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

[AppleMojo]

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

ha!

I love that... You truly feel that strongly about patent trolling that if someone handed you $25 million for it, you'd say... "I'm sorry, my ethics on this patent topic wouldn't allow me to accept it."

Go ahead, keep saying that. It's rather amusing.

HAHAHA!

 

[coleridge78]

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.

Wow, that was inane. You must lead a pathetic, cowering little life if you think that it's sad to question assertions of authority.

 

[scottness]

ha!

I love that... You truly feel that strongly about patent trolling that if someone handed you $25 million for it, you'd say... "I'm sorry, my ethics on this patent topic wouldn't allow me to accept it."

Go ahead, keep saying that. It's rather amusing.

HAHAHA!

Just because you don't operate on moral conviction doesn't mean everyone else here feels the same. I have enough money anyway.

 

[cmaier]

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 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.

Temporarily means "less than permanently," at the very least. Often, the patent document itself gives an indication or definition for what "temporarily" means.

In any case, as you know engineering, you can doubtless think of many ways that something can be stored "less than permanently" in a memory, am I right? If so, the claim is not "vague." The fact that you can't think of every possible method, or the fact that there are millions of such methods, is irrelevant.

 

[AppleMojo]

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).

Oh, I completely agree.

I was referring to the constitution in a means to describe adding more and more laws to restrict my overall rights and freedoms.

Trolls do have the right to do what they do. It's just the way it is.

Just because you don't operate on moral conviction doesn't mean everyone else here feels the same. I have enough money anyway.

Ah, so now this is a moral argument. Interesting...

And "I have enough money..." is more insecurity showing.

... you know the saying, "If you have to say it, chances are it isn't true."

 

[boriscolombia]

fish game

Isn't is it a little bit funny how apple sued a small company like Psystar for not even 3 mill and now some other company is suing them for more that 20mil?? I guess the only difference is that apple can afford to pay that much and without breaking anything while the companies that apple sues have to probably go broke to pay apple. if it was me I'd make apple pay in the billions they can afford it. after all the patent does belong to someone else, just like snow leopard belongs to apple.

 

[scottness]

Ah, so now this is a moral argument. Interesting...

And "I have enough money..." is more insecurity showing.

... you know the saying, "If you have to say it, chances are it isn't true."

Yes, it's a moral argument.

Those who frequently accuse others of the same thing (insecurity) subtly communicate something about themselves.

 

[coleridge78]

Temporarily means "less than permanently," at the very least. Often, the patent document itself gives an indication or definition for what "temporarily" means.

In any case, as you know engineering, you can doubtless think of many ways that something can be stored "less than permanently" in a memory, am I right? If so, the claim is not "vague." The fact that you can't think of every possible method, or the fact that there are millions of such methods, is irrelevant.

For most meaningful uses of the word "vague", the fact that a given X can apply to millions of Z is essentially the definition of "vague" (the other possibility being "abstract", but theoretically abstract ideas are not patentable so let's not go there). Can you explain why "vague" does not mean that here?

 

[cmaier]

For most meaningful uses of the word "vague", the fact that a given X can apply to millions of Z is essentially the definition of "vague" (the other possibility being "abstract", but theoretically abstract ideas are not patentable so let's not go there). Can you explain why "vague" does not mean that here?

Because "vague" in the context of patent law means "doesn't meet the requirements of 35 USC 112." The basic premise of patents is that in exchange for disclosing that which otherwise need not be disclosed (the invention), the patentee gets a monopoly on the invention for 20 years. But in order for it to be a fair deal, 35 USC 112 exists - this requires that the disclosure of the invention be sufficient so that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to read the patent (and arguably its file history) and understand what the invention is. Note that this doesn't mean every word of a claim must be absolutely clear, narrow, or precise. It is perfectly valid to say things like "a solution with a pH near 5" without specifying what "near" means.

All that matters is that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the essence of the claimed invention and be able to build an implementation of it, extend the invention to create other inventions, etc.

So, for example, the patent on the telegraph could have claimed "A method of communicating a message over a distance comprising: splitting the message into letters, operating a transducer which is used to enter a code corresponding to each letter and convert the code into a corresponding electrical signal, transmitting the signal to a recipient."

The fact that there are an infinite number of encodings possible doesn't change the fact that there is something new and innovative about the idea in the claim - there is no need to describe Morse code.

 

[AppleMojo]

Yes, it's a moral argument.

Those who frequently accuse others of the same thing (insecurity) subtly communicate something about themselves.

Well, if it's a moral argument then there is truly no purpose to it, because morals are individual and immeasurable.

Wrong. I can quite easily accuse a man of murder and not "subtly" be communicating that I am one myself.

My frustrations with users on MacRumors have always been that there is this new "not fair" mentality... If a person can't do or could never achieve something, then they believe of course there is something wrong with it.

Examples:

* People hating on Mac's because of their price... They can't afford it, therefor they must be evil.

* People hating on wealthy CEO's... More of the "it's not fair" attitude.

Hating on a patent troll is just silly... if you had a patent, and I came along and profited from your intellectual property, are you willing to claim right now that your "morals" and "ethics" would prevent you from defending it?

I doubt it... more hypocrisy.

Like I said earlier, I disagree with the practice (to me it's kind of squidly) just like domain squatting... but I am not going to condemn it... Heck, If I stumbled upon the next big domain name, I'd snatch it in a heartbeat as I am sure most would.

... now if I am wrong, and you do happen to have such strong morals and ethics about patent trolling... give me a ring when you get your hands on one, and I will gladly sacrifice my "ethics" so you don't have to.

 

[Frisco]

Seriously? I want to see what Apple does now. I understand why there are patients but, really your only business is going after others.

This has nothing to do with "patients". The verdict is about patent infringement. I understand though everyone's mind is on health care reform.

 

[scottness]

Well, if it's a moral argument then there is truly no purpose to it, because morals are individual and immeasurable.

Wrong. I can quite easily accuse a man of murder and not "subtly" be communicating that I am one myself.

My frustrations with users on MacRumors have always been that there is this new "not fair" mentality... If a person can't do or could never achieve something, then they believe of course there is something wrong with it.

Examples:

* People hating on Mac's because of their price... They can't afford it, therefor they must be evil.

* People hating on wealthy CEO's... More of the "it's not fair" attitude.

Hating on a patent troll is just silly... if you had a patent, and I came along and profited from your intellectual property, are you willing to claim right now that your "morals" and "ethics" would prevent you from defending it?

I doubt it... more hypocrisy.

Like I said earlier, I disagree with the practice (to me it's kind of squidly) just like domain squatting... but I am not going to condemn it... Heck, If I stumbled upon the next big domain name, I'd snatch it in a heartbeat as I am sure most would.

... now if I am wrong, and you do happen to have such strong morals and ethics about patent trolling... give me a ring when you get your hands on one, and I will gladly sacrifice my "ethics" so you don't have to.

Ok, so I'm an insecure hypocrite. Does it make you happier if I just accept that from you?

Those two examples you gave are two that do not apply to me.

Being that I disagree with patent trolling, why would I enable you to do it?

 

[coleridge78]

Because "vague" in the context of patent law means "doesn't meet the requirements of 35 USC 112." The basic premise of patents is that in exchange for disclosing that which otherwise need not be disclosed (the invention), the patentee gets a monopoly on the invention for 20 years. But in order for it to be a fair deal, 35 USC 112 exists - this requires that the disclosure of the invention be sufficient so that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to read the patent (and arguably its file history) and understand what the invention is. Note that this doesn't mean every word of a claim must be absolutely clear, narrow, or precise. It is perfectly valid to say things like "a solution with a pH near 5" without specifying what "near" means.

All that matters is that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the essence of the claimed invention and be able to build an implementation of it, extend the invention to create other inventions, etc.

So, for example, the patent on the telegraph could have claimed "A method of communicating a message over a distance comprising: splitting the message into letters, operating a transducer which is used to enter a code corresponding to each letter and convert the code into a corresponding electrical signal, transmitting the signal to a recipient."

The fact that there are an infinite number of encodings possible doesn't change the fact that there is something new and innovative about the idea in the claim - there is no need to describe Morse code.

OK. This is all what I thought I knew. So, where are the lines, and why are you so positive that this one falls on the side you think it does? The telegraph example is clear--the invention is a particular mechanism for carrying a message from A to B, and the form of that message is irrelevant. But in the case of the temporary storage claim, for example, it leaves out details that would dictate (or at least indicate) whether the process we are patenting implements a high-speed video camera or a device for making time-lapse movies at one frame per hour, and those are substantively different processes for different ends.

Or not? Where am I wrong?

 

[cmaier]

OK. This is all what I thought I knew. So, where are the lines, and why are you so positive that this one falls on the side you think it does? The telegraph example is clear--the invention is a particular mechanism for carrying a message from A to B, and the form of that message is irrelevant. But in the case of the temporary storage claim, for example, it leaves out details that would dictate (or at least indicate) whether the process we are patenting implements a high-speed video camera or a device for making time-lapse movies at one frame per hour, and those are substantively different processes for different ends.

Or not? Where am I wrong?

Assuming that the patent specification (the patent text) doesn't give us any guidance, and assuming your hypothetical, we don't know if the camera is good for both still photography and video photography. But the fact that you so easily came up with the two scenarios means a PHOSITA would likely understand that "temporarily" means "long enough to get the job done, but not forever," and, therefore, the claim might very well encompass both possibilities. More importantly, claims can be "vague" in the vernacular sense. I can say "A stool painted a color" and not specify the color, even when the color matters for some reason - all that matters is that a PHOSITA would know how to choose a color (or, in our case, a PHOSITA would know what "temporarily" needs to mean).

Look, you can't have it both ways - on the one hand everyone is arguing this is obvious! it describes every digital camera! Well, if it's obvious, clearly you got the jist of what the claim is talking about.

As for why I'm so certain, I'm not. Reading the claims, having read many many thousand claims (and written many many hundred claims), it looks like the sort of claim that is not invalid under 35 USC 112. To be sure, I'd have to look closely at the rest of the patent and see if the text somehow says something about "temporary" that makes its meaning confusing (or, alternately, it may describe what "temporary" means in very clear terms).

Finally, this is the problem with many trolls - by not specifically targeting a category of camera (probably because, by not making a camera, the inventor has nothing to describe), the claims could cover things that the inventor didn't think of (motion video, for example). This happens all the time.

 

[helpinghand]

It's official - Apple has purchased Lala

Done

 

[Winni]

I only applaud when the defendant didn't actually steal the patent. And Apple ripped off a lot of ideas from other people. They're not the mother of invention that everybody seems to believe they are.

 

[cmaier]

I only applaud when the defendant didn't actually steal the patent. And Apple ripped off a lot of ideas from other people. They're not the mother of invention that everybody seems to believe they are.

They may be infringing, but it's unlikely they "stole" it (which implies that they knew they were infringing). You might also want to save your disdain for when the patent is valid- if the invention already existed, or if it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill of the art in 1990, it isn't valid.

 

[koach]

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?

I'm against patent trolls like this one, and I'm also against EULAs and companies telling me what I cannot do with software I have purchased. I disapprove of this patent troll suing Apple, and I disapprove of Apple suing Psystar.

 

[scottness]

I'm against patent trolls like this one, and I'm also against EULAs and companies telling me what I cannot do with software I have purchased. I disapprove of this patent troll suing Apple, and I disapprove of Apple suing Psystar.

I think if you purchased software you probably wouldn't have EULAs. EULAs are the terms for individuals purchasing a license to use the software.

 

[cmaier]

I think if you purchased software you probably wouldn't have EULAs. EULAs are the terms for individuals purchasing a license to use the software.

Somehow he knows that when he buys a book he doesn't have the right to hire a bunch of actors and turn it into a movie, but he thinks that buying a CD gives him the right to do whatever he wants with the contents.

 

[scottness]

Somehow he knows that when he buys a book he doesn't have the right to hire a bunch of actors and turn it into a movie, but he thinks that buying a CD gives him the right to do whatever he wants with the contents.

Very confusing, isn't it? Perhaps I'll call it a night.

 

[MrRage]

I wish that patent sharking was made a crime, and any patens used in such a way are nullified and void. If anything this practice is more harmful to creative products than good, which is what patents were suppose to protect in the first place.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I hate patent trolls, too. But unlike most people, I actually do something about them.

Not all of us are in a position to DO ANYTHING. Yes a NZ, 17 year old student can really do something about patent trolls.

 

[cmaier]

Not all of us are in a position to DO ANYTHING. Yes a NZ, 17 year old student can really do something about patent trolls.

Write your congressman. Or whatever your local equivalent of a congressman is.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Write your congressman. Or whatever your local equivalent of a congressman is.

Because thats going to do sooo much...