And a very nice one at that. You could set it to only show albums of a certain minimum length. Something that iTunes still isn't able to do. The 3D-animation was also a bit more fluid. I just wish it would still work on Snow Leopard.
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
And a very nice one at that. You could set it to only show albums of a certain minimum length. Something that iTunes still isn't able to do. The 3D-animation was also a bit more fluid. I just wish it would still work on Snow Leopard.
If you read at least the article, you'd have seen that the judge decided that although the patents were valid, Apple didn't actually infringe on them. And even if they had been valid, the jury was wrong in their calculation of damages. Whether Apple is an innovator or not doesn't matter one bit.
I doubt 625 million would hurt Apple much
It would hurt Apple by $625 million. Instead of paying $625 million, hire lawyers for $1 million, give them $4 million bonus if they win the case, $620 million saved. That's more than Apple's revenue from the iOS app store (you know the 30% of sales price that everyone and their dog is moaning about). An awful lot of people at Apple have to do an awful lot of work to make $625 million.
Do you have any idea what 625 million dollars is?
Last edited:
the whole patent system is totally crap! i understand that companies want to protect ideas, but some ideas are so logical, that they should not be able to patented. cover flow is like sheets of paper, where is the patent? or kodak: showing a photo after taking it. that's a patent?
at the end it's all about money, nothing more. the companies WITH money can get patents, the idiots who are poor suffer. and if two large companies collide in such a patent case, the only winners are the lawyers. i wish this patent crap would end one day, because it's stupid. if someone wants to refine something or make it better, then do so! of course companies shouldn't copy everything, but some things ARE logical and should be able to be used as they wish.
it's similar like this stupid case where apple didn't want microsoft to use a trashcan icon. every "real" office has a trashcan, so why not a virtual office desktop? apple had the money and patented it, but the patent itself was stupid. it is as if someone patents "keys in 5 rows that have numbers and a-z on it" and from then on no one can use keyboards anymore. the whole patent system should be reformed. there should be NO patents for logical and simple things.
at the end it's all about money, nothing more. the companies WITH money can get patents, the idiots who are poor suffer. and if two large companies collide in such a patent case, the only winners are the lawyers. i wish this patent crap would end one day, because it's stupid. if someone wants to refine something or make it better, then do so! of course companies shouldn't copy everything, but some things ARE logical and should be able to be used as they wish.
it's similar like this stupid case where apple didn't want microsoft to use a trashcan icon. every "real" office has a trashcan, so why not a virtual office desktop? apple had the money and patented it, but the patent itself was stupid. it is as if someone patents "keys in 5 rows that have numbers and a-z on it" and from then on no one can use keyboards anymore. the whole patent system should be reformed. there should be NO patents for logical and simple things.
I've said it before, that you should not be able to patent an idea, which you have no idea how to make and may never make, just to stop someone else having the idea in the future and making something.
If you invent a real thing and market it and want to stop others copying your invention that's on the market then fine.
But you should not be allowed to copyright something to the detriment of everyone else.
If you invent a real thing and market it and want to stop others copying your invention that's on the market then fine.
But you should not be allowed to copyright something to the detriment of everyone else.
Fact and Law don't belong together? It seems that ANY case that a company loses would automatically appeal to hopefully get overturned by a judge?
Seems the system is broken.
You are making a strawman argument. Neither patent claims what you are saying they do. The kodak patent did not patent "showing a photo after taking it." Read the patents, then offer your opinions.
Why is the system broken?
A lawsuit is determined by applying the facts of the case to the law that applies. The facts are the facts, and are unique to each case. The law is the law, and is supposed to be consistent - it's determined by any applicable statutes (in the case of patents, this means title 35 of the United States Code), and the common law (or case law) - that is, the collection of previous cases in the Supreme Court, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and, in this case, the Federal Circuit for the Eastern District of Texas, where previous courts have interpreted these statutes. The idea is that unlike the facts, the law is the same in every case.
The reason we have judges in addition to juries is so that the judges can make sure that the law is consistently applied.
Last edited:
You're mixing up two different things.
Patents protect inventors' rights.
Copyrights protect authors of works of art and software.
However, a lot of people feel like you do: that patented inventions should get used, not locked away. Sometimes that's difficult for small inventors.
As opposed to things that are illogical and difficult? Where's the product in that? And who decides what is and isn't logical and/or difficult? Oh, wait, that's the patent office. And then later the legal system if required.
You're describing the system we have right now.
It sounds like the judge reversed the jury's findings for lack of sufficient evidence. This happens occasionally. It's called Judgement as a Matter of Law, which basically means that the jury got carried away and after a scrutinizing the verdict the judge found there to be insufficient evidence as a matter of law to uphold the jury's findings.
We are talking about copyrights, not patents. But in the case of patents, some ideas are only obvious once you know about them.
If you really want to get upset, look at the pharmaceutical industry. Let me give you a specific example: Guaifenesin. That is the active ingredient in plain Robitussin. This drug was grandfathered in to the drug approval system by the FDA because it was established as a safe product already.
Now the FDA is in the process of removing these older drugs from the accepted formulary and requiring they go through tests as modern medicines would.
The problem is that private companies are doing the paperwork to patent these "new drugs". So for example, Robitussin will go from a generic OTC to a brand name drug which of course costs more.
So who in fact lobbied for this? Look for the potential money trail.
I believe in this situation, the studies and patents for drugs that are reentering the formulary should be in the hands of the people. The government should fund universities or drug companies for the studies but leave the patent as owned by the people.
$$$$ talks in a corrupt government. Ask the Supreme Court and their judgment for unlimited corporate lobbying money. I've lost all respect for the US Justice System. It's corrupt to high hell in favor of large corporations these days. They are allowed to get away with just about everything anymore. And when they cause massive recessions they get bailed out and the taxpayer gets the bill while they then go on to make record profits again like nothing happened. Get used to it. We are now the United Corporations Of America.
Oh stop. Read the opinion and explain to me why it's wrong. The jury doesn't make findings of law - the judge does. This is how it is supposed to work.
Not quite. The jury ruled against Apple and awarded big damages. After the trial Apple filed a Motion with the same judge in the trial to set aside the jury's findings because the verdict didn't reasonably comport with the law and the damages were excessive.
The judge in the trial agreed with Apple. A judge can always set aside a jury's rulings if unreasonable. There has been no appeal.
The judge in the trial agreed with Apple. A judge can always set aside a jury's rulings if unreasonable. There has been no appeal.
No, YOU stop. You don't know WTF you're talking about. See Terrin's reply. It's the JUDGE that changed the ruling, not the jury and it is activist judges that are corrupt and screwing with actual justice in this country. The good old USA is being sold down the river into 3rd world status where you have the mega-rich and the poor and not much in-between. Republicans are on a crusade to take away collective bargaining rights, bust unions and return us to the days of children working in coal mines. You can laugh, but the writing is on the wall. They won't be happy until we're all working for peanuts in sweat shops. The Judicial Branch is supposed to be non-partisan and simply uphold the law, not make it. But I've seen far too much activism (on both sides for that matter) in the past decade. The Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Corporations to spend unlimited money for campaigns is rigging the system in favor of Big Money and anyone who believes otherwise is on drugs. That ruling isn't based on law. A corporation is not a person. That kind of legal status is a crock of cow dung. They might as well put "IBM" or "Microsot" on the ballet for President the next time around at the rate they're going. This crap is out of control and lobbyists have ruined our representative government. The "People" are nowhere to be found when the ultra-rich (representing less than 7% of the total population of the U.S. but having over 85% of all the wealth) have all the pull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
This case has nothing to do with judicial activism.
Actually, in the US, it is.
I agree, which is why the relevant laws should be changed.
I have been on many sides of a patent dispute. Winning a suit when you are accused of infringing has two strategies. One is to show that your technology is not covered in the patent claim. Two, you invalidate the patent that you are said to be infringing upon by discovering prior art. Sometimes, the defendant produces such artwork from a notarized lab book.
