Apple Patent Litigation Updates: Kodak and MONKEYmedia

[tdmac]

Your idea would hose over the little guy. You're basically saying only people who have the required ability to implement can patent. Lets say I come up with something really cool, but don't have the capital to implement it as a product. I go to Apple and say hey, you want this in your phone. They blow me off, wait 12 months and then implement it anyway.

I see what you are saying but there needs to be balance and protections.

Maybe it needs to be broken out by industry and not a blanket across the board. Maybe a little guy should have a way to obtain some sort of protection if he gets a signed non-discosure from Apple/elsewhere before disclosing his actual idea or how its made. Then a company like Apple can't wait 12-24 months and then come in and "Steel" the idea or patent. Thus protecting the little guy, unlike what happened in the movie "Flash Of Genius". Although there was no NDA in that case. Or a company has to manufacture a working prototype to be given longer than the 12 months requirement.

There needs to be some balance between a squater and an actual implementer/innovator

Otherwise you get the reverse affect of stifiling competition and growth by obtaining patents for inventions that never are planned to come to fruition by preventing anyone from creating them.

 

[cmaier]

Thus protecting the little guy, unlike what happened in the movie "Flash Of Genius". Although there was no NDA in that case. Or a company has to manufacture a working prototype to be given longer than the 12 months requirement.

Don't believe everything you see in the movies.

 

[ImageWrangler]

Apples and Monkeys and Bears, oh my!

Ok, time to copy and paste what is said in every one of these patent case posts:

<Insert company name> are a bunch of patent trolls!

The patent system needs reform.

etc. etc.

I wish Macrumors.com had a 'comment of the day' or 'comment of the month' etc.

Basically Macduke has the comment of the DECADE! So awesome, it's (sniff) beautiful.

As you all were, though basically you're just reaffirming how spot on MacDuke's comment is.

 

[lucasgladding]

I doubt Apple knew anything about MONKEYmedia. The company website is done in Flash.

 

[coelacanth]

MONKEYmedia, you are so brave to even call yourself UI design company in the first place. Looks like your site design has been frozen in time since 1994.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Apple is doing the same thing against Kodak. Apple need to stay out of the Patent trolling business, Kodak was in the Camera game way before Apple was... if anything I hope Kodak wins the suit against Apple to teach them they entered late in the game and I hope all these companies stop suing each other for patents (INCLUDING APPLE).

No, I meant companies that are nothing more than patent trolls. Apple and Kodak make products, MONKEYmedia doesn't.

Recent changes in the law have made it much harder for "trolls" to profit from their trolliness.

Examples?

 

[cmaier]

Examples?

I already listed several above.

 

[macduke]

I wish Macrumors.com had a 'comment of the day' or 'comment of the month' etc.

Basically Macduke has the comment of the DECADE! So awesome, it's (sniff) beautiful.

As you all were, though basically you're just reaffirming how spot on MacDuke's comment is.

Haha, you're too kind. At least this place isn't as bad as YouTube (yet).

 

[RichardI]

Such nasty comments, really. Steve, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get you.

 

[psxndc]

There have been various changes. One change involved how patent continuations work and the way patent termination dates are filed. Now you have essentially 20 years from the first patent you file on a subject. This helps prevent "submarine patents" where people wait for a product that looks a little like their patent, then go and file a patent continuation with claims directed at the new product.

There also has been a major court decision that makes it nearly impossible for a patent troll (a non-practicing entity) to obtain an injunction preventing the sale or manufacture of infringing devices.

There also has been a major court decision in the Supreme Court ("KSR") that makes it far easier to prove that a patent was obvious, and therefore invalid.

There was also a case that makes it far easier for a company that is being threatened by a patent troll to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity (and thus choose the venue).

It's also gotten a lot harder to file cases in the Eastern District of Texas unless the defendant really is doing something infringing there.

And the Supreme Court is about to rule on In re Bilski, and, in all likelihood, will make it far harder to obtain business method and software patents.

Thanks cmaier, well said. The problem is that while KSR has made it harder to get patents initially or invalidate them in reexam or at trial, there is a huge number of patents out there that were granted in the mid-late nineties and 2000s that are presumed valid. And almost all of these - other than the venue transfer out of Texas - require litigating a patent all the way through trial to knock them out.

I don't think Bilski will make it any clearer. KSR didn't really define a test and I don't think Bilski will either. They'll word it a certain way and all the lawyers, being good lawyers, will revise their claims to say the same thing in a kosher way.

 

[cmaier]

Thanks cmaier, well said. The problem is that while KSR has made it harder to get patents initially or invalidate them in reexam or at trial, there is a huge number of patents out there that were granted in the mid-late nineties and 2000s that are presumed valid. And almost all of these - other than the venue transfer out of Texas - require litigating a patent all the way through trial to knock them out.

I don't think Bilski will make it any clearer. KSR didn't really define a test and I don't think Bilski will either. They'll word it a certain way and all the lawyers, being good lawyers, will revise their claims to say the same thing in a kosher way.

Ksr defined multiple tests. Obvious to try. Combining and getting expected result. Etc. True that it doesn't prevent litigation of old patents, but neither would most of the suggestions above for patent reform. And i have invalidated patents on ksr grounds at summary judgment. No discovery or trial required.

I also think bilski will define a test, but of course that is speculation.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I already listed several above.

You listed several court decisions, which provide precedents and are not necessarily changes in laws. Does the only change in law pertain to patent continuation and termination filing?

 

[cmaier]

You listed several court decisions, which provide precedents and are not necessarily changes in laws. Does the only change in law pertain to patent continuation and termination filing?

No, when the supreme court speaks, it changes the law. There are two sources of law - statutes and common law. They are equally important. The difference is that legislators can overrule common law with new statutes. The rulings I mentioned have full force and effect, as if they were statutes.

Usually Congress does not bother writing statutes just to codify what the supreme court or federal circuit court of appeals has decided.

 

[RogueWarrior65]

You can't litgate your way to profitability

Kodak is dying a slow agonizing death and is trying to pull a SCO. Monkey Breath however is nothing more than a patent troll. They buy up worthless patents and wait around for someone to do something similar hoping that the rich victim will settle. This is not the way to bring the country back to the top of the heap. The patent system is totally broken but that aside, the legal system is worse. IMHO, there should be no settling out of court and no venue farming and finally "loser pays" is the bottom line.

 

[subsonix]

Are these patent trolls? Looking at their websites, it seems like their portfolio has no "finished jobs" but patents, basically what they seem to offer are "ideas".

 

[helenk579]

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) yesterday announced that it has agreed to investigate claims made by Apple last month against Kodak over alleged patent infringement.Apple filed the complaint in response to lawsuits and ITC complaints filed by Kodak against Apple and Research in Motion back in January. The ITC agreed in February to investigate those complaints.

Meanwhile, former user interface design studio MONKEYmedia yesterday announced that it has filed a patent lawsuit against Apple alleging infringement of three of its patents. MONKEYmedia CEO Eric Bear also took the opportunity to echo the words of Apple CEO Steve Jobs from the press release announcing that Apple had filed suit against HTC in early March.MONKEYmedia exited the user interface design business in 2001 and since that time has been focused on leveraging its patent portfolio.

Article Link: Apple Patent Litigation Updates: Kodak and MONKEYmedia

Such a very amazing link!
Thanks you for the post.

__________________
Watch Shrek Forever After Online Free
Watch MacGruber Online Free