Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Massive 'Steve Jobs Patent' for the iPhone Reconfirmed in its Entirety

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,003
40,016



Last December, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to a challenge preliminarily invalidated the so-called "Steve Jobs patent", a massive 364-page patent with 293 pages of drawings dating back to September 2006 and covering many details of the original iPhone. Steve Jobs is listed as the first of over two dozen inventors on the patent, and it is considered perhaps the most famous of his over 300 credited patents.

steve_jobs_patent_with_figure.jpg
But as noted by FOSS Patents, the USPTO has now completed its reexamination of the patent and ruled that all twenty claims have been confirmed as patentable, significantly strengthening a patent that has been used against several of Apple's competitors in court.
As we speak, the Steve Jobs patent is even stronger than it was before someone (presumably Samsung and Google) challenged it anonymously. On September 4, 2013, the USPTO issued a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of all 20 claims because the prior art neither anticipated this invention nor renders it obvious.
Click to expand...
A number of Apple's key patents have been challenged for reexamination as its competitors have sought to derail Apple's claims against them in various court battles. While the USPTO has issued preliminary "first office actions" invalidating those patents in some cases, Apple has been successful in arguing its case and ultimately restoring the validity of at least the most important claims of those patents. In an example from earlier this year, a key claim of Apple's "rubber banding" patent used against Samsung was confirmed after having been preliminary invalidated last year.

Article Link: Apple's Massive 'Steve Jobs Patent' for the iPhone Reconfirmed in its Entirety
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/17/apples-massive-steve-jobs-patent-for-the-iphone-reconfirmed-in-its-entirety/
Looking back at it all, the iPhone is so incredible. Even the first one from almost 7 years ago still blows my mind. I'm glad that I've been alive to see this kind of stuff.
 
Nice, not sure what it really means, but seems pretty awesome that it was restored in full.
 
Scott Forstall is the #2 listed inventor. I know it sounds conspiracy nutty but I still think Scott wasn't 'forced out' but strategically put out for a 'time in the wilderness' so he can return later (if Apple gets off track, like in the 90's) as Steve Jobs #2, returning to fix the mess.

Or if they don't go off track, they are fine. They just have a plan either way.

I know. Nutty.
 
akm3 said:
Scott Forstall is the #2 listed inventor. I know it sounds conspiracy nutty but I still think Scott wasn't 'forced out' but strategically put out for a 'time in the wilderness' so he can return later (if Apple gets off track, like in the 90's) as Steve Jobs #2, returning to fix the mess.

Or if they don't go off track, they are fine. They just have a plan either way.

I know. Nutty.
Click to expand...

LOL, love your post. Might be time for you to have your coffee. :D
 
I'm assuming this is not the bounce back/rubber banding patent but something different?
 
This is like Star Wars. We watched episodes IV - VI. And now we will see I - III.
 
This doesn't make the patent "stronger," so it may be best to correct that error. But it is a strategic victory for sure.
 
What it means:

Android isn't and won't continue being "free".

(MS, Nokia, and Apple and others have lots of non-SEP iP that is being/could be licensed or otherwise give a better experience on MS/Nokia and Apple)
 
akm3 said:
Scott Forstall is the #2 listed inventor. I know it sounds conspiracy nutty but I still think Scott wasn't 'forced out' but strategically put out for a 'time in the wilderness' so he can return later (if Apple gets off track, like in the 90's) as Steve Jobs #2, returning to fix the mess.

Or if they don't go off track, they are fine. They just have a plan either way.

I know. Nutty.
Click to expand...

Ive is the new Steve
 
7 years? Wow...glad its finally over and a decision was made in favor of the true innovators here. :)
 
akm3 said:
Scott Forstall is the #2 listed inventor. I know it sounds conspiracy nutty but I still think Scott wasn't 'forced out' but strategically put out for a 'time in the wilderness' so he can return later (if Apple gets off track, like in the 90's) as Steve Jobs #2, returning to fix the mess.

Or if they don't go off track, they are fine. They just have a plan either way.

I know. Nutty.
Click to expand...

The order of inventorship is irrelevant.
 
akm3 said:
Scott Forstall is the #2 listed inventor. I know it sounds conspiracy nutty but I still think Scott wasn't 'forced out' but strategically put out for a 'time in the wilderness' so he can return later (if Apple gets off track, like in the 90's) as Steve Jobs #2, returning to fix the mess.

Or if they don't go off track, they are fine. They just have a plan either way.

I know. Nutty.
Click to expand...

Nope. Forstall was a trouble-maker whose screw ups started to outweigh his contributions. I really doubt he's on any list, short or long, to return for any position, much less CEO.

----------

So now the patent is definitely valid until the patent office declares that it's not. It's got to be maddening to companies to never know if what they are building is protected or not. We're almost seven years in and we are still arguing about whether the iPhone is a unique device.
 
rmatthewware said:
Nope. Forstall was a trouble-maker whose screw ups started to outweigh his contributions. I really doubt he's on any list, short or long, to return for any position, much less CEO.

----------

So now the patent is definitely valid until the patent office declares that it's not. It's got to be maddening to companies to never know if what they are building is protected or not. We're almost seven years in and we are still arguing about whether the iPhone is a unique device.
Click to expand...

Since it's all about money, they'll eventually all cross license each others patents and be done!

It just takes enough legal money to look wasted to get that done!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back