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.
Elan Microelectronics Turns to U.S. International Trade Commission in Multi-Touch Patent Dispute With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's not forget Apple money is consumer money first. Money that has been given to Apple in exchange of technology. Now, if part of the technology does not belong to Apple, the money related to that part doesn't belong to Apple either.
What has Apple "been dishing out for years?" What patent lawsuits has Apple initiated in the last ten years other than HTC?
You declare them vague but you haven't read them. Read the claims then explain why the patents are vague.
A question then, does it cover a specific method of detecting multiple fingers on a touch screen or does does it prohibit the development of any other method of achieving the same result? And when filing the infringement case, and getting an injunction awarded to stop the sale of said products does the company seeking the injunction have to have any proof that their patent was infringed on or can they file the lawsuit against a company has put out or is planning on releasing a product that does something similar to what is covered in the patent?
Based solely on what is reported in these cases it appears to a layman that the cases and patents cover the idea more than a specific technology, which seems to be an excessive amount of protection that goes beyond the "spirit" of patent protection.
It covers specific methods and only prevents those methods. You cannot patent a result (you can patent either a method of doing or making something, or you can patent a manufactured article, such a a touch screen with particular components hooked up a particular way).
You can get an injunction against anyone who is infringing or will iminently infringe your patent, but now generally only of the patent holder uses the patent in its own product (that is - is not a troll).
I see no reference to them filing in east Texas so maybe this one has at least some merit? Just kidding 
I have no clue about these things.
I have no clue about these things.
Jobs has been crying like a baby over Google enabling multitouch on the Nexus One, as he somehow thinks this is his technology. I have long thought multitouch isn't Apple's at all. It was displayed on a big glass table at TED years before Apple ever filed a patent.
Yes very nice definition and theoretical language, but in reality for a lot of companies patent are a way to troll for money when they have nothing new or worth the consumer purchasing. And for a lot of companies Apple is what they wish they where.
>It was displayed on a big glass table at TED years before Apple ever filed a patent.
And what does that have to do with a patent? Xerox had a windowing interface before Apple and Microsoft. It's whoever patents it first that matters. And I imagine the rules regarding prior art are quite specific.
And what does that have to do with a patent? Xerox had a windowing interface before Apple and Microsoft. It's whoever patents it first that matters. And I imagine the rules regarding prior art are quite specific.
Oh come ON...
This patent system has been ENGINEERED to the mess it's currently in and Apple along with the other hi-tech first are 100% responsible.
It's gotten so $&^#* that it all but ASSURES a new company would have ZERO success in rolling out ANYTHING that the public might find desirable -- oh and if they DO then it's all but a 100% certainty that said device/invention is or can be found in violation of no less than 30-50 patents... (for a mildly complex device) or far more if the device was REALLY cutting edge.
Don't believe this is EXACTLY the way the EXISTING companies want it? Well then explain this...
1 - When was the last time a 'cool piece of tech' (gadget) came from a 'garage based startup'
2 - Why almost NONE of these X vs. Y lawsuits ever have any DIRE outcome ?
Simple... the reason for any/all lawsuits isn't usually a money grab... Unless said company is actually just a law firm who somehow acquired a patent. The real reason is to show startups what they'd be IN FOR if they ever dared roll out a product in todays world... AND a way to get access to company X or company Y patents. Since many of these cases settle with each company allowing access to a certain number of patents held by the other company (and vise versa).
It's on a VERY rare occasion when a lawsuit actually goes out and BLOCKS the import of goods... This is NOT the same as taking the steps to that end (a bold threat) many do try it.. but if the BLOCK is actually granted it just makes the 'loosing company' all the more willing to make this problem go away by offering access to MORE of their patents (if the winning company would benefit from having access) --AND/OR-- a much bigger MONEY grab.
In the end this is all little more than prick waving and perhaps 'mildly troublesome' for the big companies with lots of lawyers at their disposal AND BILLIONS of CASH in the bank... but it all but CRUSHES the concept of a new technology company from ever making a foothold in the industry... Unless it knuckles under and sell 90% to a VC or just sells themselves out to one of the existing companies...
Sorry but its a crappy system and needs to be changed.
Tell Microsoft, echostar, qualcomm and RIM about how injunctions aren't granted.
Oh come ON...
This patent system has been ENGINEERED to the mess it's currently in and Apple along with the other hi-tech first are 100% responsible.
It's gotten so $&^#* that it all but ASSURES a new company would have ZERO success in rolling out ANYTHING that the public might find desirable -- oh and if they DO then it's all but a 100% certainty that said device/invention is or can be found in violation of no less than 30-50 patents... (for a mildly complex device) or far more if the device was REALLY cutting edge.
Don't believe this is EXACTLY the way the EXISTING companies want it? Well then explain this...
1 - When was the last time a 'cool piece of tech' (gadget) came from a 'garage based startup'
2 - Why almost NONE of these X vs. Y lawsuits ever have any DIRE outcome ?
Simple... the reason for any/all lawsuits isn't usually a money grab... Unless said company is actually just a law firm who somehow acquired a patent. The real reason is to show startups what they'd be IN FOR if they ever dared roll out a product in todays world... AND a way to get access to company X or company Y patents. Since many of these cases settle with each company allowing access to a certain number of patents held by the other company (and vise versa).
It's on a VERY rare occasion when a lawsuit actually goes out and BLOCKS the import of goods... This is NOT the same as taking the steps to that end (a bold threat) many do try it.. but if the BLOCK is actually granted it just makes the 'loosing company' all the more willing to make this problem go away lets say offering access to 30 of their patents vs. 10 from the winning company... (if the winning company would benefit from having access) --AND/OR-- a much bigger MONEY grab.
In the end this is all **** and all but CRUSHES the concept of a new technology company from ever making a foothold in the industry... Unless it knuckles under and sell 90% to a VC or just sells themselves out to one of the existing companies...
Sorry but its a crappy system and needs to be changed.
Time to throw out the patent system.
Life should not be patented.
Software should not be patented.
Hardware should not be patented.
Ideas are a dime a dozen.
It is the implementation of the ideas into products and successful sales in the market place that should be rewarded through profits.
I speak as a user, a manufacturers and an inventor.
The patent system has become an absurdity.
Kill the trolls.
Life should not be patented.
Software should not be patented.
Hardware should not be patented.
Ideas are a dime a dozen.
It is the implementation of the ideas into products and successful sales in the market place that should be rewarded through profits.
I speak as a user, a manufacturers and an inventor.
The patent system has become an absurdity.
Kill the trolls.
Agreed wholeheartedly! Thanks for the dose of reality. Unfortunately most changes made to the patent system and interpretations of patent law in my lifetime have been in the wrong direction, needlessly screwing consumers and legitimate startups at the hands of conglomerates and patent trolls.
the patent office even states that if it grants a patent then you can still be sued and lose and have it invalidated
this might have been true for the cotton gin, but in the modern world event he simplest products are the result of hundreds if not thousands of inventions
Most changes in the last decade have not been in the wrong direction. It has gotten far easier to prove a patent is obvious (KSR). It is much easier to get standing to sue someone who is going around threatening people with patents (Medimmune). It is much harder to get an injunction if you are a patent troll. The list goes on and on.
Nice snipe. Just when Apple where throwing down with HTC along come Elan with a case of just deserts.
Fanboy lemon pie, bitter, but moresome. Keep it coming.
Fanboy lemon pie, bitter, but moresome. Keep it coming.
Huh? Apple has sued one company for patent infringement in the last year. Apple has been sued by about 5 companies in the last year.
And there's nothing worse than someone who can't discern dessert from a desert.
Unfortunately for you, his use of the word desert, defined as that which one deserves, was entirely correct.
Just deserts
in Wiktionary
and Snopes.
Why is it when Apple sues for copyright infringement, it's called "defending their IP". But, when someone else sues Apple for copyright infrigement, it's called "extortion"?