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.
ITC Rules For Apple in HTC Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have a very very short memory. You act like the iPhone and phones like it have been "so basic and fundamental" this whole time. Check your facts and see what cell phones were BEFORE June 29, 2007. There is ALMOST NOTHING about the modern smart phone that Apple did not introduce with the iPhone.
Apple has been ripped off left and right since 2007 and it's about time the courts said so.
Apple did the honorable thing when it bought FingerWorks in 2005. It could've just stolen the technology (as everyone else has from Apple), but Apple decided to ACQUIRE the pieces of the puzzle it wanted to build. Apple has bought numerous small companies over the years including Coverflow which is everywhere these days in their two OS's (and copied by sooo many otheres) -- WHY IS IT that Apple has to play by all the rules but no one else has to, Piggie?
"So basic and fundamental" --- that is the funniest thing I've read here in a long, long time.
Last edited:
Patents were originally intended to recoup expensive development costs that otherwise could not be recouped. This was mainly in the pharmaceutical industry where bringing a medication to market can cost 500 M - 1 B.
What it has now become is a ridiculous waste of the legal system and at great cost to the user. It is exactly what Karl Marx predicted when large companies get too much power. (not that his solution was the answer, far from it)
What it has now become is a ridiculous waste of the legal system and at great cost to the user. It is exactly what Karl Marx predicted when large companies get too much power. (not that his solution was the answer, far from it)
Except Apple isn't breaking the law, not are they a convicted monopolist.
Apple has never and is currently not rising to the level MS has in this area.
Apple has *always* been litigious. Some of us were too young to remember it, but it's all there for you if you do a bit of searching. Apple just has more products on the go and thus more patents and tech IP to look after these days.
The patent in question was filed in 1996. I don't think they need a time machine.
There's a difference between patentable technology and artistic ideas/concepts:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SwipedFromTheBestWithPride
Jobs was making a joke. That quote is actually Pablo Picasso's, and it's: "Bad artists copy. Good artists steal."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso.html
Why do people post things in which they have no clue. I am an attorney, and I can tell you that one of the hardest fields in which to practice is patent law. You must have a scientific background (which I do not have) to qualify as a patent attorney (which I am not). Here is a brief description of some of the requirements:
To register as a patent agent or patent attorney, one must pass the USPTO registration examination. This exam, commonly referred to as the "patent bar," tests a candidate's knowledge of patent law and USPTO policies and procedures as set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). Upon successful completion of the examination, one will be labeled as a "patent attorney" if he/she has already been admitted to a state or territorial bar. However, engineers, scientists and any other science based majors, as well as law students and law graduates who are not admitted to a bar, will be labeled as "patent agents" since they cannot give legal advice nor represent clients in court.
A candidate must also have an adequate scientific and technical background or education to understand a client's invention. The educational requirement can be met by a bachelor's degree in a specifically enumerated major, such as biology, computer science, chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, physics, and biomedical, chemical, civil, electrical or mechanical engineering. This is known as Category A qualification. One can also meet the scientific and technical training requirement by qualifying under Category B or Category C. Category B provides four distinct qualification options, where each option sets a requisite number of semester hours in physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, and/or engineering. An applicant can qualify under Category C by showing that he or she has taken and passed the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination. Specific details of the ways one can qualify for the USPTO registration examination are outlined in the USPTO Registration Statement. Degrees in the social sciences, mathematics, or philosophy by themselves do not meet this requirement.
We have a system of laws in this country to help people protect their inventions and ideas. Plenty of people sacrifice their time, family life, social life, and money to create products so that the rest of the world can benefit from their product's use. Why should the creator of the product not have an exclusive right to that ownership? Why should someone else have the right to wait for someone to create something and then duplicate it and put out the same product in the name of competition? That is not competition.
If you don't understand patent law, or business law then you should be careful about what you say.
You know I'd love to find one of these phones, and see how it does compare to the original iPhone. Because all I ever see is this black phone with no image, no idea of input (stylus/touch), nothing. However, I've never seen one in the wild, nor has the model continued. Hmmm
BTW, do you anti-iPhone nay-sayers keep this photo on your desktop for just such an occasion? Because you all seem to whip it out pretty quick.
Please stop posting Prada fail. It will only cause Prada more pain. Prada's refined handbags are particularly sensitive.
Development of the iPhone began in 2005.
For your enjoyment and edification:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone
Nor was it such a big secret:
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/timeline-apple-iphone-rumors-1999-present
That's your basis of having expertise and requirement to litigate with a law degree? A Bachelors in the field? A test to determine you know the legalities of patent law on top of that?
Give me a break man. I am no lawyer you are correct, but what you just described makes you a beginner in those technical fields. You don't learn anything with an EE or Mechanical degree until you get out of school, someone hires you, and you go through the real learning process.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule especially in terms of those who are just born to be in a field and excel in it before they even enter a classroom.
Just as I am not an attorney and do not have a legal background please do not try and patronize me with a field you seem to know very little about. The patent system, and legal aspect of defending your patent, would be a very different place if engineers who actually had a career being an engineer were the ones deciding the cases.
The patent office would be a very different place if the above was the same.
We wouldn't have patents for freaking buttons and we wouldn't have lawyers arguing over the merits of them!
You are here: Home / Tech / Apple News / Apple loses out on iPod playlist patent suit to the tune of $8 million Ars Technica
Apple loses out on iPod playlist patent suit to the tune of $8 million Ars Technica
Apple Loses $208.5MM In Cover Flow Patent Infringement Suit
Last Friday, a jury in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas ruled the worlds largest technology had intentionally violated patents held by Mirror Worlds LLC. The court awarded Connecticut-based Mirror Worlds, which creates display software to view documents and images in a dynamic digital format, US$208.5-million in damages for each of the three violations it upheld.
apple copies too
Apple loses out on iPod playlist patent suit to the tune of $8 million Ars Technica
Apple Loses $208.5MM In Cover Flow Patent Infringement Suit
Last Friday, a jury in the U.S. Eastern District of Texas ruled the worlds largest technology had intentionally violated patents held by Mirror Worlds LLC. The court awarded Connecticut-based Mirror Worlds, which creates display software to view documents and images in a dynamic digital format, US$208.5-million in damages for each of the three violations it upheld.
apple copies too
3-4 years of law school = an LLB (or JD, depending on the country or schools), and that's all you need to practice law.
His 3-4 years of law school is more than your 0 years.
Please stop.
Mirror Worlds is a known patent troll.
By the way you're wrong:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/apple-wins-reversal-of-mirror-worlds-patent-verdict.html
Another patent troll loses.
I myself spent 6 years in school for a Masters in my field. Shouldn't you get back behind the Genius Bar?
Oh wait! I know the answer to this one!
It was in the field of (wait, I know this, I swear) . . . . . "not lawyer."
Last edited:
thank you for the corection , but the fact remains that apple also infringes on other companys patents
I have been an attorney for over 17 years, and would like to think that I know something about the law profession. I am not trying to patronize you, for I don't know you and really couldn't care to try and get to know you.
You admit to not having a clue about the legal system and that of patent law, yet you have so much to say about it. Go figure.
Sure. But the ones under discussion not only belong to Apple, but their violation apparently has potentially serious consequences for the mobile industry at large.
These aren't playlists.
Where is plip-plop in this discussion?
He must be worried sick that HTC the greatest phone ever may not be his soon!
He must be worried sick that HTC the greatest phone ever may not be his soon!
We have another one on these boards and he, too, has to put up with a ton of s-t from the armchair Robert Shapiros around here.
Well done.
This is all good for Apple, but still, we need a new system without software patents. It's ridiculous that such basic trivial things can be "patented". Imagine if the keyboard or mouse had been patented.... our current technology would still be three decades behind.
Do you actually have knowledge of what Apple intend to do if this win is upheld? You write as if you do?