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

[cmaier]

But how can you patient a process? Apple and Mirror both wrote a process on how to back up data as a complete backup. You can patent the code behind it, but not the process.

Of course you can patent a process.

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Agree, this should also apply to any property. For example if you own a land but you don't build on it within 2 years then you should lose the ownership. Same if you own more than one car, and you keep one in the garage unused for more than 2 years.

Ridiculous. You define proper use of land as building on it? What if I just want to leave it as is for my own pleasure? What if I believe it's value will increase over time and I want to wait to sell it for that reason? Your logic is being used to take and or attempt to take property all over the country. I believe it was upheld by the supreme courting Providence, RI to take waterfront homes from people so that a private developer could build a freaking shopping center. Luckily, it was knoced back a few steps in a case in Mesa, AZ where a hardware shop owner tried to move his mid block store to the corner lot used by a brake shop because he clamied he would make better use of the property. The brake shop owner prevailed, but it is only a matter of time before power and money get the supreme court they want to claim we are all just squatters on the rich man's plantation. Now, I don't agree with patent squatting if it limits the actual development of products and technology. Houever, I believe all apple needed to do was negotiate a fair price for the use of the patent. So the real question becomes is the settlement amount fair?

 

[dogzilla]

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?

Yes, it's so true. After all, mankind didn't progress at all until the idea of patents arrived.

 

[Dillenger]

$600+ million to Apple is like me getting a parking ticket when my cities taxing machine for parking goes to "Out of Time" please feed me another .25 cents

 

[cmaier]

Ridiculous. You define proper use of land as building on it? What if I just want to leave it as is for my own pleasure? What if I believe it's value will increase over time and I want to wait to sell it for that reason? Your logic is being used to take and or attempt to take property all over the country. I believe it was upheld by the supreme courting Providence, RI to take waterfront homes from people so that a private developer could build a freaking shopping center. Luckily, it was knoced back a few steps in a case in Mesa, AZ where a hardware shop owner tried to move his mid block store to the corner lot used by a brake shop because he clamied he would make better use of the property. The brake shop owner prevailed, but it is only a matter of time before power and money get the supreme court they want to claim we are all just squatters on the rich man's plantation. Now, I don't agree with patent squatting if it limits the actual development of products and technology. Houever, I believe all apple needed to do was negotiate a fair price for the use of the patent. So the real question becomes is the settlement amount fair?

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.

 

[iggibiggi]

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.

I agree with you 100%, and not just because it's Apple on the end. There are SO MANY patents for things that have never been put to use. I know some expire after 10 years, but I'm not 100% familiar with all the rules.

 

[Mike84]

Ridiculous. You define proper use of land as building on it? What if I just want to leave it as is for my own pleasure? What if I believe it's value will increase over time and I want to wait to sell it for that reason? Your logic is being used to take and or attempt to take property all over the country. I believe it was upheld by the supreme courting Providence, RI to take waterfront homes from people so that a private developer could build a freaking shopping center. Luckily, it was knoced back a few steps in a case in Mesa, AZ where a hardware shop owner tried to move his mid block store to the corner lot used by a brake shop because he clamied he would make better use of the property. The brake shop owner prevailed, but it is only a matter of time before power and money get the supreme court they want to claim we are all just squatters on the rich man's plantation. Now, I don't agree with patent squatting if it limits the actual development of products and technology. Houever, I believe all apple needed to do was negotiate a fair price for the use of the patent. So the real question becomes is the settlement amount fair?

What some people don't realize is that much like land, which is a type of property, intellectual property (copyright, patent, and trademark) is a form of property. The courts view this more in the form of property rights in something. So, in certain instances, like trademark, you may be given property rights in a trademark. Patents, however, do not extend for life because it would discourage competition. So, in essence, once the patent expires it belongs to the public. So, Bayer may have had a patent on aspirin many years ago, but lost it and now other companies make aspirin under different names.

 

[Glideslope]

You do realize that if the judge feels the jury has reached a conclusion incorrectly he/she can throw away that verdict and change the result of the case. Furthermore, the judge explains to the jury what is necessary to conclude whether an award is just or not. The jury does not arbitrarily decide a random amount. In other words, the judge does decide whether the amount should go before the jury. If juries were making calculations the system would be even worse than what it is now.

The Jury decides what they "feel" is correct. It becomes an exercise in emotional irrationality confined within a wide chasm defined by a Judge. Furthermore, most Jurors do not grasp their Judicial Instruction and depend on the Foreman for guidance, not the Judge.

Texas and Delaware are perfect examples of the failures in our system. Todays Jurors pale in comparison to decades past. In honor, intelligence, and desire to do the right thing. It makes no difference if it's Apple getting hit or Google.

Society has decayed to the point of being unable to carry out judicial exercises without prejudice. There is no way out other than to remove Texas and Delaware from the union.

 

[LagunaSol]

When its apple filing, the fan boys applaud for protecting apple's IP but when they're hit with a lawsuit those people suing apple are patent trolls.

Perhaps because Apple actually releases products based on their patents rather than using the patents as sources of income themselves?

Please learn the meaning of "patent troll." All tech companies file many patents. Companies (or individuals) who subsist merely on their patent portfolios with no actual product implementation are regarded as patent trolls.

Actually they borrowed the interface from Windows Media Center.

Windows Media Center has changed to be more Cover Flow-like (or in the context of my argument, more Mirror Worlds-like). It did not originally work this way.

 

[Winni]

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

You cannot PATENT music or movies. You can only COPYRIGHT them, and that is a COMPLETELY different thing.

A patent protects a concept, a copyright protects a certain implementation of something or a certain work.

So... It should be enough to have copyright laws protecting software. There is ZERO need for software patents. Why? Well, let's say Microsoft got a patent for Word (or to be more precise: word processing algorithms), then they could sue the crap out of Apple for releasing Pages, which also implements word processing algorithms. Or if Apple had a patent for Safari, then they could sue the living daylights out of the Mozilla Foundation for producing Firefox. And if somebody had a software patent for a pocket calculator, he would be the only person who would be allowed to write a calculator app.

 

[Mike84]

The Jury decides what they "feel" is correct. It becomes an exercise in emotional irrationality confined within a wide chasm defined by a Judge. Furthermore, most Jurors do not grasp their Judicial Instruction and depend on the Foreman for guidance, not the Judge.

Texas and Delaware are perfect examples of the failures in our system. Todays Jurors pale in comparison to decades past. In honor, intelligence, and desire to do the right thing. It makes no difference if it's Apple getting hit or Google.

Society has decayed to the point of being unable to carry out judicial exercises without prejudice. There is no way out other than to remove Texas and Delaware from the union.

I mean, you are right, you are not wrong, but the issue here is that, unfortunately, that is how our system works and it probably won't change. No one can be TRULY objective, not even a judge experienced, for example, in computer programming. So, whether judges decide a case because they are experienced in the technical field the case arises under, shouldn't really matter.

I am not saying that our judicial system is perfect, it is far from it. However, for what it does and how it works, for the most part, it gets the job done. Sure, some states, like Texas or California, will always have those odd judges or judicial decisions that make you think twice. That is why one can appeal a case and, hopefully, reach the supreme court in hopes that a true and rational decision is reached.

 

[phyber]

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?

Now you have competition and you strive make and keep your product better than his. No getting lazy now, if you don't keep on top of it he's probably going to overtake you.

 

[fifthworld]

Ridiculous. You define proper use of land as building on it? What if I just want to leave it as is for my own pleasure? What if I believe it's value will increase over time and I want to wait to sell it for that reason? Your logic is being used to take and or attempt to take property all over the country. I believe it was upheld by the supreme courting Providence, RI to take waterfront homes from people so that a private developer could build a freaking shopping center. Luckily, it was knoced back a few steps in a case in Mesa, AZ where a hardware shop owner tried to move his mid block store to the corner lot used by a brake shop because he clamied he would make better use of the property. The brake shop owner prevailed, but it is only a matter of time before power and money get the supreme court they want to claim we are all just squatters on the rich man's plantation. Now, I don't agree with patent squatting if it limits the actual development of products and technology. Houever, I believe all apple needed to do was negotiate a fair price for the use of the patent. So the real question becomes is the settlement amount fair?

And how this is different from what patent squatters do?

 

[AlmostThere]

The USPTO is backed up. They get a lot of applications, and there's a lot of work searching for prior art, drafting rejections, considering new arguments, etc.

Oh, I don't doubt the amount of work involved but, with a bit of luck, the backlog will soon be cleared though?

I might be quite worried if the patent system, something so tightly knit to modern society's ability to innovate in science and technology, depended on a process that was overwhelmed and struggling to cope.

That said, I am grateful for the opportunity to offer a solution in the form of a Simpsons' quote:

If there's one thing America needs, it's more lawyers.
-Lionel Hutz, "Marge In Chains"

 

[maflynn]

Perhaps because Apple actually releases products based on their patents rather than using the patents as sources of income themselves?

Please learn the meaning of "patent troll." All tech companies file many patents. Companies (or individuals) who subsist merely on their patent portfolios with no actual product implementation are regarded as patent trolls.

Duh, you completely missed my point. It does not matter who was suing them. the point is apple lost. It does not matter if a company uses patents to derive revenue.

Apple uses patents to quash competition, that is just as bad as patent trolls

 

[kdarling]

Strange case.

Apple didn't even invent Cover Flow.

IIRC, Apple bought it from a third party artist and his developer a few years ago.

 

[ImNoSuperMan]

It seems most people in this thread have no idea what they are talking about. The user you are quoting was talking about software "ideas". In europe, acquiring a software patent is extremely difficult (especially in countries like Germany). I know because I have filed for patents in my previous job when I was working in R&D. You can patent a particular implementation of an idea related to software but you can't patent a software idea.

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. He wrote a plugin for thunderbird and he got the patent.

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.

That sounds like the absolutely right way to do this. Why isnt US following the same way

So the Texas-based company should have filed their patent in what state, exactly?

I've read about this one specific judge/court which has been awarding way too many favorable results to these patent trolls. If I was a patent troll, I'd be stupid not to move to texas.

 

[ikir]

Companies like Mirror Worlds LLC should not be allowed to sue for technology they don't actually use or have in any products. It should not be legal. When you patent something you must be using it in a real product that you have for sale (in my opinion).

I agree

 

[Mike84]

That sounds like the absolutely right way to do this. Why isnt US following the same way

It seems that the US affords the rights to people before they actually put something into use because it seems like the most economically efficient thing to do. I have developed or created something and I want it protected. However, I cannot produce it right now, and I may have to wait a few months while I look for a supplier,distributor, materials, etc. So, if I am granted the protection, I can rest assured that once I make the necessary business deals I have my product protected. Some companies may have the capital to develop something quickly, but the individual, for the most part in the US, needs time to assess the situation and plan accordingly. It would be a waste of capital to not have the protection.

 

[Glideslope]

I mean, you are right, you are not wrong, but the issue here is that, unfortunately, that is how our system works and it probably won't change. No one can be TRULY objective, not even a judge experienced, for example, in computer programming. So, whether judges decide a case because they are experienced in the technical field the case arises under, shouldn't really matter.

I am not saying that our judicial system is perfect, it is far from it. However, for what it does and how it works, for the most part, it gets the job done. Sure, some states, like Texas or California, will always have those odd judges or judicial decisions that make you think twice. That is why one can appeal a case and, hopefully, reach the supreme court in hopes that a true and rational decision is reached.

Well, I'd still like to see Delaware out of the Union before California.

 

[Mike84]

Well, I'd still like to see Delaware out of the Union before California.

I just laughed so much right now.

 

[lilo777]

Perhaps because Apple actually releases products based on their patents rather than using the patents as sources of income themselves?

Please learn the meaning of "patent troll." All tech companies file many patents. Companies (or individuals) who subsist merely on their patent portfolios with no actual product implementation are regarded as patent trolls.



Windows Media Center has changed to be more Cover Flow-like (or in the context of my argument, more Mirror Worlds-like). It did not originally work this way.

Actually, most Apple's patents are not used in any of its products so Apple clearly is a patent troll (if we accept that such thing exists)

 

[LagunaSol]

Duh, you completely missed my point.

Not at all. Here's your point I responded to:

When its apple filing, the fan boys applaud for protecting apple's IP but when they're hit with a lawsuit those people suing apple are patent trolls.

Apple's patent lawsuits involve patents Apple is actually using in products. When Apple is sued by an actual patent troll (i.e. a company with no actual products), yes, the "fan boys" (whatever) correctly point out such patent troll's trollish behavior.

Apple uses patents to quash competition, that is just as bad as patent trolls

No, it's not. Apple files patents, creates real products around those patents, and defends those real products via those patents.

Patent trolls create no actual product or service, unless you consider funding the legal community a service.

 

[Žalgiris]

Actually, most Apple's patents are not used in any of its products so Apple clearly is a patent troll (if we accept that such thing exists)

When was the last time Apple was asking for 625 000 000?

 

[maflynn]

No, it's not. Apple files patents, creates real products around those patents, and defends those real products via those patents.

Patent trolls create no actual product or service, unless you consider funding the legal community a service.

Yes and apple seems to be creating real products using other people's patents

You are still missing the point, it does not matter who holds the patent. Apple was found in violation