed to patent things that are immediately obvious to even the most simple minded software developer. Yet for years patents have been handed out left, right and center.

In my mind the most insane of all software patents (that I've heard of so far) is a patent on doubly linked lists. This is such a fundamental and basic concept in software engineering that it is akin to getting a patent on the + operator in mathematics. What is more amazing is that prior art has existed for at least 40 (yes forty) years as to when the idiots in the US patent office granted this nonsense. Basically every operating system ever written infringes on this! I'm betting Mac OS X alone will contain well over 1000 implementations of the aforementioned patent.

Sadly the majority of software patents are granted on such stupid items as the one mentioned above. This goes to show just how much patent reform is required.

I am not asking for complete abolition of software patents (although this may well be the right thing to do) but there is definitely a need to put an end to the patent trolling and the patenting of broad and abstract concepts that are simply the most obvious ways of implementing the many common algorithms of everyday software development.

 

[dejo]

You could also patent the time machine, although the patent office will likely make you prove that it works first.

Oh, great, now you have to prove something actually works to get a patent for it!

 

[TexasAggie]

Oh, great, now you have to prove something actually works to get a patent for it!

No, just for time machines, perpetual motion machines, and other similar type inventions. The real question is how to prove the time machine works without destroying the universe. Although you could probably patent a universe-destroying machine, too. The patent office might just ask you not to test it.

In my mind the most insane of all software patents (that I've heard of so far) is a patent on doubly linked lists. This is such a fundamental and basic concept in software engineering that it is akin to getting a patent on the + operator in mathematics. What is more amazing is that prior art has existed for at least 40 (yes forty) years as to when the idiots in the US patent office granted this nonsense. Basically every operating system ever written infringes on this! I'm betting Mac OS X alone will contain well over 1000 implementations of the aforementioned patent.

For every one example you can give of a stupid software patent, you could find numerous useful ones involving encryption, security, data mining, etc.

What the folks looking at 10-year old patents saying "that's obvious" don't understand is that it may be obvious now, but it probably wasn't 12-15 years ago when the patent application was filed. Not in all cases (like a doubly-linked list), but often.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Apple is challenging a verdict issued in a patent lawsuit last Friday that has seen the company hit with a penalty of as much as $625.5 million for infringing patents with its Cover Flow, Spotlight, and Time Machine technologies. The jury verdict in favor of Mirror Worlds LLC saw Apple hit with a $208.5 million judgment for violation of each of three patents.The patents at the heart of the dispute are the work of Yale professor David Gerlenter, who spun off Mirror Worlds Technologies from the university in 1996 and filed the patents in 1999.

I don't know about Cover Flow, but, someone please explain to me how someone can patent incremental backup/restore and content indexing and search. Incremental backups existed by -- OK, before my time, and I'm an old-timer -- and content indexing/search existed by 1989 (Tim Bray's stuff) (everybody was talking about applying this to the web ca. 1995). What was "invented" in 1999 that didn't already exist?

 

[iVoid]

Didn't Apple originally buy the Coverflow concept from another company? It's been so long, I forget the details.

 

[alhedges]

A colleague of mine had a pretty badass idea related to email and the German patent office won't grant him the patent unless he had an actual working implementation.
All those people going "how am I supposed to protect my work" have no idea how messed up the patent office in the states is.

I guess that's why my iPhone is made by Siemens, my search engine by SAP, and my Kindle by Bosch. Oh, wait...

 

[xbjllb]

Hilarious!!!

Watch Steve-O pay the fine (inevitable), yank ALL usage of "cover flow" out of all the apps that use them, INCLUDING the OS, giving a speech that the "Cover Flow" implementation is a "bag of hurt", and then watch all the Jobs acolytes start spamming how much any program that used "cover flow" SUCKED in the first place and a million reasons why "cover flow" is a dead technology and no one needs it anymore. And the "new" app versions without them are "so much more advanced, we just can't understand" every time someone complains about losing a core part of the Apple Mac experience.

"Bag of hurt"

Hilarious!

 

[dejo]

Didn't Apple originally buy the Coverflow concept from another company? It's been so long, I forget the details.

You forgot the details from 4 hours ago already?

 

[MacPhilosopher]

i believe you missed his point, which is it is equally unreasonable for you to take away my garage because you don't think i've made proper use of it than it is to take away my intellectual property because you think I haven't made proper use of it.

I don't think that was his point at all. I went back and checked his and the post he agreed with and they both believe in a use it or lose it position. I must have missed the part where they claimed it to be unreasonable. I do believe it is unreasonable to claim software patents that merely mimic already existing ideas in the physical world. Copyright and patent acceptance is supposed to take account of applications that are common sense aren't they? Wish I knew more about that legal world, but my reading list is already to long. I do know that patents are not cheap or simple to write and file. I also know that they expire in 17 or 20 years depending on the filing year(pre or post-1995). I think that sounds pretty long in the IT world. While I would agree with limitations to patents in tech that stifle actual product development, I hope that my property remains my own despite what my neighbor covets it for. Always fun debating with you cmaier.

 

[cmaier]

Copyright and patent acceptance is supposed to take account of applications that are common sense aren't they?

Copyright, no. Patents, yes. And they do.

Wish I knew more about that legal world, but my reading list is already to long. I do know that patents are not cheap or simple to write and file. I also know that they expire in 17 or 20 years depending on the filing year(pre or post-1995). I think that sounds pretty long in the IT world. While I would agree with limitations to patents in tech that stifle actual product development, I hope that my property remains my own despite what my neighbor covets it for. Always fun debating with you cmaier.

20 years from filing is the current rule. The old rule was 17 years from issue.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Can i patent the concept of processor and stop humanity from using computers?

From what I have read, the patent doesn't stop anyone from making the product, it merely gives the patent holder a right to sue for royalties. My father worked for IBM and his name is on dozens of patents. While he worked for them, they owned the rights to anything he developed or invented(typical contract in that industry I guess), but since IBM doesn't sell fishing equipment, he was told that if he invented a new fishing reel their lawyers would file the patenting in his name at their cost and he would have full ownership. He gets no royalties for his other patents, just awards and the salary/bonus he made as an employee.

 

[cmaier]

From what I have read, the patent doesn't stop anyone from making the product, it merely gives the patent holder a right to sue for royalties.

No. A patent gives the patent holder the right to exclude. Royalties cover what has already been done without permission. It's up to the patent holder if he wants to license the invention going forward.

 

[NinjaHERO]

That's one way to get money. I can't believe the two parties didn't try and work out a long term licensing deal.

 

[cmaier]

That's one way to get money. I can't believe the two parties didn't try and work out a long term licensing deal.

Of course they tried. Apple clearly offered too little.

 

[TheJustAbout]

Is it fair that if you create a technology and never use it - and then someone else creates the same thing and uses it - you're entitled to sue them? I think it's kinda stupid. If you create a technology and bring it to market then fine. But if you don't and someone else happens to create the same thing and does bring it to markt - then why do you have the right to do sue them?

 

[BC2009]

Well maybe in future Apple will ask before they use something.

It doesn't quite work that way. In all likelihood Apple had no knowledge of this patent when they infringed. They just invented the same thing or saw it and copied it without knowing it was patented.

The software patents out there basically represent a gigantic mine field. You could not possibly research all of it and keep track of who has patented what without expending a large amount of money annually (very large).

Additionally, the law. as it pertains to damages with these cases, discourages you from trying to discover what patents are out there, because prior knowledge of a patent with infringement means more damages if you lose in court.

So for example, if you tried to keep up with all patents and missed a patent, got sued for that one and somehow the court does not buy your defense that "yeah we looked, but we just happened to miss this one" the judge may rule that you likely knew about it and infringed anyway. Many big companies (including the one I work for which is in that top-10 market-cap range) have a policy of "don't read patents unless you have to". Then in court they can at least plead ignorance to the patent and avoid the double-damages.

 

[iJed]

For every one example you can give of a stupid software patent, you could find numerous useful ones involving encryption, security, data mining, etc.

What the folks looking at 10-year old patents saying "that's obvious" don't understand is that it may be obvious now, but it probably wasn't 12-15 years ago when the patent application was filed. Not in all cases (like a doubly-linked list), but often.

My problem is that the current system is very very poor. Patents need to be peer reviewed by experts in their given field and a system to easily revoke them needs to be set up where prior art can be demonstrated.

The sad fact is that no matter how ridiculous the doubly linked-list patent may be it still actually stands and has not yet been revoked. This isn't a case of something where, when first used, linked lists were complex and innovative. They are immediately obvious to anyone with any basic understanding of the underlying architecture of a computer and how memory can be allocated. In fact I'd go as far as saying that the simple existence of direct addressing in instruction sets invalids this patent as prior art.

Other impressively stupid software patents:

• A database
• Resolution of abbreviated text in an electronic communications system
• Colouring text in emails
• Variable user interface based on document access privileges

Evidently something is not right here...

 

[cmaier]

Is it fair that if you create a technology and never use it - and then someone else creates the same thing and uses it - you're entitled to sue them? I think it's kinda stupid. If you create a technology and bring it to market then fine. But if you don't and someone else happens to create the same thing and does bring it to markt - then why do you have the right to do sue them?

Because you may have put a lot of effort into coming up with the invention ,and not have the resources to put it into practice. When you try to license it to those who do have the resources, they may refuse to pay, and instead just steal your idea.

 

[BC2009]

Is it fair that if you create a technology and never use it - and then someone else creates the same thing and uses it - you're entitled to sue them? I think it's kinda stupid. If you create a technology and bring it to market then fine. But if you don't and someone else happens to create the same thing and does bring it to markt - then why do you have the right to do sue them?

No it is not fair. Patents are meant to encourage and protect innovation. There should definitely be laws (as one poster suggested) on:

1) Must implement the invention within X years in a product that is actively marketed OR license the patent to others who implement it in products that are actively marketed, otherwise the patent is void.

2) If no product that implements the invention has been actively marketed within X years than the patent is void, and any lawsuit regarding the product should be thrown out.

Anyway, when somebody sits on a patent and does nothing with it, then there is no innovation.

 

[BC2009]

I still think the best solution for this issue is to take 4 steps:

1. Require that the jury for every patent trial consist of only experts in the field. The costs of this can be born by both parties
2. Require an automatic, mandatory expiration of any patent where a product or service has not been developed and demonstrated to the patent office within 2 years (no exceptions)
3. Ensure that the patents are VERY narrowly construed. The person would be entitled to defend only precisely what their patent says. If any aspect is vague, it becomes automatically stricken.
4. Bar any lawsuit for patent infringement until such time as a product is on the market and being actively pursued by the marketer. If there is no product or service, the judge would be required by law to throw out the case

Of course, patent troll lawyers would hate this, but frankly who cares?

Great suggestions -- you should also be allowed to invent, and then license, but if none of your licensees are using your invention and you are not either then if there is no product with your invention actively marketed within X years then the patent should be void and any lawsuit should be thrown out.

I fully agree with you.

 

[rmwebs]

paging Adidas...we might need your 10mil after all...

I can just hear the phone call!

"Hey Herbert Hainer, its Steve here...listen....about that advert we rejected....we were only joking buddy! Why dont you pop by the office for a coffee"

 

[cmaier]

Great suggestions -- you should also be allowed to invent, and then license, but if none of your licensees are using your invention and you are not either then if there is no product with your invention actively marketed within X years then the patent should be void and any lawsuit should be thrown out.

I fully agree with you.

Dumb suggestion. All anyone who wants to use your idea has to do is refuse to license it and wait you out?