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 Wins Reversal of $625 Million Patent Judgement Over Cover Flow, Spotlight and T
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More innovators whose innovations are often better or mass market implementations of other companies innovations, that they've purchased. Not that I'm not grateful, though. I love what they do (for the most part).
methinks you've been doin' the fool aid thing yourself if you think, in any real world situation way apple would take an action that could put them in position of legal jeopardy with a judge through bribery, then you are truly delusional or just making posts to stir things up in maybe a boring day (or life..who knows).
I think this comment is defamatory since you are accusing a corporation for bribery, which is a serious crime, and it's apparently not a fair comment.
Not really. QS doesn't continuously monitor movement of files. It has to update its catalog at user-defined intervals. That said, it's a great app launcher/switcher. I would really like it if they could get the iTunes functions to work again.
I don't think that was the case here. If it had been, the judge could have ruled the patents invalid, when he did exactly the opposite.
In one case, you could end up with a jury or judge that has zippo clue about technological stuff. I can't imagine how confusing some copyright trial over a technological advancement might be, but I wish there was some better way than to put literal commoners in charge of deciding it. I figure the same deal was going on with Dish Network vs. TiVo in a DVR dispute.
isn't a case like this with the judge over turn the jury a quick way for it to be appealed to a high court.
Some ways it does smell a little doggy.
APPLE: "Your Honor, the jury was composed of 12 Windows users. That alone shows that they lack good judgment and make poor decisions."
JUDGE: "As an iMac user myself, I concur. Case dismissed!"
The story was about that "respected teacher" who "invented" the coverflow paradigm (moving back and forth between large previews of anything, sorted in time, etc) and documented it in a book. Tried to sell the idea to Apple, and few years later the technology popped-up as coverflow. And since this paradigm is found in all three of Apple's features, they had to pay three times over.
First, it's not such a far-fetched concept and I'm sure there was some precedent. Second, this guy's ego was either way over-inflated by the lawyers or he was just unrealistic over how much Apple should pay for his "invention".
Rule of thumb: either you sue everyone you think stole your technology or you don't sue at all. Makes you look greedy, and as in this guy's case, like a dbag. Next time, ask for less and run with it.
First, it's not such a far-fetched concept and I'm sure there was some precedent. Second, this guy's ego was either way over-inflated by the lawyers or he was just unrealistic over how much Apple should pay for his "invention".
Rule of thumb: either you sue everyone you think stole your technology or you don't sue at all. Makes you look greedy, and as in this guy's case, like a dbag. Next time, ask for less and run with it.
This...
Judge > Jury in the Appellate court. If there is no jury in the Appellate court the judge determines the ruling.
Or as Walter Lippmann would have commented on the impossible ideal of the omnicompetent citizen.
Last edited:
Save, Apple!!
Wonder what they'll do with money?
Throw it in the pile I suppose.
So this technically wasn't an appeal, it was a Judgment not withstanding the verdict (called JNOV in court procedure terms).
Basically Apple asked the judge to set aside the jury's verdict because no reasonable jury could have arrived at the verdict the jury did. It's very rare for a judge to grant this motion, especially in the patent holder-friendly district in Texas where this case was filed.
Judges like to leave juries alone for the most part, and it's probable that the judge in this case always thought the case was weak but wanted to let the jury decide. After the jury came back with such a bad verdict, Apple moved for it to be disregarded and the judge agreed.
Yes, JNOVs are very thoroughly reviewed by appellate courts and in general the judiciary frowns on them a lot. However, with patent suits, there is a separate appellate court, so the case would go to the Federal Circuit as opposed to the 5th Circuit (which is based in Texas). This circuit has more specially trained judges who are likely to be well equipped to handle patent issues and increases the likelihood that they would agree with a similarly trained patent district court judge.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Save, Apple!!
Wonder what they'll do with money?
stash it with the rest.. its probably pennies compared to all the spare cash apple has got locked away
Interesting, I always thought Apple bought the companies or patents that originally those products. Anyway, I guess this is good for Apple; more money to hire more iOS and OSX team members!
Paying someone under the table is so much easier and cheaper, though!
Paying someone under the table is so much easier and cheaper, though!
Last edited by a moderator:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Judge was paid off with an iPod
Judge was paid off with an iPod
The jury must have been all PC users and the judge a Mac fan
Glad to see Apple prevail on this one.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Judge was paid off with an iPod
lmao.. hope it was a ipod touch
if it was me i would of demanded a 17" mbp and an ipad2
QuickSilver initially was nothing more than a copy of Launchbar, which has been around sinceNeXTStep.
Indeed