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

[TexasAggie]

My point was, and is, that software is treated the same as music and art.

Not really. You can patent software that is stored on some type of non-transitory medium. You cannot patent music or art, even if it is stored on a non-transitory medium, since the patent office views music or art as non-functional.

So much for the last 13 pages of this thread.

Apple wins patents for Cover Flow, Time Machine and Magic Mouse

It doesn't matter if Apple has a patent to cover flow or time machine. You can still infringe someone else's patent even if you have a patent. If someone patented the refrigerator and you got a patent for a refrigerator/freezer combination, you could still infringe the patent for the refrigerator if you manufacture the refrigerator/freezer combination.

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

Article I, Section 8 includes:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

[cmaier]

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."

That doesn't solve apple's problem.

Not really. You can patent software that is stored on some type of non-transitory medium. You cannot patent music or art, even if it is stored on a non-transitory medium, since the patent office views music or art as non-functional.

You can patent a medium containing executable instructions, a machine running instructions, or a method of operating a machine to do something.

You can patent a medium containing music, a machine capable of playing music, or a method of operating a machine to play music.

You cannot patent the actual text of the source code, just like you cannot patent the notes of the musical composition.

It's the same.

 

[Mochi Hana]

Looks like Steve Balmer is in agreement.

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

That picture makes me laugh yet freaks me out at the same time.

 

[TexasAggie]

You cannot patent the actual text of the source code, just like you cannot patent the notes of the musical composition. It's the same.

No one said you can patent the text of any source code. But if I have a patent on a medium that contains instructions for performing X, Y, and Z steps, I've patented the software. The only things that wouldn't infringe would be:
- you thinking of software code, which isn't software
- a transitory signal containing a software program like when you download something, which would be stored on both ends and therefore infringing at both ends
- a printout of software code, which isn't software but a representation of the software that was printed out.

You can patent a medium containing executable instructions, a machine running instructions, or a method of operating a machine to do something.

You can patent a medium containing music, a machine capable of playing music, or a method of operating a machine to play music.

You can patent a CD or DVD containing software instructions for performing X, Y, and Z steps. It is what's stored on the DVD or CD that makes the product patentable. Even if a standard CD or DVD is used, the product of that CD or DVD with the instructions can be patented.

You can patent a medium containing music or art only if the structure of the medium itself is patentable. If you use a standard CD or DVD, you could never obtain a patent for that CD or DVD with music or art stored on it. The physical structure of the CD or DVD must be different, but in that case the content on the CD or DVD doesn't matter. That's a huge difference.

 

[xbjllb]

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.

All that does is SOLIDIFY Apple's patent infringement on earlier illegally copied patents.

The patent office is not in the business of actually CHECKING to see if ANY submission infringes. Not for a single second.

The gov needs money; You pays your money, you gets your patent.

And in some cases, a completely justifiable and very nasty lawsuit with inevitable and commensurate fines and penalties.

 

[mdude85]

The patent office is not in the business of actually CHECKING to see if ANY submission infringes. Not for a single second.

The Patent Office is, however, in the business of making sure its submissions are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by prior art.

 

[cmaier]

The gov needs money; You pays your money, you gets your patent.

Um. no. The vast majority of applications do not mature into issued patents, due to insurmountable rejections by the USPTO.

 

[mdude85]

Um. no. The vast majority of applications do not mature into issued patents, due to insurmountable rejections by the USPTO.

Historically speaking, the rate of allowed application to applications applied-for hovers between 45% and 65% -- currently the allowance rate is around 55%. So I think it's innacurate to say that the vast majority of application do not "mature" into issued patents. If anything, the majority of applications do eventually become patents.

This is not to say that a randomly selected patent applicaton will have a 55% chance of becoming a patent -- that is highly dependent on the quality of the application. But the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[cmaier]

Historically speaking, the rate of allowed application to applications applied-for hovers between 45% and 65% -- currently the allowance rate is around 55%. So I think it's innacurate to say that the vast majority of application do not "mature" into issued patents. If anything, the majority of applications do eventually become patents.

This is not to say that a randomly selected patent applicaton will have a 55% chance of becoming a patent -- that is highly dependent on the quality of the application. But the numbers speak for themselves.

Your numbers are misleading as they include continuations and divisionals (if one member of a family issues, obviously the likelihood of m ore applications with identical specs issuing is higher).

 

[mdude85]

Your numbers are misleading as they include continuations and divisionals (if one member of a family issues, obviously the likelihood of m ore applications with identical specs issuing is higher).

Sure, although this is unlikely to significantly affect the allowance rate enough to put it into "vast majority" territory, when you factor in claims of different scope as well as abandoned applications within the family.

http://jip.kentlaw.edu/art/volume 4/4 Chi-Kent J Intell Prop 186.pdf

 

[r.j.s]

Let's keep political comments out of the discussion please.

 

[xbjllb]

Let's keep political comments out of the discussion please.

"The gov needs money" is a political comment and not merely an eternal fact of life? I was only trying to illustrate the motivation of the patent office to grant everything that came its way exactly like the copyright office does.

Sorry for not explaining my point better. It wasn't meant as any sort of insult of the gov.

 

[mdude85]

"The gov needs money" is a political comment and not merely an eternal fact of life? I was only trying to illustrate the motivation of the patent office to grant everything that came its way exactly like the copyright office does.

Sorry for not explaining my point better. It wasn't meant as any sort of insult of the gov.

You do know that copyrights are fundamentally different from patents, right? And that the patent office has a vested interest in not granting everything that comes its way, unlike the copyright office, because the rights that are granted by copyrights are diametrically opposed to the rights granted by patents? And that the majority of the patent office's revenue does not come from fees to grant a patent?

 

[xbjllb]

You do know that copyrights are fundamentally different from patents, right? And that the patent office has a vested interest in not granting everything that comes its way, unlike the copyright office, because the rights that are granted by copyrights are diametrically opposed to the rights granted by patents? And that the majority of the patent office's revenue does not come from fees to grant a patent?

I would expect that might change, and soon, as streamlining the patent office to run like the copyright office would not only save a ton of money, but earn far more as well. Not to mention for lawyers too who would sort it out.

Actually, I'm surprised they aren't already run exactly the same.

 

[cmaier]

I would expect that might change, and soon, as streamlining the patent office to run like the copyright office would not only save a ton of money, but earn far more as well. Not to mention for lawyers too who would sort it out.

Actually, I'm surprised they aren't already run exactly the same.

You are very confused. Copyrights are automatic - all registering it does is allow you to sue for cash instead of an injunction. You don't have to register - you get a copyright as soon as you create a work, whether or not you ever tell the government about it.

Patents, on the other hand, are a government granted monopoly, and would make no sense for the government to grant a monopoly for an invention everyone else already knows about. Hence the uspto reviews patent applications and decides which monopolies to grant.

What you are saying is like saying that the post office and the patent office should run the same way - the two have nothing at all do to with each other.

 

[x0r-lord]

eh, microsoft is all about infringing on other people's work. It's how the company does things. They've gotten good at making things different enough so that any patent suit would fail. So, it's not even worth worrying about.

Bill gates probably STILL uses a mac..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvskEGWMLp4&NR=1

tell me that isn't the best video ever, lol

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The Patent Office is, however, in the business of making sure its submissions are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by prior art.

nope they are not. They put it on the person submitting for it that they have done the checking and it does not violated anything else.

I could submit a patent for lets say cover flow (or something almost exactly like it) and chances are I could get it approved. Now it would be worthless because Apple and this guy both come before me.

 

[xbjllb]

You are very confused. Copyrights are automatic - all registering it does is allow you to sue for cash instead of an injunction. You don't have to register - you get a copyright as soon as you create a work, whether or not you ever tell the government about it.

Patents, on the other hand, are a government granted monopoly, and would make no sense for the government to grant a monopoly for an invention everyone else already knows about. Hence the uspto reviews patent applications and decides which monopolies to grant.

What you are saying is like saying that the post office and the patent office should run the same way - the two have nothing at all do to with each other.

I disagree. Just because they are legally handled and perceived differently doesn't mean they should be or will be in the future; both are (supposedly) original creative creations out of someone's mind and intellectual property that only becomes physical for use.

I would expect economics to force the patent office to come around to my way of thinking sooner than later.

I am suggesting all involved step out of the box, while you're stuck on describing the current box.

 

[mdude85]

I disagree. Just because they are legally handled and perceived differently doesn't mean they should be or will be in the future; both are (supposedly) original creative creations out of someone's mind and intellectual property that only becomes physical for use.

I would expect economics to force the patent office to come around to my way of thinking sooner than later.

I am suggesting all involved step out of the box, while you're stuck on describing the current box.

It's encouraging that you are thinking out of the box to come up with new ideas to fundamentally change the world's patent systems, but I think you are surprised that the patent office and the copyright office operate differently because you are not aware of the vast differences between a patent and a copyright.

The U.S. patent office was threatened tremendously these past 16 months by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and still managed to survive without modifying itself according to your line of thinking. The U.S. patent office also survived the actual Great Depression.

 

[mdude85]

nope they are not. They put it on the person submitting for it that they have done the checking and it does not violated anything else.

I could submit a patent for lets say cover flow (or something almost exactly like it) and chances are I could get it approved. Now it would be worthless because Apple and this guy both come before me.

In case you're interested in learning how the U.S. patent office reviews its submissions .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner

 

[cmaier]

nope they are not. They put it on the person submitting for it that they have done the checking and it does not violated anything else.

I could submit a patent for lets say cover flow (or something almost exactly like it) and chances are I could get it approved. Now it would be worthless because Apple and this guy both come before me.

No that's not how it works. With a couple of exceptions for certain types of expedited patent examination processes, in general the applicant has no duty to do any kind of a search for prior art; they only have to submit prior art they happen to be aware of. They don't have to go looking for it.

The patent examiner assigned to the application performs a search for prior art, primarily by searching pre-existing patents and patent applications, but also by searching databases of other printed publications.

 

[xbjllb]

It's encouraging that you are thinking out of the box to come up with new ideas to fundamentally change the world's patent systems, but I think you are surprised that the patent office and the copyright office operate differently because you are not aware of the vast differences between a patent and a copyright.

The U.S. patent office was threatened tremendously these past 16 months by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and still managed to survive without modifying itself according to your line of thinking. The U.S. patent office also survived the actual Great Depression.

What's coming is, and will be far worse, AND last far longer. Try to pay attention, and not to voices with vested interests selling crap that benefits from either position.

 

[mdude85]

What's coming is, and will be far worse, AND last far longer. Try to pay attention, and not to voices with vested interests selling crap that benefits from either position.

Sounds very foreboding ... what do you believe is coming?

 

[AdeFowler]

Does anyone know the latest on this story? It's gone very quiet.