Apple Ordered to Pay Finalized $21.7 Million Patent Verdict, Hit With New Suit Over iPhone Camera

[cmaier]

Agreed, that the lawsuit should not be the business model, however there is a patent database of the various patents and who owns them. If a company is interested in it then they should seek to acquire a license for its usage. Companies such as spend thousands if not millions on patenting they own concepts, however when it comes to incorporating it into they own system they jump on it without doing an in-depth search to see if it is someone else owns the IP. What are the lawyers at doing, only filling patents however not checking to see if the IP used is clear or available for licensing. Just a practicing these methods would not result in these costly and length lawsuit, even though most are filled in Texas. Sure the US patent office requires some reform, however I do not see it as a major issue when compared to others at the moment. Its low on the priority list to be honest.

First, patent applications are not published for at least 18 months from filing. Some are not published until they issue. So if you start working on a product, you have no idea if there are applications out there that will eventually get you. You could sell your product for years and suddenly a patent issues, and you would have no way of knowing that the patent application even existed.

Second, there is an art and science to determining whether patents are relevant to your product. Often, reasonable people can disagree. In such cases, there is little to do except hope you don't get sued.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

So the general consensus is that Apple should be able to protect its R&D with patents, but should be free to freeload off others' R&D?

You hit the nail on its head. Bravo to you.

I like and the products it produces, however I am not blinded that they cannot do any wrong. They are similar to any other corporation and just because they toot the image of "Think Different-ly" people tend to relate to it and get protective when a company that can relate to them ::haha:: comes under scrutiny by another company or the Gov't.

 

[SimonMW]

Now now, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who, this is supposed to be a happy occasion!

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

First, patent applications are not published for at least 18 months from filing. Some are not published until they issue. So if you start working on a product, you have no idea if there are applications out there that will eventually get you. You could sell your product for years and suddenly a patent issues, and you would have no way of knowing that the patent application even existed.

Second, there is an art and science to determining whether patents are relevant to your product. Often, reasonable people can disagree. In such cases, there is little to do except hope you don't get sued.

When a patent is under review to be granted, a person/s or company/ies can pay an additional fee for a "patent pending" number. This protects them for the duration it takes for a patent to be granted.

The limitations you mentioned should be brought up to the US Patent Office. Where when an individual or company files for a patent that there is a search conducted to see if another product shares the same details or portions of. I agree it would be a cumbersome process however there has to be a better way if one is already not in some form being tested.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Now now, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who, this is supposed to be a happy occasion!

Yes, indeed the lawyers are earning they paycheque.

 

[cmaier]

When a patent is under review to be granted, a person/s or company/ies can pay an additional fee for a "patent pending" number. This protects them for the duration it takes for a patent to be granted.

The limitations you mentioned should be brought up to the US Patent Office. Where when an individual or company files for a patent that there is a search conducted to see if another product shares the same details or portions of. I agree it would be a cumbersome process however there has to be a better way if one is already not in some form being tested.

There is no such thing as a "patent pending" number. There is an application serial number, and EVERYONE gets one. No extra fee. And this number doesn't protect anyone from anything. Saying "patent pending" has no effect in the U.S. other than potentially scaring off people who don't know any better. The U.S. is a "first to invent" jurisdiction, so all that matters is who invented the invention first - it doesn't matter who filed a patent application first. Further this is irrelevant to my point - my point is that CliffCo starts R&D on a widget and sells it for two years, and all that time there was an unpublished patent application (with a serial number) that CliffCo could not possibly have known about.

The Patent Office is aware of the issue, but they don't make the rules (at least not those rules) - Congress does.

 

[coleridge78]

Let me be very clear. The thing you excerpted is IRRELEVANT. That language doesn't determine whether the patent is "vague." The only thing that matters is whether the CLAIMS of the patent (a particular part of the patent) are valid and whether they are infringed. The language that determines "vagueness" is the CLAIMS. I presented a sample claim from the patent. It is very specific and narrow. It may be anticipated by prior art and thus invalid, but it's certainly not "vague."

I was tempted to say something offensive about the quality of your engineering schooling, but I'm reigning it in to politely ask a legitimate question:

Please explain why you consider those claims to be "very specific and narrow".

They could be more vague, but not by a lot. For example:

"temporarily storing the digital electronic information signals,"

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of practical ways that one might solve just this single "step" of the process. It means next-to-nothing if our goal is to describe what the process actually *is*, rather than what it is meant to accomplish *in concept*.

 

[*LTD*]

Speaking of which . . .

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.p...ies_selling_dell_mini_10v_preloaded_with_mac/

LOL

 

[cmaier]

I was tempted to say something offensive about the quality of your engineering schooling, but I'm reigning it in to politely ask a legitimate question:

Please explain why you consider those claims to be "very specific and narrow".

They could be more vague, but not by a lot. For example:

"temporarily storing the digital electronic information signals,"

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of practical ways that one might solve just this single "step" of the process. It means next-to-nothing if our goal is to describe what the process actually *is*, rather than what it is meant to accomplish *in concept*.

In this case all that is important is that the information is transient. That is vague if you are an engineer (as I was for many years), but it is much more specific than most patent claims are (most claims wouldn't bother pointing out that you have to store things in a memory). The patent doesn't have to claim details that would be apparent to "a person having ordinary skill in the art." (PHOSITA) Since a PHOSITA would know how to store something in memory temporarily, the patentee does not need to explain the details of that step. And this claim would cover ALL such methods of storing things temporarily (as long as all the OTHER claim limitations are also present in the device).

As for the quality of my engineering education, I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering with a concentration in solid state physics, and designed microprocessors for AMD for 9 years, and two other companies for about a year and a half. So why don't you lay off the aspersions?

 

[coleridge78]

In this case all that is important is that the information is transient. That is vague if you are an engineer (as I was for many years), but it is much more specific than most patent claims are (most claims wouldn't bother pointing out that you have to store things in a memory). The patent doesn't have to claim details that would be apparent to "a person having ordinary skill in the art." (PHOSITA) Since a PHOSITA would know how to store something in memory temporarily, the patentee does not need to explain the details of that step. And this claim would cover ALL such methods of storing things temporarily (as long as all the OTHER claim limitations are also present in the device).

You're obscuring the point, which is that there a number of ways that this might be done. It *isn't* obvious to a PHOSITA, except conceptually.

As for the quality of my engineering education, I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering with a concentration in solid state physics, and designed microprocessors for AMD for 9 years, and two other companies for about a year and a half. So why don't you lay off the aspersions?

I have advanced degrees too, and have worked at a major university for ten years. Letters don't impress me. I deal with people like you all day every day. There are plenty of idiots with PhDs in EE, and even more savants who can design a circuit but don't have a clue outside of that. So, forgive me for not cowing to your argument from asserted authority.

 

[scottness]

So I take it all you "patent trolls suck" posters were in favor of Pystar being able to sell OS X?

You're probably upset that "Apple the patent troll" sued Pystar over that, right?

It's funny, because I see a LOT of you here in this thread but for some reason there wren't a lot of you in the Pystar threads defending Pystar. Where were you then?

This is quite different. Apple actually creates stuff. They aren't patent trolling.

 

[cmaier]

You're obscuring the point, which is that there a number of ways that this might be done. It *isn't* obvious to a PHOSITA, except conceptually.



I have advanced degrees too, and have worked at a major university for ten years. Letters don't impress me. I deal with people like you all day every day. There are plenty of idiots with PhDs in EE, and even more savants who can design a circuit but don't have a clue outside of that. So, forgive me for not cowing to your argument from asserted authority.

"conceptually" is all that matters! That's what a patent is! You don't patent a particular implementation of the invention - you patent the invention. And I dare say every digital engineer knows what it means to store something in a memory temporarily. In fact, it would be much more difficult if the patent said "store it permanently." Under 35 USC 112, if the claim was so vague that a PHOSITA couldn't understand what it referred to (after first having consulted the rest of the patent document), of course it would be invalid. But in this case, it's obvious what that particular claim element means. (No idea about all the rest, but there ya go.).

Consider the prototypical patent claim for a stool:

1. A thing on which a human may place his buttocks, comprising: a surface suitable for holding the buttocks, three leg elements of substantially equal length, substantially orthogonally opposed to said surface, said legs affixed to the underside of said surface so as to support said surface.

The claim doesn't explain that the legs can be wood, or cylindrical, or red, or green, but given the recipe described in the claim, a PHOSITA could figure out how to build a stool as per the invention. That's good enough. The fact that there "are multiple ways it can be done" is irrelevant - ALL of those ways would infringe the claim. Doesn't matter whether I make the legs out of metal, wood, etc.

I am not asserting my authority - you cast an aspersion on my engineering education (why you chose that instead of my legal education, which I also have, I don't know). All I did was explain what my engineering education and experience is, in response. I don't care what degrees you have, because I can disagree with your statements without insulting your education or upbringing or referring to you as an "idiot."

 

[ShiftyPig]

This is quite different. Apple actually creates stuff. They aren't patent trolling.

How exactly did this company patent nothing?

The idea of a "patent troll" is a joke. Someone, somewhere along the line invested in said creation. If a company comes along and purchases the patent, then inventor has been properly compensated and the company then stands to be the one compensated.

Apple is free to choose the cheaper option: it can pay to license the item/process or it can pump money into R&D to come up with another solution to the problem. The reason it ends up in court is because APPLE chooses option C - steal it.

 

[scottness]

How exactly did this company patent nothing?

The idea of a "patent troll" is a joke. Someone, somewhere along the line invested in said creation. If a company comes along and purchases the patent, then inventor has been properly compensated and the company then stands to be the one compensated.

Apple is free to choose the cheaper option: it can pay to license the item/process or it can pump money into R&D to come up with another solution to the problem. The reason it ends up in court is because APPLE chooses option C - steal it.

Patenting something you have no intention of manufacturing is patent trolling.

 

[AppleMojo]

I have advanced degrees too, and have worked at a major university for ten years. Letters don't impress me. I deal with people like you all day every day. There are plenty of idiots with PhDs in EE, and even more savants who can design a circuit but don't have a clue outside of that. So, forgive me for not cowing to your argument from asserted authority.

This was possibly the worst response I have ever read on this forum... and I've read a lot.

Insecurity is something you should try and keep private, it completely invalidates everything you've said and I am likely not the only person here that thinks this.

And if your insecurity is truly strong enough to produce that comment, I would imagine it is strong enough for you to just logout, close the browser and never come back.

Just sad.

 

[cumanzor]

I'm a patent attorney, and I only take the defendants' side.

I thought attorneys were supposed to be unbiased....

 

[cmaier]

How exactly did this company patent nothing?

The idea of a "patent troll" is a joke. Someone, somewhere along the line invested in said creation. If a company comes along and purchases the patent, then inventor has been properly compensated and the company then stands to be the one compensated.

Apple is free to choose the cheaper option: it can pay to license the item/process or it can pump money into R&D to come up with another solution to the problem. The reason it ends up in court is because APPLE chooses option C - steal it.

There's always option D - not every patent is actually infringed, and not every patent, when exposed to the light of day in a court of law, is found to be both valid and enforceable.

 

[scottness]

This was possibly the worst response I have ever read on this forum... and I've read a lot.

Insecurity is something you should try and keep private, it completely invalidates everything you've said and I am likely not the only person here that thinks this.

And if your insecurity is truly strong enough to produce that comment, I would imagine it is strong enough for you to just logout, close the browser and never come back.

Just sad.

People who are as insecure as you say this guy is actually list their degrees.

 

[cmaier]

I thought attorneys were supposed to be unbiased....

No, judges are supposed to be unbiased. Attorneys are supposed to zealously represent their clients, and are free to choose their clients.

 

[scottness]

I thought attorneys were supposed to be unbiased....

I think that's for a judge and jury. Attorneys are heavily biased.

 

[AppleMojo]

99% of the readers here if given a patent worth millions and the option to "troll" for it... they'd do it.

It's just another example of whining... I don't agree with it, but you cannot stop it unless you infringe upon the freedoms and rights of an individual or organization.

Since I am not into stomping all over our constitution like some may be, it has to live on or be reformed.

 

[scottness]

99% of the readers here if given a patent worth millions and the option to "troll" for it... they'd do it.

It's just another example of whining... I don't agree with it, but you cannot stop it unless you infringe upon the freedoms and rights of an individual or organization.

Since I am not into stomping all over our constitution like some may be, it has to live on or be reformed.

So 99% here exercise zero ethics? Thanks for the insult.

 

[cmaier]

99% of the readers here if given a patent worth millions and the option to "troll" for it... they'd do it.

It's just another example of whining... I don't agree with it, but you cannot stop it unless you infringe upon the freedoms and rights of an individual or organization.

Since I am not into stomping all over our constitution like some may be, it has to live on or be reformed.

Note that there's no constitutional right to a patent - the constitution only mandates that congress pass laws to provide for patents and copyrights to the extent congress thinks those things should apply. The constitution acts as a maximum bounds for intellectual property (you can't patent mental algorithms), but not a minimum bounds (software must be patentable. trolls must be allowed to have patents).

 

[cumanzor]

No, judges are supposed to be unbiased. Attorneys are supposed to zealously represent their clients, and are free to choose their clients.

Yeah, I thought about it for a second just after posting that. What I said didn't make sense to begin with

Anyway, since you seem to be quite close to this, do you know what is the reason why some phones in the USA don't have multi-touch while their European versions do? Is it something related to patent deals?

 

[coleridge78]

"conceptually" is all that matters! That's what a patent is! You don't patent a particular implementation of the invention - you patent the invention. And I dare say every digital engineer knows what it means to store something in a memory temporarily. In fact, it would be much more difficult if the patent said "store it permanently." Under 35 USC 112, if the claim was so vague that a PHOSITA couldn't understand what it referred to (after first having consulted the rest of the patent document), of course it would be invalid. But in this case, it's obvious what that particular claim element means. (No idea about all the rest, but there ya go.).

Consider the prototypical patent claim for a stool:

1. A thing on which a human may place his buttocks, comprising: a surface suitable for holding the buttocks, three leg elements of substantially equal length, substantially orthogonally opposed to said surface, said legs affixed to the underside of said surface so as to support said surface.

The claim doesn't explain that the legs can be wood, or cylindrical, or red, or green, but given the recipe described in the claim, a PHOSITA could figure out how to build a stool as per the invention.

Yes. Because it has described precisely the mechanics that accomplish the ends. More analogous to the earlier quoted claim would be: "A surface suitable for temporarily holding the buttocks", which describes both nothing and everything on the earth that is declined more than about 25° from vertical.

I am not asserting my authority - you cast an aspersion on my engineering education (why you chose that instead of my legal education, which I also have, I don't know). All I did was explain what my engineering education and experience is, in response. I don't care what degrees you have, because I can disagree with your statements without insulting your education or upbringing or referring to you as an "idiot."

I mentioned the engineering in particular because it should be obvious to any engineer that the claim is "vague", because there are many substantially different ways to accomplish it that make a difference that is not comparable to the difference between a wood stool and a metal stool. And because I know engineering, while I don't know or pretend to every detail of the law--I'm only an enthusiast in that area.

If you thought about who your audience is in a thread like this, would you maybe say--instead of "these are specific"-- "these are specific, and here are tests and examples that illustrate that specificity in a patent is different from the normal human usage of that word".

I wouldn't doubt that these are considered specific enough in the current system, but I'd consider that an indication that the system is broken.