When controversial patents like some of these come up I ask myself this: If this feature was available as a paid addon, would I pay for it and how much? In this case I would as I see value in it's offering.
I would never pay anywhere close to $120 million for a half dozen regular expressions... which is all we're talking about Google doing... much less believe that any of us should owe Apple anything simply for writing such commonplace code!
It's high level and a bit vague, but it's better than most spec sheets I receive.
It's way too high level and vague for a patent. I think that a jury made up of programmers would've quickly checked off the "patent is invalid" box.
If you focus on the pieces and not the package it's easy to see prior art in a lot of things. In 1996 Netscape had been out for less than 2 years. The idea of having a GUI based email client link contact info in an email I received to other applications on my computer was bleeding edge at the time. I don't remember having any apps that did this at that time.
This is where my extra ten years comes in handy
Recognizing data like phone numbers was a popular thing to do in DB programs from at least the 80s. Windows CardFile did it in like 1987. Lotus Agenda did it in 1992.
Ironically, a few years before
Apple's 647 patent was filed in 1996, one of Apple's own programmers had patented a similar idea ... which was promptly forgotten... and that almost caused the newer one to be invalidated because of prior art!
Which once again points out the problem with most software patents: developers all over the world constantly independently invent the same solutions, and have no way to check millions of patents for infringement.
Unfortunately independent development is not an infringement defense in the US. Apple got bit by this not long ago with that VirnetX verdict, where Apple owes at least $368 million, all because they accidentally tread on a patent.
It probably does matter, at least to the courts. The punishment fits the crime so to speak. It can tell you things like willful intent. You can't say being guilty is the same thing when comparing a speeding ticket and a murder conviction. We don't put people to death for speeding tickets.
We don't put people to death for willful patent infringement either
More to the point, it's not up to a jury to decide on willful infringement award amount. All they can say is if they thought it was willful or not. Then it's up to the judge to decide 1) if it really was willful, and 2) the amount to add on.
(If you recall, in the last trial, Judge Koh refused to tack on willful damages, on the basis that any reasonable person would've thought Apple's patents could be invalid. Some kneejerk readers mistook that to mean a company could say they thought a patent was invalid, but they were wrong: it's up to the judge alone.)
