I wish I knew who was the first to make this tiresome joke. I would alert him or her so that s/he could sue you for copyright infringement.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pays $25 Million in Settlement Over Cover Flow, Time Machine Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wish I knew who was the first to make this tiresome joke. I would alert him or her so that s/he could sue you for copyright infringement.
I'm pretty sure Apple patented the alphabet when they patented the rectangle with round corners.
Thanks.....I don't think I want it that badly! I'm not a member of the jailbreaking community yet. Emphasis on yet.
Hmmm, so the original patent is legitimate, but it was then scavenged by Network-1, a patent troll company which subsists upon lawsuits.
I have mixed feelings about this. The original scientists certainly deserved compensation for their invention, and all too often such scientists are rewarded with only honors and recognition for their inventions. But I have nothing but contempt for a bottom feeder company which exists solely to sue other companies over patents for inventions, the creation of which it had nothing to do with whatsoever.
I would much rather see Apple pay the full settlement amount to the scientists who invented the patented technology.
I have mixed feelings about this. The original scientists certainly deserved compensation for their invention, and all too often such scientists are rewarded with only honors and recognition for their inventions. But I have nothing but contempt for a bottom feeder company which exists solely to sue other companies over patents for inventions, the creation of which it had nothing to do with whatsoever.
I would much rather see Apple pay the full settlement amount to the scientists who invented the patented technology.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6725427B2 for US6725427B2 suggests that it's active, "expires 2016-09-12".
The 2013-05-23 complaint is amongst the examples at Our Experience | Dovel & Luner, LLP.
Two days after the acquisition.
Yeah, I liked the depth, fearless use of three dimensions.
Postscript: I moved part of this post to https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/23183771
Last edited:
With all the patent lawsuits flying around..... How will any tech company be able to create anything new and innovative? It seems, to me, that a lot of these patents are just "on paper" and not fully realized and in use. So how will anyone not run afoul of those types of patents?
Can't two people who don't know each other come up with the same or similar ideas on how to solve a common problem? Do they now always have to check if someone else has a similar solution before making their own?
Can't two people who don't know each other come up with the same or similar ideas on how to solve a common problem? Do they now always have to check if someone else has a similar solution before making their own?
Not just a "slimy business model", IMO, but a situation that shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place. The whole purpose of providing patent protection is so INVENTORS can succeed in creating what they're working on without getting broadsided by someone stealing their idea out from under them.
If this was handled properly from a legal standpoint, there'd be a requirement of proof that you're actively doing things with a patent you hold, if you file a lawsuit against someone over it.
If this was handled properly from a legal standpoint, there'd be a requirement of proof that you're actively doing things with a patent you hold, if you file a lawsuit against someone over it.
Cause no one is paying them licenses
Apple brought this onto themselves plain and simple. I absolutely support any feeding of a small fish by chewing the big fish especially when the big fish. Apple was able, through corruption I suppose, to patent some things that are in the domain of not ever being able to be a patent. Most of these patents are look and feel patent which you or I can't never, ever in this life get approved by the official office.
I think this case brings up a good point... when is a company a patent troll versus a patent holder, etc. In this case, it appears that the original inventors of the patent were legitimate and came up with a patentable invention. So that's what they did. However, they were not successful in fighting Apple over it. So they sold their business and portfolio to a larger firm with legal resources to monetize and license the patent. Honestly, this all makes perfect ethical and business sense to me. Now it sounds like they have won a settlement so the original inventors get some monetary compensation.
The issue with intellectual property is that it's nothing like real estate "land-based" property. With that, you can easily determine the boundaries of each property and it can only exist at one time. The problem with intellectual property is that it's conceivable that two different parties can derive the same intellectual property concepts. None of this happens in a vacuum. That's why obvious things should not be patentable. It should be novel. Of course as time transpires, some things that used to be novel, lose their novelty. For instance, a web-page carousel. Back in 1999, that would have been pretty novel but nowadays, it's common and obvious. Multiple entities could come up with the same idea simultaneously and the patent system is not aptly designed to handle this.
There must be a better way to handle this. For instance, if there is intent to harm a competitor by stealing their ideas. I don't know. It seems like the patent system is just plain broken. Or maybe we just let it go to court constantly and let the lawyers figure it out. But that damages the "little guy" who can't afford to go up against the big guy.
Anyway, just some observations...
The issue with intellectual property is that it's nothing like real estate "land-based" property. With that, you can easily determine the boundaries of each property and it can only exist at one time. The problem with intellectual property is that it's conceivable that two different parties can derive the same intellectual property concepts. None of this happens in a vacuum. That's why obvious things should not be patentable. It should be novel. Of course as time transpires, some things that used to be novel, lose their novelty. For instance, a web-page carousel. Back in 1999, that would have been pretty novel but nowadays, it's common and obvious. Multiple entities could come up with the same idea simultaneously and the patent system is not aptly designed to handle this.
There must be a better way to handle this. For instance, if there is intent to harm a competitor by stealing their ideas. I don't know. It seems like the patent system is just plain broken. Or maybe we just let it go to court constantly and let the lawyers figure it out. But that damages the "little guy" who can't afford to go up against the big guy.
Anyway, just some observations...
When am I going to see someone holding a patent for "mobile phones" and sues the entire mobile phone companies??? Or someone with a "car" patent and sues all car manufactures in the world???
Exactly. The scientists can go back to inventing, happy that they've made some income, and that their work is being licensed to anyone who wants to use it.
Unlike, say, when Apple bought Fingerworks. All the customers who depended on those touch keyboards to make their physical life easier, were suddenly out of luck. Apple basically kept the scientists, but locked the patents and products away. Society was NOT served by this.
I'd rather someone keep the scientists working AND license the products. Which is what this patent holding company does.
Yes, this is a huge problem with software patents. Infringement is rarely about copying. It's more often a case of independent invention.
E.g. Apple has sued other companies over nonsense like universal search "methods" (which others came up with on their own), and Apple has likewise been sued by companies over things which they came up with independently.
The trouble with patents is, independent invention is not an excuse. Although it does help the infringer avoid extra penalties for "intentional infringement".
Can't patent ideas. Only implementations. And as you noted, with software, a similar implementation is quite often independently discovered / created.
One idea that's been floated is to make patents like other IP, such as copyrights. With those, independent invention is a valid defense. (Like with the recent case over the riff to "Stairway to Heaven.")
Ah, Apple. My favorite (no, really) company that steals ideas and claims them as their own. Ties them up in court for a decade, then ends up paying out the behind.
Apple will pay $25 million to settle a patent lawsuit with Network-1 Technologies' subsidiary Mirror World Technologies and license its patents, the companies announced today. The patent (No. 6,006,227) dates back to 1999, covering a system that stores documents in a stream ordered chronologically, similar to Apple's Cover Flow or Time Machine.
The technologies described in the patent were developed from the work of Yale University computer scientist Professor David Gelernter and his then-graduate student Dr. Eric Freeman in 1996. They then founded Mirror Worlds LLC, which began a long-running legal fight with Apple over the patent. In 2010, Apple was hit with a $625 million judgment over the patent. A year later, Apple won a reversal of the decision and the judge closed the case in Apple's favor.
In 2013, Mirror Worlds was purchased by Network-1 and the company acquired Mirror World's patents. Network-1 describes itself as a company "engaged in the development, licensing and protection of its intellectual property and proprietary technologies." Last year, the company also reached a settlement with Microsoft for $4.6 million over the same patent.
Article Link: Apple Pays $25 Million in Settlement Over Cover Flow, Time Machine Patents
[doublepost=1468104758][/doublepost]
Uh. it is true. how can you apple trolls not see that? SMH. Okay pal.
Just because they haven't yet made anything but a SIM extractor doesn't mean they won't. And more to the point, Apple bought liquidmetal because they thought it had potential as a unique material and not as an income source through either licensing fees or the courts. I also doubt we've seen the last of liquidmetal.
All pure software patents should be eliminated. Copyright law covers outright theft, but these completely violate the reason for patents. Nobody who decides these cases is smart enough to even understand the mechanisms involved in accomplishing what they patent, which is what a patent is supposed to protect. Instead they just see if the software *does* what it describes. It's like if I patented the idea for mousetraps, making ALL mousetraps - regardless of how they work - owe me a license.
As a software developer - and a holder of two patents, by the way (though there are hardware components involved) - I find the entire software patent industry disgusting and guilty of grinding innovation to a halt.
As a software developer - and a holder of two patents, by the way (though there are hardware components involved) - I find the entire software patent industry disgusting and guilty of grinding innovation to a halt.
Translation: Apple can't figure out what to do with it, so no one can use it.
This is one of those situations where "like" just doesn't fit well. Interesting fact though, thank you for sharing.
It has not completely disappeared but (comparing Yosemite to Mavericks) the flattening was so severe, for applications such as Finder, that some customers will treat the essence of Cover Flow as gone.
Coverflow looked neat in a demo, but wasn't terribly efficient, taking up all that real estate to show one little square icon of a file at a time and a whole bunch of slivers of unix icons on the sides of it.
The detailed list view below it was alright, but navigating was never as efficient as column view...
Ideally, you'd have a choice of what the final column in column view would display, detailed list, preview, or thumbnails. and if you wanted the cover flow display, you could just drag it down above all that and size it. ...Of course column view no longer interacts reliably when dragging and dropping files either, so on the whole, Finder needs a lot of work.
And it's still only 1/100th the trainwreck itunes is. ...or the now unusable photos app. We dont even waste the drivespace having that installed on our systems.
Man, I'm nothing but bad news. But a lot of Apples software is aging, and not all that gracefully.
The detailed list view below it was alright, but navigating was never as efficient as column view...
Ideally, you'd have a choice of what the final column in column view would display, detailed list, preview, or thumbnails. and if you wanted the cover flow display, you could just drag it down above all that and size it. ...Of course column view no longer interacts reliably when dragging and dropping files either, so on the whole, Finder needs a lot of work.
And it's still only 1/100th the trainwreck itunes is. ...or the now unusable photos app. We dont even waste the drivespace having that installed on our systems.
Man, I'm nothing but bad news. But a lot of Apples software is aging, and not all that gracefully.
Cute. But I'd add "yet." There's often a long lag between patent and product. Probably longer if it's a material and not a device. It was over five years between Touch ID patents and the iPhone 5S. Apple has at least two product patents using liquidmetal. We'll see what they make. How much time would you give Apple to make a product using liquidmetal? Since six years is unfair, how about five? Three?
Besides, my original point is that Apple didn't buy the patent as part of a business model to earn generate income by suing those who used it.