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 sued over iPhone Web-surfing technology
- Thread starter westernmass
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea I don't get that either. Wait I really, really was going to invent the Iphone and took out a patent this month. Can I sue to?
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)
Or steal it legally. LOL.
duelingdragons said:
Or steal it legally. LOL.
A clarification for those who don't understand how patents work, a patent that was issued last month was likely applied for at least 18 months ago. So, in principle, this patent may have been applied for before the iPhone was released.
Now, what is a bit pathetic about this is that the proper route would be to approach the users of this technology to get a licensing deal. That they are suing a month after the granting of the patent makes it seem unlikely that they ever approached Apple for such an arrangement. Or if they did, Apple Legal reviewed their claim and decided that they didn't have a strong case, and therefore turned them down flat. If that's the case, I doubt they'll with their suit.
Now, what is a bit pathetic about this is that the proper route would be to approach the users of this technology to get a licensing deal. That they are suing a month after the granting of the patent makes it seem unlikely that they ever approached Apple for such an arrangement. Or if they did, Apple Legal reviewed their claim and decided that they didn't have a strong case, and therefore turned them down flat. If that's the case, I doubt they'll with their suit.
The correct thing to do before commenting, is to look up the patent.
In this case, the patent was applied for back in 2006:
Patent Document Here
As far as I can tell from a quick glance, it's about dividing a web page into zoomable areas. The iPhone does this, but not in the same way or using the same view method as claimed in this patent.
As for greedy patents, let's not overlook the "200 iPhone" applications for possibly previously used ideas. My favorite is the one for different "two fingered conrol knob gestures", which is not only very similiar to stuff used years ago in my field, but is incredibly obvious.
In this case, the patent was applied for back in 2006:
Patent Document Here
As far as I can tell from a quick glance, it's about dividing a web page into zoomable areas. The iPhone does this, but not in the same way or using the same view method as claimed in this patent.
As for greedy patents, let's not overlook the "200 iPhone" applications for possibly previously used ideas. My favorite is the one for different "two fingered conrol knob gestures", which is not only very similiar to stuff used years ago in my field, but is incredibly obvious.
I dont know much about their specific patent, but mobile web browsing existed for years and years before the iPhone. Not only that, but I can name 3 or 4 mobile web browsers that work just like the iPhone's.
Isn't Nokia's web browser a cousin of the iPhones? I thought they used the same base...if so they've had that for many years prior to the patent troll sniffing around.
We need a major revamp of the patent system in this country, since every two-bit player can patent a variation of a concept invented, tested and created long ago and sue for rights. It's ********.
Isn't Nokia's web browser a cousin of the iPhones? I thought they used the same base...if so they've had that for many years prior to the patent troll sniffing around.
We need a major revamp of the patent system in this country, since every two-bit player can patent a variation of a concept invented, tested and created long ago and sue for rights. It's ********.
Thank you for doing the research, kdarling. That definitely changes things. It's a shame when major media outlets, such as MSNBC, choose to omit such information or are too lazy to do the research themselves. Apparently, it's more sexy for them to spin the article the way they did than actually present the facts of the matter. Of course, that is the primary reason I I don't use them for my news.
Thank you for doing the research, kdarling. That definitely changes things. It's a shame when major media outlets, such as MSNBC, choose to omit such information or are too lazy to do the research themselves. Apparently, it's more sexy for them to spin the article the way they did than actually present the facts of the matter. Of course, that is the primary reason I I don't use them for my news.
Agreed, good work kdarling. Your revelation fly completely in the face of the article's "spin."