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

[maflynn]

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

Of course it will take 20 years to move that many apple tvs

 

[gnasher729]

No, software patents are fine. It's vague patents or ones that patent a concept instead of an implementation that should be destroyed. We need a judge that understands the issues and will take a stand and set some precedent for throwing out patents that are too vague or don't describe the exact process by which something is done (which allows someone else to do the same thing in a different way without getting sued).

The problem is not a judge that doesn't understand the issues. The problem is a judge in Texas who exactly understands his issue, and whose publicly stated goal is to make his court the number one court for all patent cases - by making it as easy as possible for plaintiffs to succeed, and as hard as possible for defendants, and by giving the biggest possible amounts of damages to plaintiffs. It's all good for his business.

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.

You can get such patents invalidated, but it is a time consuming process. And here we come back to the court in Texas: They try as hard as possible not to give the defendant proper time for their defense, and if say Apple managed to get these patents invalidated next year, any ruling would still stand (you can ask RIM who paid over 500 million for patents that they later managed to get invalidated; no refund).

 

[tdream]

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

Yeah expose should be on windows.

 

[MorphingDragon]

The problem is not a judge that doesn't understand the issues. The problem is a judge in Texas who exactly understands his issue, and whose publicly stated goal is to make his court the number one court for all patent cases - by making it as easy as possible for plaintiffs to succeed, and as hard as possible for defendants, and by giving the biggest possible amounts of damages to plaintiffs. It's all good for his business.

Thats some massive corruption.

 

[Popeye206]

I would hope that Apple and other high-tech companies should start lobbying for patent reform. Patent trolling needs to be stopped. That is all this is and it's ridiculous for everyone.

I would think such simple things such as, you must be the actual patent owner to sue would be a good start. Stops patent trolls from buying up lame patents. Second, it should be something that has been applied to, or is going to be applied to some commercial use or licensing of the patent IP should be openly offered. Lastly, there should be a limit on the time a company has to file a claim... waiting for years to go by so that products mature and run the tab up is silly.

 

[RobertMartens]

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.

I guess my main point should have been that I find it hard to believe that I myself knew about Gerlenter's work and that the engineers at Apple didn't. If you had read my comment above my reply to you, you might have understood my disbelief.

 

[cmaier]

I would hope that Apple and other high-tech companies should start lobbying for patent reform. Patent trolling needs to be stopped. That is all this is and it's ridiculous for everyone.

I would think such simple things such as, you must be the actual patent owner to sue would be a good start. Stops patent trolls from buying up lame patents. Second, it should be something that has been applied to, or is going to be applied to some commercial use or licensing of the patent IP should be openly offered. Lastly, there should be a limit on the time a company has to file a claim... waiting for years to go by so that products mature and run the tab up is silly.

Among other things, there is a time limit. (you can only get money damages for the past 6 years, and waiting an unreasonable length of time results in laches. ) And your other ideas would bankrupt institutions of higher learning.


It would be nice if people would learn a little bit about how things actually work before offering "solutions."

 

[irobot2003]

He is a smart slighly off center professor at Yale. He wrote a book among other things said that the OS of today all sucked. That they only mimic the real world with files and folders. That things on a computer aren't real and we should take advantage of that fact.

My jaw dropped when Apple unveiled Time Machine. It was EXACTLY the concept that he was pitching for 15 years. He had some programming skills but they were too dated and too limited for him to pull this off by himself.

[...]

Interesting... a little googling and yeah, it sure does seem like time machine is the same basic idea as lifestreams. Not sure I see the coverflow connection, but didn't really look that deeply into it.

 

[mdude85]

Can you give a reason for this line of thinking? Why should software be any different than music, movies, ect... ?

Music, movies and art are not patented, they are copyrighted. Some people believe software should be copyrighted (allowing people to capitalize on their intellectual property) but be ineligible for patenting.

 

[benthewraith]

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

Theoretically and practically, this should be done by the defense and plaintiff both during the voir dire process.

 

[cmaier]

Music, movies and art are not patented, they are copyrighted. Some people believe software should be copyrighted (allowing people to capitalize on their intellectual property) but be ineligible for patenting.

Music, movies, and art can be patented. The creative works embodying the music, movies, and art, cannot. Just as a machine executing source code to do something can be patented, but the source code cannot.

For instance, one could patent a method for creating pleasing sounds by using musical instruments (ignoring issues of obviousness and prior art - my point is that 35 USC 101 allows such patent subject matter).

 

[mdude85]

Music, movies, and art can be patented. The creative works embodying the music, movies, and art, cannot. Just as a machine executing source code to do something can be patented, but the source code cannot.

For instance, one could patent a method for creating pleasing sounds by using musical instruments (ignoring issues of obviousness and prior art - my point is that 35 USC 101 allows such patent subject matter).

35 USC 101 allows such subject matter, such as a method for playing music, to be patented if and only if the method steps are implemented by a machine or are sufficiently transformed to a different state or thing. The music itself has no tangible structure -- it is the creative work and as such, is an abstract idea and cannot by itself be patented, even if it were sufficiently transformed.

Simply because the method to produce the music using an instrument is patented, does not imply that the music itself is patented, in the same way that patenting a method of producing a machine including the step of spraying the machine with red paint does not provide patent protection on red paint.

Music, like literature, works of art, etc, are copyrightable and not patentable.

 

[irobot2003]

Music, movies and art are not patented, they are copyrighted. Some people believe software should be copyrighted (allowing people to capitalize on their intellectual property) but be ineligible for patenting.

That was the situation at one time... I think it was around 1969 that the patent office first started allowing software patents.

 

[Dr McKay]

Looks like Steve Balmer is in agreement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/05/microsoft-chief-executive-patent

 

[cmaier]

35 USC 101 allows such subject matter, such as a method for playing music, to be patented if and only if the method steps are implemented by a machine or are sufficiently transformed to a different state or thing. The music itself has no tangible structure -- it is the creative work and as such, is an abstract idea and cannot by itself be patented, even if it were sufficiently transformed.

Simply because the method to produce the music using an instrument is patented, does not imply that the music itself is patented, in the same way that patenting a method of producing a machine including the step of spraying the machine with red paint does not provide patent protection on red paint.

Music, like literature, works of art, etc, are copyrightable and not patentable.

That's my point (though you applied the wrong 35 USC 101 test that has been rejected by the supreme court - machine or transformation is no longer the law). Software cannot be patented, but doing the thing the software does can be. Music cannot be patented, but the act of playing the music can be. Software is thus already treated the same as other creative works,

 

[mdude85]

That's my point (though you applied the wrong 35 USC 101 test that has been rejected by the supreme court - machine or transformation is no longer the law). Software cannot be patented, but doing the thing the software does can be. Music cannot be patented, but the act of playing the music can be. Software is thus already treated the same as other creative works,

To my knowledge, the supreme court upheld the machine-or-transformation test in the recent Bilski decision as a strong predictor for eligibility under 101, but they stated that it shouldn't be the sole determinator for eligibilty. So I ought to retract my "if and only if" statement as not being totally accurate.

Your point was that music can be patented -- my point is that it cannot be patented because it is an abstract idea, and was therefore patent-ineligible even prior to the Bilski decision.

 

[cmaier]

To my knowledge, the supreme court upheld the machine-or-transformation test in the recent Bilski decision as a predictor for eligibility under 101, but they stated that it shouldn't be the sole determinator for eligibilty. So I ought to retract my "if and only if" statement as not being totally accurate.

Your point was that music can be patented -- my point is that it cannot be patented because it is an abstract idea.

Since it's not the sole determiner, it's no longer the test - that was the import of the supreme court Bilski ruling. There is no more bright line test. But whatever.

And that was not my point. My point was, and is, that software is treated the same as music and art. Abstract compositions are not patentable (but are copyrightable if they are fixed in a medium), but the act of performing is patentable (e.g. the mechanisms or actions taken to make the music are patentable, as are the mechanisms or actions taken to execute the software).

When people say "software shouldn't be patentable" what they really mean is that "things that can (perhaps only practically) be done in software should not be patentable." And justifying that position by comparison to art and music is wrong, since such a position would actually treat software far differently than art and music are currently treated.

 

[mdude85]

Since it's not the sole determiner, it's no longer the test - that was the import of the supreme court Bilski ruling. There is no more bright line test. But whatever.

And that was not my point. My point was, and is, that software is treated the same as music and art. Abstract compositions are not patentable (but are copyrightable if they are fixed in a medium), but the act of performing is patentable (e.g. the mechanisms or actions taken to make the music are patentable, as are the mechanisms or actions taken to execute the software).

When people say "software shouldn't be patentable" what they really mean is that "things that can (perhaps only practically) be done in software should not be patentable." And justifying that position by comparison to art and music is wrong, since such a position would actually treat software far differently than art and music are currently treated.

I disagree. Simply because M-T is no longer the sole test does not mean it is no longer a test or no longer the test in the vast majority of scenarios. The guidelines issued by the PTO to its employees, which are publicly available online, indicate that the M-T test is still a strong predictor for patent eligibility under 101 and should be applied. In exceptional scenarios, other tests may be applied as well. Supreme court made it pretty clear in majority decision that the M-T test should not by any means be thrown out. If anything, that is the import of the ruling.

Your exact words were "Music can be patented." I'm just trying to clear it up for whomever cares to follow our conversation that music by itself can definitely NOT be patented and as an abstract idea is strictly ineligible for patentability. Whether music, art and software should be considered intellectual equivalents, I think there are good points on both sides .

 

[cmaier]

I disagree. Simply because M-T is no longer the sole test does not mean it is no longer a test or no longer the test in the vast majority of scenarios. The guidelines issued by the PTO to its employees, which are publicly available online, indicate that the M-T test is still a strong predictor for patent eligibility under 101 and should be applied. In exceptional scenarios, other tests may be applied as well. Supreme court made it pretty clear in majority decision that the M-T test should not by any means be thrown out. If anything, that is the import of the ruling.

Your exact words were "Music can be patented." I'm just trying to clear it up for whomever cares to follow our conversation that music by itself can definitely NOT be patented and as an abstract idea is strictly ineligible for patentability. Whether music, art and software should be considered intellectual equivalents, I think there are good points on both sides .

The PTO guidelines have not been updated, as far as I know, so reliance on them would be improper. And you have the import wrong - before the supreme court ruling, machine or transformation was the ONLY test. Now that is not the case, and we are, essentially, left with no test that guarantees that particular subject matter conforms with (or fails to conform with) 35 USC 101. Meeting machine or transformation, in fact, no longer guarantees patentability, and failing machine or transformation no longer guarantees lack of patentability.

 

[mdude85]

The PTO guidelines have not been updated, as far as I know, so reliance on them would be improper. And you have the import wrong - before the supreme court ruling, machine or transformation was the ONLY test. Now that is not the case, and we are, essentially, left with no test that guarantees that particular subject matter conforms with (or fails to conform with) 35 USC 101. Meeting machine or transformation, in fact, no longer guarantees patentability, and failing machine or transformation no longer guarantees lack of patentability.

http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/06/28/uspto-memo-to-examiners/id=11439/

I guess we are going to disagree on the meat of the ruling. Someone aggressively seeking a patent might consider there to be no test; whereas someone seeking to ensure that all the thresholds of patentability have been met will first and foremost apply the M-T test. First and foremost applying the M-T test is part of the guidelines that PTO has issued.

From my perspective, the import of the ruling is basically "business as usual."

 

[farmboy]

The PTO guidelines have not been updated, as far as I know, so reliance on them would be improper. And you have the import wrong - before the supreme court ruling, machine or transformation was the ONLY test. Now that is not the case, and we are, essentially, left with no test that guarantees that particular subject matter conforms with (or fails to conform with) 35 USC 101. Meeting machine or transformation, in fact, no longer guarantees patentability, and failing machine or transformation no longer guarantees lack of patentability.

I assume you mean reliance on supposed new PTO guidelines would be improper, not existing guidelines?
At any rate, your back must be sore from carrying the weight of an honest-to-god intellectual discussion on the thread--rarified air the last year or so. Thanks.

http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/06/28/uspto-memo-to-examiners/id=11439/

I guess we are going to disagree on the meat of the ruling...
From my perspective, the import of the ruling is basically "business as usual."

One of you is arguing the law and the other the facts. Classic. Move NOT to dismiss, your honor.

 

[*LTD*]

So much for the last 13 pages of this thread.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/26965/

Apple wins patents for Cover Flow, Time Machine and Magic Mouse
Tuesday, October 05, 2010 - 05:14 PM EDT
"The US Patent and Trademark Office officially published a series of 14 newly granted patents for Apple Inc. today," Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

"The notables within this group are strangely timed to the Mirror Worlds patent infringement lawsuit against Apple," Purcher reports. "Apple has won another Cover Flow patent in addition to a set of patents pertaining to Apple's Time Machine. Both of these areas of technology were challenged in the lawsuit."

Purcher reports, "Apple has also won a pair of patents today that relate to both the design and technology behind their Magic Mouse."

 

[BC2009]

I guess my main point should have been that I find it hard to believe that I myself knew about Gerlenter's work and that the engineers at Apple didn't. If you had read my comment above my reply to you, you might have understood my disbelief.

No sorry, I missed your previous comment. I am not privy to Apple's policy on examining the IP of others. Although, its hard to miss high-profile stuff from Google or Microsoft, they may have a policy of "keep your head in the sand" otherwise. In the past it seems that as folks have approached Apple saying "here is my awesome idea that I patented" that Apple might turn around and acquire their patents or the company itself.

I don't know if this guy went in there guns blazing demanding exorbitant royalties, or if he approached Apple in a congenial manner hoping to sell or license the patents to them. If Apple planned on burying him in court, they clearly underestimated his position. But that is the risk of going to court rather than settling -- you never know what is going to happen.

I also did not check the ruling to see whether or not the judge ruled that Apple knowingly infringed on the patents. If so, it could be the reason for such high damages.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Looks like Steve Balmer is in agreement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/05/microsoft-chief-executive-patent

Hold Crap, intelligent words came from his mouth.

 

[foodog]

Constitutional?

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?

Could you tell me where in the US Constitution where patents is written about?