Apple Pays $25 Million in Settlement Over Cover Flow, Time Machine Patents

[akbarali.ch]

You have violated my patent for a vessel that will hold a fluid substance containing molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This vessel may be held to a users face at an angle from 280 degrees to 350 degrees causing the fluid to flow from the vessel into the user's mouth. This all to aid in the act of hydrating the user. Alternatively, other fluid substances beyond that which is mentioned above may also be contained and transferred within the aforementioned vessel.

There you have it, a valid patent.

As far as i have heard/read all the patent cases against Apple were pretty much meaningless, useless. There maybe some legitimate ones but mostly its all crap. I feel jealous of not patenting all the crap i think over the days.

 

[Pablo6]

FWIW, Prof Gelernter was one of the victims of the Unabomber

 

[doelcm82]

You have violated my patent for a vessel that will hold a fluid substance containing molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This vessel may be held to a users face at an angle from 280 degrees to 350 degrees causing the fluid to flow from the vessel into the user's mouth. This all to aid in the act of hydrating the user. Alternatively, other fluid substances beyond that which is mentioned above may also be contained and transferred within the aforementioned vessel.

That, and an actual patent issued in your name, or transferred legally to you, could be worth a lot of money.

 

[MalcolmTucker]

Maybe not trolls, but patent hoarders, and the only way they make money is by suing others.

Not saying they aren't justified since they own the patent. It's just a slimy business model.

So people in education shouldnt be allowed to invent ideas to make money. I see your perspective.

I actually think that Apple, as the worlds largest company, should be able to enter into whatever agrements it needs to adequately license all the IP that it needs. What does it cost? US$1.00 per product sold to pay inventors for their time to describe the invention and file the patent? Apple is just being lazy. But we all know that they've always been lazy.

I remember when they had an ad where an Apple I had caught on fire. Instead of throwing it out, (or having a Genius say the AppleCare doesnt cover that), Apple repaired it. Good luck getting similar service today!

 

[Schwyz]

Network-1 describes itself as a company "engaged in the development, licensing and protection of its intellectual property and proprietary technologies."

With an emphases on protection.

 

[Zirel]

Unless apple does it. Then its called protectiong intellectual property

Unless Apple does what?

Apple haters like you, that come here to have been calling this BS on Apple, when Microsoft, Samsung and Google are the top patent hoarders and bullies in the USA.

Google specifically bought Motorola, opened a factory in Texas, just to close months later. Laid off the employees, sold the brand to the Chinese, and hoarded the patents and dropped support for their phones and watches. Leaving costumers in the mud.

What are you going to call it?

I've read your history, you're a professional Apple hater, all your posts are about "problems" in every Apple product and every Apple decision.

At least, Samsung should be paying for your services, right?

 

[Dwalls90]

Software patents truly are just stupid. No one should be able to patent any of these things, including SWIPE TO UNLOCK.

 

[jdillings]

Prior art:

 

[sw1tcher]

I remember when they had an ad where an Apple I had caught on fire. Instead of throwing it out, (or having a Genius say the AppleCare doesnt cover that), Apple repaired it. Good luck getting similar service today!

Apple didn't repair that. An authorized Apple dealer did. Apple retail stores and Apple Genius' didn't exist back then.

The ad also doesn't say who paid for the repairs. My guess is that it was the designer who took the computer home or the company s/he worked for, and not Apple. Want an authorized Apple dealer (or even Apple) to repair a Mac with similar damage? I'm sure they'd do it as long as someone paid for the repairs.

 

[justperry]

Apple didn't repair that. An authorized Apple dealer did. Apple retail stores and Apple Genius' didn't exist back then.

The ad also doesn't say who paid for the repairs. My guess is that it was the designer who took the computer home or the company s/he worked for, and not Apple. Want an authorized Apple dealer (or even Apple) to repair a Mac with similar damage? I'm sure they'd do it as long as someone paid for the repairs.

In this post of him he claims it was his own computer.

I remember when they had an ad where an Apple I had caught on fire.

 

[H2SO4]

It's funny how they waited until the patent expired.

You don’t know that. It may have taken this long for them to do all the necessary research. They may have spent ages trying to settle out of court.

 

[xDKP]

Unless apple does it. Then its called protectiong intellectual property

Yeah because Apple actually produces products to protect - pretty big difference mate.. All these hoax companies having patents but not a single product in the market, pretty slimey business and should not be allowed.

 

[H2SO4]

Yeah because Apple actually produces products to protect - pretty big difference mate.. All these hoax companies having patents but not a single product in the market, pretty slimey business and should not be allowed.

Challenge for you.
Go and find out how many patents Apple holds. Then find out how many products they make/made that actually utilise those patents. They should sell the ones they aren’t using or have them removed by your logic?

In fact. I’ve done a little of the legwork for you;
Now, if you look here you’ll be able to read the entire article but just to quote part of it, (my emphasis);

But who has the strongest patent portfolio?
There are a few ways to answer this question. The first, and most common way is to look at patent filings. However by itself this is a bit simplistic, as this does not take into account the quality of these patents. For this reason in this blog we look carefully at both the quality and quantity of patents filed by these three leading companies.

The graph on that page;

Shows that Apple, (ignore the others as we are talking about your loved ones right now), filed 2000 patents in 2011 ALONE.

 

[Zirel]

Yeah because Apple actually produces products to protect - pretty big difference mate.. All these hoax companies having patents but not a single product in the market, pretty slimey business and should not be allowed.

The world is not black and white, many universities and research corporations like SRI, the inventors of Siri, the mouse and GUI, that Apple licensed, are legit.

Now "inventing" this BS and getting $35 million from a stupid thing like this is totally idiotic, a stupid drawing is worth more than everything I worked for in my life, and even if I work to my 100 years? The system is ROTTEN!

 

[venusboy]

The 2010 ruling of $625 million for
coverflow seems completely disproportionate.

 

[justperry]

The 2010 ruling of $625 million for
coverflow seems completely disproportionate.

Completely agree, if many patents are involved in (for instance) an iPhone and lots of them are from other "inventors" and they would all sue Apple over it (and win) Apple wouldn't make any money.

 

[theluggage]

So if I came up with a great idea but not enough capital to develop it, I shouldn't be able to "hoard" that intellectual property? Really?

If you've truly built the proverbial better mousetrap, then maybe.

If the "great idea" is just sorting objects into chronological order and flipping through them just like people have been doing for years with their index cards and LPs but... on a computer then maybe not so much. That's the problem with software patents: the US patent office doesn't get paid for rejecting patents, resulting in too many junk patents for "doing something incredibly obvious but on a computer or on the internet.

Companies should be able to come and take it without licensing it?

Come and take what? Nothing in patent law requires that the violator "took" or copied the idea - just that the end result can be argued to violate the wording of the patent (and its effectively up to the "violator" to prove otherwise). You could lock yourself in a cave for 5 years and live as a hermit perfecting your great work, and still be hit with a dozen patent violation suits when you emerged and tried to market it.

Patents are an idea that just doesn't work: courts and bureaucrats can't, after the fact, decide whether an idea was "obvious" or sufficiently inventive to warrant a patent. The system only benefits lawyers and big corporations who can use them to enforce their near-monopolies (Apple will be able to find enough odd cash down the back of the sofa to pay this settlement) - your heroic struggling inventor probably can't even afford to patent their ideas, let alone defend them in court.[/QUOTE]

 

[sk1wbw]

I honestly think that if you have a patent and don't put something in the field then it becomes obsolete after a year.

 

[Piggie]

So if I came up with a great idea but not enough capital to develop it, I shouldn't be able to "hoard" that intellectual property? Really? Companies should be able to come and take it without licensing it? Because, Apple? Please.

I have so that, in the scenario you describe, in order to actually be able to hold onto your patent, there should be some realistic timeframe or plan in place to bring your idea to a reality at some near-ish (can be debated how near) point in the future.

A great idea, in theory could benefit the entire population of the planet, and it's ridiculous that one human, could by luck/chance/clever thinking, come up with any idea. It be legally protected as their idea alone, and never be allowed to exist in reality as this individual cannot or will not develop it into an actual item.
[doublepost=1468051352][/doublepost]

I honestly think that if you have a patent and don't put something in the field then it becomes obsolete after a year.

Not sure I'd fix it at a year as some items may require a LOT of development, but I share your view that there should be some timeframe, that I would say, should vary depending on the type of patent.

EG a flying car would take longer to develop than a new way to encode an image in software to make the file smaller.

 

[kdarling]

Unless Apple does what?
...
Google specifically bought Motorola, opened a factory in Texas, just to close months later.

Yeah because Apple actually produces products to protect - pretty big difference mate.. All these hoax companies having patents but not a single product in the market, pretty slimey business and should not be allowed.

Likewise, Apple was a major player in a consortium that spent billions buying up old Nortel patents.

Then, when the purchased IP turned out not to be such a good weapon against Android, they co-created one of the worst patent troll companies on the planet, Rockstar, which did nothing but employ a dozen engineers to probe competitors' code to see if they could be sued for infringement.

 

[Zirel]

Challenge for you.
Go and find out how many patents Apple holds. Then find out how many products they make/made that actually utilise those patents. They should sell the ones they aren’t using or have them removed by your logic?

In fact. I’ve done a little of the legwork for you;
Now, if you look here you’ll be able to read the entire article but just to quote part of it, (my emphasis);

But who has the strongest patent portfolio?
There are a few ways to answer this question. The first, and most common way is to look at patent filings. However by itself this is a bit simplistic, as this does not take into account the quality of these patents. For this reason in this blog we look carefully at both the quality and quantity of patents filed by these three leading companies.

The graph on that page;
View attachment 639590
Shows that Apple, (ignore the others as we are talking about your loved ones right now), filed 2000 patents in 2011 ALONE.

Find a patent that has been AWARDED to Apple that they don't use.

Filing patents is useless. Do you understand the "filing" phase?
[doublepost=1468052127][/doublepost]

Likewise, Apple was a major player in a consortium that spent billions buying up old Nortel patents.

Then, when the purchased IP turned out not to be such a good weapon against Android, they co-created one of the worst patent troll companies on the planet, Rockstar, which did nothing but employ a dozen engineers to probe competitors' code to see if they could be sued for infringement.

Who did Rockstar trolled?

And who did Rockstar trolled for Apple?

They purchased Rockstar to protect them agains Google's shady business practices mainly.

Also, they did not send thousands of hard working employees home or to China in the process…

 

[MH01]

Find a patent that has been AWARDED to Apple that they don't use.

Filing patents is useless. Do you understand the "filing" phase?

Do you understand how patents work? Are you serious about apple being AWARDED a parent they don't use ?? And it's Granted....not awarded.

 

[kdarling]

Find a patent that has been AWARDED to Apple that they don't use.

Good grief.

You really shouldn't be posting in his thread if you actually think Apple uses all the thousands of patents it has, on everything from tubular zirconium cases, to scanning for a face to wake up a phone, to emotion based advertisements. Their years of Liquid Metal related patents alone should be a clue.

Apple even famously sued Samsung this past year, over a patent claim that Apple itself does not use.

Filing patents is useless. Do you understand the "filing" phase?

Not useless. The chart he posted showing the number of relative filings, lets us know how hard each company is trying. Remember, it takes years for a patent to be granted.

That said, you have a point about filing vs. grants. Perhaps you should do as he suggested and do some research to back up (or disprove) your ideas..

For example, I just did a quick search at the USPTO and found that of the ~2000 filings in the chart for 2011, Apple has so far been granted over 1400.

You can easily learn how to do the same kind of search, and look at them and notice how many / few are likely in use. Try it. Facts are much more fun than the alternatives.

 

[NightFox]

In this post of him he claims it was his own computer.

You're misreading that, I did the same too first time. The 'I' is a Roman number '1'. Read it as 'Apple 1' and the whole meaning of the sentence changes

 

[Bonte]

Coverflow is worthless for me and i think most users, skimming seems like a good replacement technology.

These software patents are a drag.