Sidebar Sidebar
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

I get a kick out of reaidng these patent threads.

They're basically cmaier and maybe one other person who knows what he's talking about vs 100 people trying to pretend they have a deep understanding of patent law

keep it coming :D
 
cmaier said:
In the US it is the first to invent, not first to patent, that matters.
Click to expand...

While in principle, this is true, in practice it isn't always...

pubwvj said:
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.
Click to expand...

The patent system servers a very important purpose. If I were to invest $10 million to invent a brand new technology for, for example, batteries, that enabled me to create new laptop batteries that could power a MBP for 36 hours in the same form factor as exists today, and they cost me $15 to make, I would need to sell these new batteries for substantially more than $15 (maybe $65?) in order to make my investment money back. Without patent protection, as soon as my new batteries were on the market, ABC battery company could take one of my batteries, invest $10 thousand in reverse engineering it, then start making their own and selling them for $35. They would make their money back sooner than I would, even though they're selling their battery at half the price.

What is the result? Without patent protection, I have no incentive to innovate. In fact, I've got some very powerful incentives ($10 million) not to innovate. Thus, without the patent system much of technological advancement grinds to a halt...

cmaier said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's really good to have a voice of reason among all the jabber. Thanks.
 
You can only steal others ideas for so long before it catches up with you. Steve Jobs has bragged in the past about Apple stealing others ideas.
 
18. A touch sensor for detecting the operative coupling of multiple fingers comprising:

means for scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, and (c) identify a second maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima, and

means for providing an indication of the simultaneous presence of two fingers in response to identification of said first and second maxima.
Click to expand...
[source: Patent ]

Except that this isn't how Apple's multitouch system works at all. It doesn't rely on detection of 'the first maxima' more ANY 'maxima' touching the surface. You can touch with 1-5 fingers, it will detect them simultaneously.

Patent attorney fail.
 
MarkFromCamiloo said:
[source: Patent ]

Except that this isn't how Apple's multitouch system works at all. It doesn't rely on detection of 'the first maxima' more ANY 'maxima' touching the surface. You can touch with 1-5 fingers, it will detect them simultaneously.

Patent attorney fail.
Click to expand...

The number of fingers doesn't matter as long as is capable of detecting at least two. "Comprising" is non-limiting, so if it detects three or five fingers it might still infringe.

As for minima/maxima, you have to look at the rest of the patent to figure out what that would mean to a person having ordinary skill in the art. It seems to refer to a signal that varies from 0 (no touch) to some large value (solid touch), with a minima being a small value and a maxima being a large value.
 
kas23 said:
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"?
Click to expand...

'Cause Apple's got the deep pockets :D Don't you love double standards?
 
mobi said:
We are reaching the patent boiling point. They grant too many similar patents...
Click to expand...

My prediction is that some of the original multi-touch prior artwork going back to the 1980's is going to surface. This was demo'ed at SigGraph and other media interaction conventions long before any of these filings. Someone, perhaps Apple, may make a motion for Public Domain to dissolve all IP. Then those that made product will profit and those that just hacked in a lab, filed patents and didn't do anything with it will be stuck with court fees.
 
cmaier said:
Tell Microsoft, echostar, qualcomm and RIM about how injunctions aren't granted.
Click to expand...

First, do NOT put words into my mouth... My post indicated that a great number of these cases (most was the term I think I used) DO NOT result in such an outcome... If you are trying to disagree with me then you'd need to reference a WHOLE LOT more than 5 cases where is DID happen vs. the ????? cases where it didn't. :p :rolleyes:

Clearly I'm aware of SOME cases where a block did happen... and its the VERY REASON I said 'most of the time' and not 'all of the time'.
 
DaveGee said:
So after reviewing the ENORMOUS number of these crappy cases are trying to say that it's MORE LIKELY or LESS LIKELY that a product injunction would actually happen?

My post indicated that a great number of these cases DO NOT result in such an outcome... If you are trying to disagree with me then you'd need to reference a WHOLE LOT more than 5 cases where is DID happen vs. the ????? cases where it didn't. :p
Click to expand...

Almost no cases ever make it to the jury - just like in other areas of the law, in the U.S., at least, almost all cases settle before a jury verdict. Of the cases that go all the way, if the plaintiff and defendant are both industry competitors (i.e.: the plaintiff is not a patent troll), then if the plaintiff wins, he is highly likely to get an injunction.

In cases tried at the ITC (such as this one), an injunction is the only remedy, so if the plaintiff wins, the plaintiff gets an injunction. Injunctions are actually quite common. What typically happens is the plaintiff uses the injunction, once granted, as leverage to get a high dollar figure settlement.

Update: in 2005, 19% of cases that made it to the end resulted in injunctions. That seems like a lot to me.
 
Maybe we'll finally get a change to the patent laws because of this. Oh wait, that would mean we'd need politicians not controlled by interest groups and instead truly interested in their citizenry/constituents...
 
aristokrat said:
Maybe we'll finally get a change to the patent laws because of this. Oh wait, that would mean we'd need politicians not controlled by interest groups and instead truly interested in their citizenry/constituents...
Click to expand...

What change are you proposing?
 
daxomni said:
Yep, that's all that matters. To a lawyer. Some of us are able to look beyond the specifics of overly vague patents and the frivolous lawsuits they facilitate and see the expensive damage it does to our society beyond our paychecks. Patent law was created to promote innovation, not stifle it.
Click to expand...

I understand that overly vague patents can be a problem, but why is everyone's solution to throw the baby out with the bath water?

And once again someone has laid out the claim that this is somehow stifling innovation as if it's obvious. I see how this stifles competition (becuase that is its intent), but how is it stifling innovation again? If the system is broken in the way you say, isn't that causing companies to be MORE innovative to get products out? Someone please answer this for me.
 
Digitalclips said:
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.
Click to expand...
Elan won a patent suit again Synaptics in 2008 for infringing the same patent.
So the courts have already affirmed that the patent is valid.
Elan's lawyers need to only prove infringement by Apple.
 
I'm so happy companies like apple knowingly or not ignore patents like these filed by companies for ideas that may never even make it to fruition.

"Ya, I have a cool idea that seems like an obvious future device that I'll patent and wait til someone else perfects it", "then I'll sue them."

Granted there will be a small group out there that truly gets stomped on.. but odds are if they create something, most of us will never see it.
 
rjohnstone said:
Elan won a patent suit again Synaptics in 2008 for infringing the same patent.
So the courts have already affirmed that the patent is valid.
Elan's lawyers need to only prove infringement by Apple.
Click to expand...

If that is indeed true, this may be an obstacle for the Apple Propa... I mean legal team.
 
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