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

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So, you are saying that we should go against the constitution of the united sates that protects people who invent things, such as software and not allow them to protect it by having a patent for a limited time?

There is absolutely NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution about software patents so spare us the total BS factor here. Congress has never enacted a law to cover software patents either. It's a complete fabrication of sorts for companies to push these things through the patent office with little to no thought about whether abstract ideas SHOULD be patentable (early court rulings said ABSOLUTELY *NO*) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law )

The problem is the courts are full of computer illiterate morons who actually think that transistor states are "tangible" inventions inside a machine. That's a load of crap. Patent law is to protect ideas for actual inventions, not programming code, which should fall under copyright law, not patent law.

It is crazy out there. But if people can't patent their work, what's the motivation to do it if others can just wait for you to innovate, then copy your whole process?

Have you ever heard of Copyright Law? Programs are not a "process". They're instructions to a computer to flip electronic transistor registers, nothing more. You turn off the computer, the running program is erased out of memory. There's nothing "substantial" about it. It is the equivalent of a printed set of instruction sheets on how to operate a machine. How the heck are instructions an invention? The iPod Touch is an invention. The OS and Apps running on it are NOT inventions or part of the iPod Touch just because they can instruct it to light up the screen. If a worker were required to push a button to make a screen light up, that worker is not part of the machine! He might be part of the operational process, but not the invention itself. This is why it has gotten out of hand. Some 80 year old judge on the supreme court isn't going to have the foggiest notion of what makes computers work. They grew up in the age of AM transistor radios and they probably don't even know how they work.

I mean can you even imagine if a company had patented the "operating system" around the time of CPM ??? We'd still all be using monochrome monitors and wondering why computers suck so much because no one else would be allowed to make an operating system. It's so much BS.

 

[sgentle]

So, you are saying that we should go against the constitution of the united sates that protects people who invent things, such as software and not allow them to protect it by having a patent for a limited time?

You don't seem to understand what patents are (perhaps you're blinded by the idealistic notion of what patents were supposed to be, not reality).

The truth is that patents don't protect anything. All they allow somebody to do is to sue somebody who is using a patented idea. Now, these two ideas may sound like the same thing, but they're not at all - the main distinction being that since patent litigation is so expensive, they offer no protection to individuals - they can't afford to sue a company if they have a patent, so really it's a system that is only useful between companies that have a lot of money.

Now the first item wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't for my next points - I mean, companies pay for a lot of research and development, so perhaps it's fair for them to sue for a patent that they paid to invent. But the second problem is in what you can get a patent for. A patent is supposed to be innovative and non-obvious, but since the people who assess and grant patents don't seem to have much idea about technology and software, many patents are filed and granted for ideas that are already in use, or ideas that are completely obvious to anyone with experience in technology (take the patent for selling music on the Internet that came up recently for example, or Amazon's one click checkout patent... Not exactly difficult ideas to come up with). Now, clearly the idea of prior art is meant to prevent this, but juries aren't made up of experts either so usually stupid patents are still upheld.

The third problem is how patents are used. Many of the patents that come up in these big cases were bought from people who often seem to have filed them with no intention of ever producing a product, and sold to companies who just use them as a cash grab.

Nobody is arguing against the idea of inventors protecting things that they fairly invented - but the patent system is completely broken and doesn't fulfill this purpose in any way at all.

 

[cmaier]

Sorry, I can't always read entire threads.

I guess if Apple eventually loses it's appeals, Apple will be suing Steel Skies. I have a feeling Apple could handle the finacial hit, Steel Skies not so much.

Sue them for what? They didn't do anything wrong.

 

[BC2009]

They must know what's going on around them.

No... your assertion that "they must know what's going on around them" without any backing is incredibly misinformed. Nobody holds a monthly presentation describing all the latest tech patents granted that month by the USPTO.

If you bothered to read the part of my original post that you did not quote then you would know why. I work in this area, specifically dealing with the handling of patents for a major international company. I know what I am talking about when I say that the odds of them knowing they were infringing when they implemented Spotlight, Time Machine or Cover Flow are incredibly slim.

In all likelihood they were first made aware of infringement when the patent holder asked them to license it. They probably felt the amount he was asking was too steep and figured they stood a better chance in court. Based on the ruling, they likely bet wrong.

 

[iVoid]

Sue them for what? They didn't do anything wrong.

Technically neither did Apple. "right" and "wrong" aren't really legal terms, especially in patent law.

Now they (apple and Steel Skies) probably didn't know about the patent at the time Cover Flow was licensed from SS, but why would Apple be the only one responsible for violating these patents if it was supposedly Steel Skies who licensed it to Apple with the presumption that Steel Skies had the right to license it?

At the very least, I'm sure Apple will be asking for their licensing fees back if they don't win their appeals. Depending on the contracts, Steel Skies could be on the hook for more.

 

[cmaier]

Technically neither did Apple. "right" and "wrong" aren't really legal terms, especially in patent law.

Now they (apple and Steel Skies) probably didn't know about the patent at the time Cover Flow was licensed from SS, but why would Apple be the only one responsible for violating these patents if it was supposedly Steel Skies who licensed it to Apple with the presumption that Steel Skies had the right to license it?

At the very least, I'm sure Apple will be asking for their licensing fees back if they don't win their appeals. Depending on the contracts, Steel Skies could be on the hook for more.

No. You misunderstand how patent licenses work. A patent doesn't give you a right to do anything. Steel skies, by licensing its IP, does not warrant that there are no other patents that might prevent practicing it's patents. A patent does not grant a right to practice, only a right to exclude. So apple bought only the right to exclude others from doing whatever steel skies had patented, not the right to do what steel skies had patented.

To the extent apple Bought code, unless steel skies knew that it was violating patents, it is not on the hook.

And the law does indeed distinguish right from wrong. "wrong" means someone has a cause of action against you. There would be no such cause of action here.

 

[dejo]

Now they (apple and Steel Skies) probably didn't know about the patent at the time Cover Flow was licensed from SS, but why would Apple be the only one responsible for violating these patents if it was supposedly Steel Skies who licensed it to Apple with the presumption that Steel Skies had the right to license it?

Cover Flow was not licensed; it was acquired. So your whole argument kinda falls apart.

 

[xbjllb]

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.

Are you kidding? Long-term licensing deals are a "bag of hurt".

Instead, you just steal it as long as you can, or pretend you don't need it and it will go away.

 

[jameskatt]

Some lawyers need the death penalty

Some lawyers need the death penalty

 

[cmaier]

Some lawyers need the death penalty

Apple's, for losing, I assume?

 

[macintoshtoffy]

i hope that these patent trolls eventually wake the big players up to put pressure on the US government to make changes to ensure that such broad reaching applications are not held up as being legitimate.

At the moment, however, the major players aren't coming together because they would sooner cut off their nose to spite their face - that as long as their competitor is being screwed over they don't consider the implication that maybe they'll be next.

It is of no benefit having a system where you have a legal department almost the same size as your R&D department - sure, protect intellectual property of real innovations rather than patent applications whose language is so broad it could cover almost any sort of technology imaginable.

 

[macswitcha2]

What did Apple exactly steal?

 

[Chwisch87]

There should be a simple 'use it or lose it' rule on all patents. If you don't turn your patent into a real product within 2 years then you should lose the patent. This would encourage genuine inventors and discourage patent-squatters who just patent stuff hoping someone will eventually infringe it (probably inadvertently) so they get a big payout through the courts.

Thank you!

I mean how often do we see a patent with some simple A >>> B >>> C diagram. Slide to unlock, animation fly it, home screen. We need serious patent reform in this country.

But I am totally in favor of a use it or lose it rule. There should be certain exceptions like if you can prove you are in negotiations and can't sell your idea to someone else you should be able to keep it. This would prevent someone from just not buying your patent or a party of people until it became public domain. But yes if you patent something and don't sell it or not make a product out of it, you lose it! All this lawsuit is I bet you a lawyer friend convinced this guy he had a case against apple because of some random interface GUI idea he had ten years ago..

 

[charlituna]

This software patent stuff must stop. Software patents should not be allowed.

on the contrary, patents should be allowed. They are not the issue. It is patents that are merely ideas (unless the patent has a very limited use it or lose it condition) or patents that companies refuse to license the tech or want insane conditions etc that are the issue. ANd also perhaps allowing someone to wait 20 years until someone else has actually made tons of money before they go 'hey I have a patent' that is an issue.

There are rules in patents that if you create a significant improvement on an item as it stands in the patent then you made something new. This is how a lot of folks get around 'idea patents', saying they significantly improved on the idea by actually creating the tech to make it work. Perhaps Apple will be in a position to use such a claim.

If they end up having to pay it it'll obviously knock $625 Million off that quarter's profits.

These kinds of payments are not taken out of the sales numbers. They are part of what those billions in the bank are for

There is absolutely NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution about software patents so spare us the total BS factor here.

yes there is

Congress has never enacted a law to cover software patents either.

yes they did.

Software might just be 1s and 0s and transistor states but the exact set of 1s and 0s and the exact transistor states etc to create a particular result is most definitely a discovery and as such Article 1 of the Constitution and the US Patent Code do apply.

 

[iMichaela]

Oh for the love of god.

 

[MythicFrost]

I don't have time to read all of this, but could anyone fill me in? What patents is Apple infringing on?

 

[rembert]

Movies and music aren't patented. They are copyrighted. Copyright for software would be the way to go (though copyright laws should also be severely revamped).

Patenting software is no different than patenting math - it should not be possible.

And, not to forget: ideas and business methods.

The writers of StarTrek would be the richest people on earth if they had patented all ideas which made it into the series.

In the basics software patents are good thing: they can protect a great invention against theft allowing one to earn back investments. But nowadays software patents are abused in very severe ways.

I am a software developer who does go beyond the beaten tracks and I'm glad I'm not living / working in the US. My hands would be tight way too much and I'd be sued many times already. Yes, we do have software patents in Europe as well and they're stupid as well. They're granted by the European patent office while they don't have any legal status. In the Netherlands (my country) no software patent lawsuit was ever won by patent holders. In the UK it's different. For instance the idea of wireless student result tracking was patented and enforced - a secondary school who used something like an iPod Touch to track student results was forced to pay the patent fees.

I've been part of a project which involved video streaming over the internet using a groundbreaking streaming method (back in 1997). We didn't patent it bud did make quite some money with it.

I don't like to play the patent game of sueing and getting sued, exchanging patents and so on. I prefer to keep coding and making money with my products itself. And if other people manage to improve my product by stealing the ideas - well, so be it. Actually, I prefer to launch my software as open source - it boosts innovation a lot as other people take a look at it and expand the code in a way they prefer (and should publish their improvement as open source as well - people who don't, I'd sue them if I found out). So, I prefer the open-source game over the patent game.

Apple is playing both games. The slider-patent is too stupid to think about. But it does earn Apple some "exchange-money" in this game.

Anyway, the software patent regulations just have to be reviewed very soon, in both US and Europe (and the rest of the world). They're hurting the business more than the business gains from it (apart from those patent troll companies) - and if the business is hurt, then customers will be hurt too as they'll pay the final bill.

 

[hissyfit]

yeah!

It is crazy out there. But if people can't patent their work, what's the motivation to do it if others can just wait for you to innovate, then copy your whole process?

why wouldn't they pay up in the first place?
lord knows Apple charges enough for their products!
Steeling is illegal, that's what patents are for to protect the developer. that voids out that dudes original comment.

 

[OllyW]

I don't have time to read all of this, but could anyone fill me in? What patents is Apple infringing on?

They are linked in this AppleInsider report.

 

[Ori]

Use it or lose it, this should be the software patent laws. Not invent it and store it for potential value.

Now I disagree on this. A small inventor comes up with an idea. Writes a bit of code....shows how it can be done. Tries to get backing, but noone is interested as they say it is useless. He has his patents, but can't do anything with it.
2 years later Apple/Microsoft/Google/anyone come up with a great idea......by your rational that poor inventor got nothing.

The problem is the vague aspect of these patents. A patent has to be specific to what it does and how it does it. As they stand in the USA it seems that you can patent an idea with no way or clue of how to implement it.

As much as I disagree with slide to unlock patent, it is clearly described in the patent.

It is a very complex issue and I hope that someone comes up with a fair solution to the small guy as well as the big boys.

 

[bruinsrme]

The inability of some to understand the basis for pro-Apple bias on an Apple users forum will forever confound the rational thinker.

Hmm perhaps some "apple users" have the ability to think rationally without bias.

 

[fifthworld]

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.

cmaier is right, this was indeed my point. I thought the paradox was self-explanatory.

 

[MythicFrost]

They are linked in this AppleInsider report.

Ah great, thanks.

 

[MorphingDragon]

The really sad/ironic part of this is that 625mil is peanuts for Apple.

 

[OllyW]

The really sad/ironic part of this is that 625mil is peanuts for Apple.

It's still enough to wipe out the profits from the first 20 million Apple TV sales.