Apple iMessage Patent Describes the Ability to Edit Already Sent Texts

[TiggrToo]

You even quoted my citation, but again, it appeared you ignored what I wrote.

You even quoted my citation, but again, it appeared you ignored what I wrote.

Citation (citation) noun

1. The act of citing.
2.
a. A quotation of or explicit reference to a source for substantiation, as in a scholarly paper.
b. Law A reference to a previous court decision or other authority for a point of law, usually by case title and other information.

What is the source of your figures?

 

[Adam-Jobs]

They could do with learning from WhatsApp about features, some of which has been mentioned here. I love iMessage, but at times it does feel outdated. Less of the emoji/bitmojI, more useful/productive features.

 

[TiggrToo]

You asked him for a cite, also, with respect to his correct point that the Apple patent application we are talking about here is pretty likely to eventually issue as a patent, because it is a continuation, and thus has a much higher likelihood of being allowed. That’s all I was commenting on.

For the other statistics, you two seem to be talking past each other because you’re talking about applications not being found to be valid and thus not issuing as patents, and he’s talking about patents that already issued, and later are found invalid.

Don't care what they're referring to. I just asked for some source (citation) of those figures as is my right here at MR.

 

[cmaier]

Citation (citation) noun

1. The act of citing.
2.
a. A quotation of or explicit reference to a source for substantiation, as in a scholarly paper.
b. Law A reference to a previous court decision or other authority for a point of law, usually by case title and other information.

What is the source of your figures?

FWIW here’s a cite on what percentage of patent claims survive one of the most important post-grant invalidity procedures - inter partes reexamination. On average something like 30% of claims. Of course that doesn’t tell us anything about how many *patents* are invalidated - patents, themselves are not invalidated, but claims are. And if all claims are invalidated, then colloquially the patent is invalidated. But people don’t usually keep track of that, because it’s not too meaningful. When you engage in this procedure, you seldom try to invalidate *all* the claims; you focus on whatever claims you are accused of infringing.

Special Report – PTAB IPR Stats Over Time (Q4 2013 - Q3 2018) | AIA Blog

Finnegan’s PTAB stats team is pleased to supplement our standard monthly statistics with a new look at how claims have fared over time for IPR cases reaching final written decision. This information ...

www.finnegan.com

 

[TiggrToo]

FWIW here’s a cite on what percentage of patent claims survive one of the most important post-grant invalidity procedures - inter partes reexamination. On average something like 30% of claims. Of course that doesn’t tell us anything about how many *patents* are invalidated - patents, themselves are not invalidated, but claims are. And if all claims are invalidated, then colloquially the patent is invalidated. But people don’t usually keep track of that, because it’s not too meaningful. When you engage in this procedure, you seldom try to invalidate *all* the claims; you focus on whatever claims you are accused of infringing.

Special Report – PTAB IPR Stats Over Time (Q4 2013 - Q3 2018) | AIA Blog

Finnegan’s PTAB stats team is pleased to supplement our standard monthly statistics with a new look at how claims have fared over time for IPR cases reaching final written decision. This information ...

www.finnegan.com

Thank you for the citation. Question for you : What does "The highest monthly claim survival rate was 53.75% in May 2017, and the lowest survival rate (disregarding the first few months of final decisions due to the low sample size and 0% survival rate) was 3.54% in August 2014" actually mean?

 

[cmaier]

Don't care what they're referring to. I just asked for some source (citation) of those figures as is my right here at MR.

Here’s a cite that shows 6000 is about the number of PTO challenges per year to validity: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AIA Statistics_March2017.pdf

That also gives statistics on the outcomes.

This shows the number of patents filed per year in the US:

U.S. Patent Statistics Summary Table, Calendar Years 1963 to 2020, 05/2021 update

It also shows how many patents actually issue as valid per year.
[automerge]1588467742[/automerge]

Thank you for the citation. Question for you : What does "The highest monthly claim survival rate was 53.75% in May 2017, and the lowest survival rate (disregarding the first few months of final decisions due to the low sample size and 0% survival rate) was 3.54% in August 2014" actually mean?

The stuff in parentheses just means they didn’t pay attention to the first few months of IPRs, because there were too few to reach a conclusion. The IPR procedure (and the other procedures mentioned in that document) are pretty new, starting in the last decade.

As for the rest, what happens is if you think a patent has invalid claims (again, patent claims are the only thing that matters), you can go to the USPTO, pay a bunch of money, and show them why. If they think that you may have a point, a procedure takes place between you and the patent owner, that ends in a trial in front of a panel of 3 administrative law judges, where each side tries to prove their point, on a claim-by-claim basis.

So if a patent has 100 claims, and you decide to invoke this procedure on 10 claims, then in that best month you would guess that 5 or so claims survived and the rest were invalid (out Of the 10 of course). In that worst month, somewhere between 0 or 1 claim surviving would be the bet.

On average, looks like something like 3 or 4 out of 10 claims survive.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

I am a family law attorney and text messages are routinely used as evidence. I routinely retain forensic technicians to image phones and determine if text messages were sent from a phone (when opposing party claims they never sent such or claim my client edited such). I will have to check with the forensics technician I use to see if these changes will remain in the phone's memory...anyone know the answer already?

So in other words, when you’re going to do something you shouldn’t, use Signal to communicate 😂

 

[fairuz]

Tell you what would be a killer feature, the ability to do a search in iMessage that's actually useful. It's one of the reasons I use WhatsApp.

Ultimate killer feature would be receiving messages in the order they were sent 100% of the time.

 

[TiggrToo]

Here’s a cite that shows 6000 is about the number of PTO challenges per year to validity: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AIA Statistics_March2017.pdf

That also gives statistics on the outcomes.

This shows the number of patents filed per year in the US:

U.S. Patent Statistics Summary Table, Calendar Years 1963 to 2020, 05/2021 update

It also shows how many patents actually issue as valid per year.

All this started with me simply noting that the Patent Office is littered with invalid patents. Nothing that you or they have provided says otherwise.

I made the comment to simply show that a patent application does not a valid patent make, irrespective of if it's sourced a from Apple or anyone else.

Sure this is a continuity patent and yes, I can accept that can give it a better chance of success. But that's not a guarantee either is it? Do you have any statistics regarding these?

 

[cmaier]

All this started with me simply noting that the Patent Office is littered with invalid patents. Nothing that you or they have provided says otherwise.

I made the comment to simply show that a patent application does not a valid patent make, irrespective of if it's sourced a from Apple or anyone else.

Sure this is a continuity patent and yes, I can accept that can give it a better chance of success. But that's not a guarantee either is it? Do you have any statistics regarding these?

Regarding continuations? yes, that was the graphs on page 211 of the document i previously cited. (Again, a bit dated). He cited the Same document.

And certainly, a patent application does not get any presumption of validity. But issued patents, under the law, do. And most “patents” (that issue) are valid, although when claims are tested, most claims are not (but it could be that only patents with bad claims get tested, since such a small amount get tested, so it’s hard to draw any conclusions).

 

[TiggrToo]

It’s kind of being a jerk if you are demanding cites to prove something that isn’t relevant to the disagreement between you.

Here’s a cite that shows 6000 is about the number of PTO challenges per year to validity: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AIA Statistics_March2017.pdf

That also gives statistics on the outcomes.

This shows the number of patents filed per year in the US:

U.S. Patent Statistics Summary Table, Calendar Years 1963 to 2020, 05/2021 update

It also shows how many patents actually issue as valid per year.
[automerge]1588467742[/automerge]


The stuff in parentheses just means they didn’t pay attention to the first few months of IPRs, because there were too few to reach a conclusion. The IPR procedure (and the other procedures mentioned in that document) are pretty new, starting in the last decade.

As for the rest, what happens is if you think a patent has invalid claims (again, patent claims are the only thing that matters), you can go to the USPTO, pay a bunch of money, and show them why. If they think that you may have a point, a procedure takes place between you and the patent owner, that ends in a trial in front of a panel of 3 administrative law judges, where each side tries to prove their point, on a claim-by-claim basis.

So if a patent has 100 claims, and you decide to invoke this procedure on 10 claims, then in that best month you would guess that 5 or so claims survived and the rest were invalid (out Of the 10 of course). In that worst month, somewhere between 0 or 1 claim surviving would be the bet.

On average, looks like something like 3 or 4 out of 10 claims survive.

So, out of the ~50% patents that get accepted, only around a third are deemed to be valid once tested? Wouldn't that mean that, based on this, only about 17% of all patent applications are expected to be totally kosher?

Or did I miss something here?

 

[fairuz]

Telegram. Nothing else comes close in terms of utility.

Worst signup process ever

 

[konqerror]

So, out of the ~50% patents that get accepted, only around a third are deemed to be valid once tested? Wouldn't that mean that, based on this, only about 17% of all patent applications are expected to be totally kosher?

Or did I miss something here?

Yes you are. People don't challenge patents unless they believe they have a reasonable chance of success. If the patent appears to be strong, then nobody will challenge it.

Just like how 95% of criminal cases end in plea bargains because the defendant is clearly guilty.

 

[TiggrToo]

Yes you are. People don't challenge patents unless they believe they have a reasonable chance of success. If the patent appears to be strong, then nobody will challenge it.

Just like how 95% of criminal cases end in plea bargains because the defendant is clearly guilty.

Actually my mistake was not reading that ~33% figure is based on claims, not patents.

 

[cmaier]

So, out of the ~50% patents that get accepted, only around a third are deemed to be valid once tested? Wouldn't that mean that, based on this, only about 17% of all patent applications are expected to be totally kosher?

Or did I miss something here?

yeah, you missed something. These procedures that happen after a patent gets assisted can only invalidate claims, not patents. So even if the patent owner “loses,” they usually still have some claims left that are valid, so the patent is still valid. It’s very rare that all of the claims being disputed are found invalid; and even rarer when the dispute involves all the claims in the patent.

Think of it this way - a typical claim might be:

1. A piece of furniture comprising:
three or more vertical members; and
a seating structure approximately the size of human buttocks, connected substantially perpendicularly to said vertical members.

2. The piece of furniture of claim 1, further comprising:
at least a fourth vertical member, connected substantially perpendicularly to said seating structure.

3. The piece of furniture of claim 2, wherein:
the four or more vertical members are substantially parallel; and
the four or more vertical members are substantially evenly spaced.

4. The piece of furniture of claim 3, wherein:
the four or more vertical members are connected to the bottom surface of the seating structure.

etc.

Each one gets a little more specific, and a little less likely to be found in prior art. So often times the claims that don’t refer to other claims are found invalid, but the claims that do depend on other claims are found valid.

 

[TiggrToo]

yeah, you missed something. These procedures that happen after a patent gets assisted can only invalidate claims, not patents. So even if the patent owner “loses,” they usually still have some claims left that are valid, so the patent is still valid. It’s very rare that all of the claims being disputed are found invalid; and even rarer when the dispute involves all the claims in the patent.

Think of it this way - a typical claim might be:

1. A piece of furniture comprising:
three or more vertical members; and
a seating structure approximately the size of human buttocks, connected substantially perpendicularly to said vertical members.

2. The piece of furniture of claim 1, further comprising:
at least a fourth vertical member, connected substantially perpendicularly to said seating structure.

3. The piece of furniture of claim 2, wherein:
the four or more vertical members are substantially parallel; and
the four or more vertical members are substantially evenly spaced.

4. The piece of furniture of claim 3, wherein:
the four or more vertical members are connected to the bottom surface of the seating structure.

etc.

Each one gets a little more specific, and a little less likely to be found in prior art. So often times the claims that don’t refer to other claims are found invalid, but the claims that do depend on other claims are found valid.

Thanks - I'd already spotted my fundamental error, but the write up you supplied was good.

 

[cmaier]

Thanks - I'd already spotted my fundamental error, but the write up you supplied was good.

No problem. The only other thing to keep in mind with this apple patent application is that the claims can change based on the back and forth that occurs during the patent examination. So we really don;t know for sure what it will look like if it eventually issues as a patent.

 

[PickUrPoison]

They need to make iMessage cross platform... I know they won’t.

They don’t need to, contrary to the first part of your sentence.

Oh, and they don’t want to, either.

 

[JosephAW]

You do realize this will break iMessage for older iOS versions and macOS.
Probably older iOS version will be shown as green bubbles.

Apple wouldn't do anything to stop compatibility with older iOS devices. Oh wait. We just had a law suite settled. Never mind.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

They don’t need to, contrary to the first part of your sentence.

Oh, and they don’t want to, either.

They don’t want too? At one point they did according to the links below. Look where BBM is now because Blackberry wouldn’t put their messaging app on others until it was too late.

Yeah it seems pretty evident they won't, it's too valuable as a unique feature now, though it needs to be modernized.

Back in the early days though, they pitched a standardized version of iMessage to major telecoms that would work across platforms. However, telecoms were making money on SMS messages and didn't like end-to-end encryption. I bet that "keeping control" issue for the telecoms is why RCS is only encrypted client to server.

Apple tried to by offering it to the carriers, they couldn’t see the need …

Apple wanted to bring the best of iMessage to every phone

Apple will never bring iMessage to third-party platforms like Android, but there was a time when it tried to convince carriers to adopt a standardized

www.cultofmac.com

Worst signup process ever

What’s so bad about it? Put in your phone number and you get a code.

 

[eccentricglow]

Honestly, I wish they would focus on message archiving instead of editing texts. It can't be that hard to build a separate place to store older text conversations like WhatsApp.

 

[goobot]

Good job you don’t work anywhere important. That attitude would have seen to it the M$ Office remained Windows only.

Ms sells office, iMessage is free. Not really the same thing.

 

[PickUrPoison]

They don’t want too? At one point they did according to the links below. Look where BBM is now because Blackberry wouldn’t put their messaging app on others until it was too late.

If Apple wanted to bring iMessage to android, or have a web UI, they could have done it 10 years ago. So yeah, they don’t want to.

And Blackberry didn’t die because of anything BBM related. The iPhone killed RIM. WhatsApp killed BBM.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

If Apple wanted to bring iMessage to android, or have a web UI, they could have done it 10 years ago. So yeah, they don’t want to.

And Blackberry didn’t die because of anything BBM related. The iPhone killed RIM. WhatsApp killed BBM.

That’s fine, but they did want to do this at one time. That’s my point.

 

[PickUrPoison]

That’s fine, but they did want to do this at one time. That’s my point.

That’s fine, but I never disagreed so I’m not sure what point you’re making. We were discussing Apple having no need (or desire) to make iMessage cross platform.

They’re much better off having given up on the idea 10+ years ago, and they know it. They’ve had at least 10 years to do otherwise and haven’t.