Does anyone happen to have a link to the mirror world claims? I mean if two different companies sue Apple for infringing on patents with the same software, then their software should look at least similar, shouldn't it?
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's Time Machine, Cover Flow, and Safari for iOS Targeted in New Patent Infringement Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where "A" is TriDim's patents alleging infringement by Apple of "X", and "B" is Mirror Worlds' patents alleging infringement by Apple of "X"...
If A=X and B=X then A=B... at least approximately.
Here's the bizarre thing: They can sue for 'look', or 'feel'.
And I don't know who gets to judge 'feel', but It's my impression that a lot of cases are decided on 'feel'.
Patenting software makes as much sense as patenting someone's genome. Which also happens. And the person in possession of the genome is rarely the owner of the patent.
So if on those terms, Kim Kardashian could sue a hippo for looking, and probably feeling, like her bottom...
Eventually, everything that can be done in software will be patented, and there goes 'innovation' and 'cutting edge'. The only 'innovation' will be from the trolls suing everyone they can.
Congress, I believe, tried to reign in the trolls, but a certain party (as I remember it) killed the attempts at the request of their 'cash constituents'.
If you want more on this ridiculous crap, go to EFF.org, The Electronic Frontier Foundation. The crap they come up against is really twisted...
Mirror Worlds actually didn't lose the case, as in their patents are still valid. The appellant judge objected to the 'evidence' that Mirror Worlds presented, and the excessive damages awarded.
It was a similar software system, but the similarities weren't deemed enough for the appellant judge to buy the idea that there were massive/willful violations of those patents by Apple.
At least the judge didn't have Mirror Worlds pay Apple's court costs.
(The software Mirror Worlds wrote used a time basis to aggregate files into a 'stream' so that a user can find them based on 'need', regardless of where they are on the system. Mirror World kept playing videos of Cover Flow and Spotlight, which are NOT based on dates, and have little to do with the concept of 'need'. The original suit was an obvious overreach of the jury)
It is painfully blatant, isn't it?
The whole patent and copyright system needs a massive reset. I say invalidate the whole lot and start over with only very clearly new ideas being allowed to be patented. Not "a method to [do something forty other entities already have patents for]". Also, it should be impossible for a non-practicing entity to keep a patent, unless that patent has been granted under special self-employer/small business parameters. No one should be allowed to buy and sell patents.
If you read the patents, TriDim's claims seem farfetched.
They talk about secondary and tertiary 'spaces' to 'place' files that are, or are not, being used or about to be used.
Cover Flow is merely the display of a flat file database of files in a less flat way, making the movement accomplished through sideways motions on the screen. The sideways motion is the only similarity that I can find. Time Machine seeks to display various 'Epoch's' of files that were archived at a certain time. 'Flipping' through them int he way that TM does is also the same way that someone would do the same thing in a physical card system.
There is no 'secondary' or 'tertiary' area that files are moved to, and all of the files are in the same location. It's noting more than a system for organizing a flat file database...
But I'm not an idiot judge, or jury...
----------
AND even though the courts did not invalidate Mirror Worlds' patents, it did raise the bar, in that case, for what is considered a 'violation'.
Plus, the next commentator is correct in that it doesn't sound like Mirror Worlds has enough money to buy a pot to piss in, let alone be taken to the cleaners and cavity searched for cash. The juice to squeeze ratio is very low. They wouldn't get an award enough to cover their costs. But Mirror Worlds suing TriDim could have a lot of cash in its future. But it takes money to make money. In the courts...
They talk about secondary and tertiary 'spaces' to 'place' files that are, or are not, being used or about to be used.
Cover Flow is merely the display of a flat file database of files in a less flat way, making the movement accomplished through sideways motions on the screen. The sideways motion is the only similarity that I can find. Time Machine seeks to display various 'Epoch's' of files that were archived at a certain time. 'Flipping' through them int he way that TM does is also the same way that someone would do the same thing in a physical card system.
There is no 'secondary' or 'tertiary' area that files are moved to, and all of the files are in the same location. It's noting more than a system for organizing a flat file database...
But I'm not an idiot judge, or jury...
----------
AND even though the courts did not invalidate Mirror Worlds' patents, it did raise the bar, in that case, for what is considered a 'violation'.
Plus, the next commentator is correct in that it doesn't sound like Mirror Worlds has enough money to buy a pot to piss in, let alone be taken to the cleaners and cavity searched for cash. The juice to squeeze ratio is very low. They wouldn't get an award enough to cover their costs. But Mirror Worlds suing TriDim could have a lot of cash in its future. But it takes money to make money. In the courts...
Patents need to be overhauled it's long overdue.
It should be if you don't make a product for sale you can't claim infringement. Or if your company is based on patent hoarding you must first show your how it's possible to make a loss.
The damages should only be rewarded on lost income.
I can understand it's based on ideas and you can be the inventor of 'the idea' but the consumer should be the focus not the company. If you invent it and don't sell or licence it your patent should time out.
It should be if you don't make a product for sale you can't claim infringement. Or if your company is based on patent hoarding you must first show your how it's possible to make a loss.
The damages should only be rewarded on lost income.
I can understand it's based on ideas and you can be the inventor of 'the idea' but the consumer should be the focus not the company. If you invent it and don't sell or licence it your patent should time out.
Coverflow was bought by Apple before the patent was filed.
8/13/2005
http://thetreehouseandthecave.blogspot.com/2005/08/meet-coverflow.html
8/13/2005
http://thetreehouseandthecave.blogspot.com/2005/08/meet-coverflow.html
Considering how clunky and slow the current interface is for accessing Time Machine backups (I never use it, and just go into the raw filesystem) I'd be welcome to see it change, even if patents end up forcing that change. 
Well with apple making all these patents for things that have already been invented, this company better get their share of the pie before apple patents it and prevents any other company from using it.
The whole patent system needs to be overhauled. You can't just patent something that has already been invented and then not allow other companies to use it. You don't ever hear about car companies fighting over "patents."
The whole patent system needs to be overhauled. You can't just patent something that has already been invented and then not allow other companies to use it. You don't ever hear about car companies fighting over "patents."
The only thing I hate more than patent trolls is the antiquated and bull-crap patent system that gives purpose to these miserable nobodies who pray on the success of other people's hard work and waste court resources! (Yes, I form run-on sentences when I am pissed off )
I vote that the penalty for patent trolls be public stoning!
)I vote that the penalty for patent trolls be public stoning!
When does Apple not infringe on something ?
Why didn't they ask, if true ?
"Please sir, can we use this in our products"
Maybe Apple thought it was ok,,,,, but that's the point ....They weren't sure..
I don't really get....Pretty much all future patents could be closed right now, if everyone would just ask before they use.... Whats wrong with that ?
Barging into people's homes without permission THAT we get
Why didn't they ask, if true ?
"Please sir, can we use this in our products"
Maybe Apple thought it was ok,,,,, but that's the point ....They weren't sure..
I don't really get....Pretty much all future patents could be closed right now, if everyone would just ask before they use.... Whats wrong with that ?
Barging into people's homes without permission THAT we get
When does Apple not infringe on something ?
Why didn't they ask, if true ?
"Please sir, can we use this in our products"
Maybe Apple thought it was ok,,,,, but that's the point ....They weren't sure..
I don't really get....Pretty much all future patents could be closed right now, if everyone would just ask before they use.... Whats wrong with that ?
Barging into people's homes without permission THAT we get
you're assuming a lot. like, a lot.
Because these are ******** submarine patents that lie in wait until someone has enough product out there for them to attack. They have to twist the patent application pretty badly to fit what Apple is doing but they'll try and hope they get some money to go away.
your questions and statements betray your last sentence.
this patent seems as silly as when apple tried to patent gestures. as you can see, many companies use gestures and they don't have to ask anyone to do it. what makes you assume it can't be challenged, overturned, or found to be ridiculous for one company to assume they 'own.'
if you're in a 3d environment on a screen, you're going to have to navigate it somehow. i don't think xerox has a leg to stand on here. unless they legitimately stole some code, or can be found have xerox's ex-employees working at apple on those features.
so for you to think every patent problem would just go away if companies asked nicely of each other is... very naive. no offense.
Ok all of these technologies have been used by Apple for years, in fact, almost a decade.
Please do not allow these patent trolls to even get anywhere near the courts. They are sucking taxpayer's money out of the judicial system.
There should be a law, you have two years since initial infringement to make a claim, otherwise, it can't be protected. You cannot claim, you somehow did not realize Apple or another international brand infringed on your patents for this long without noticing.
Please do not allow these patent trolls to even get anywhere near the courts. They are sucking taxpayer's money out of the judicial system.
There should be a law, you have two years since initial infringement to make a claim, otherwise, it can't be protected. You cannot claim, you somehow did not realize Apple or another international brand infringed on your patents for this long without noticing.
That is not accurate. They can only win a case of patent infringement if Apple's technology is covered by all of the elements of the claims of the patents asserted against Apple. While it is possible to infringe a patent under the doctrine of equivalents, it's a fairly narrow doctrine.
Looking at the first patent, one element that seems to be missing from Apple's technology is that the patent requires the display to trace where the document is going to go. One claim even recites that there has to be a line. Since Time Machine does not trace a line, or indicate where the document is going to go, Time Machine (or Cover Flow and Safari for that matter) seems to fall outside of the scope of the claims. But I'm not an expert in the software patents, or even software!
Last edited:
With patent court, there should be some way to ensure that there's a cost involved when you sue. I think in Germany the plaintiff in a patent lawsuit has to put up a bond that's 10% of the complaint amount. I'm not sure if that's' forfeit if there was no infringement found.
That would put a stop to a lot of the trolling. It might also prevent some valid suits from going forward, which is probably why the US doesn't do it.
That would put a stop to a lot of the trolling. It might also prevent some valid suits from going forward, which is probably why the US doesn't do it.
Actually, these patents were issued fairly quickly (both were issued in a little over two years from first filing). Most software patents now take over 3 years to be issued. Also, they were filed after 1995, when the law changed making the term run from the application date, not the issue date. Submarine patents were much more of a problem under the prior law.
Last edited:
SGI ran IRIX so yeah, it was.
Edit: found a reference to it here, seems like prior art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn
Last edited:
Legit question for you guys. What is worse:
a) American Patent troll lazily suing Apple over a tenuous patent they bought / collected?
b) Chinese company brazenly copying an Apple product and profiting from it?
Note: I'm only an expat living in China, no Nationalist agenda from me
a) American Patent troll lazily suing Apple over a tenuous patent they bought / collected?
b) Chinese company brazenly copying an Apple product and profiting from it?
Note: I'm only an expat living in China, no Nationalist agenda from me
Legit question for you guys. What is worse:
a) American Patent troll lazily suing Apple over a tenuous patent they bought / collected?
b) Chinese company brazenly copying an Apple product and profiting from it?
Note: I'm only an expat living in China, no Nationalist agenda from me
c) Both.
