Microsoft Co-Founder's Firm Sues Apple and Others in Patent Dispute

[MacKeeperFanMod]

I suppose the world of patents is highly defined. But I find it really hard to believe that anyone can patent anything so generic as sending e-mail to a mobile. Can a person who doesn't understand how wireless works and has no patents on wireless declare a patent on sending e-mail to a mobile? If that's true we all should pay attention. There are some pretty obvious things you can think of as new technology is revealed. And all those lawyers with no economics training allowed to define what is and isn't patentable, that's scary.

 

[Tommigun]

Greedy bastard! What a scumbag! This is why I've never visited Seattle. LOL

Wow, you take this awfully personal. Not visiting a specific city because someone you don't live (or know) lives there? Geez...

 

[Maury]

Nope, sorry. Patent law during the 20th century, especially in the US, has clearly moved to "first filer" as the basis for holding a patent. In other words, all you have to do is file and then you don't have to do anything else with it.

All you can do is try to break it, either on "obviousness" or prior art. People have pretty much given up on the later, which is sad, because I think Apple's Rosebud could be said to be prior art for the first one:

http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/Rosebud.html

Maury

 

[MattInOz]

Xerox.

So true but they have no intent to use the ideas usefully. I mean look at the interfaces to the photocopiers they product today.

They don't understand what they invent now and they didn't understand then when they sold apple rights on the cheap then.

 

[kernkraft]

I have patented these replies as they relate to posting replies on message board forums of any type:

"first"

"troll"

"fanboy"

"fanboi"

"fanboyz"

"fanbois"

"trollz"

"can I have your stuff?"

"tl;dr"

You should also do "kidz".

 

[Gakboi]

am I the only one who thinks that they should redefine what is patentable and what is not?.... some of these things are common sense. Ridiculous to patent them. Patenting is supposed to stimulate innovation not stifle it.

 

[PerfSeeker]

am I the only one who thinks that they should redefine what is patentable and what is not?.... some of these things are common sense. Ridiculous to patent them. Patenting is supposed to stimulate innovation not stifle it.

Apple's patents are genius and all other patents are stupid. In fact only Apple patents should be accepted by the US Patent Office!

 

[Gakboi]

Apple's patents are genius and all other patents are stupid. In fact only Apple patents should be accepted by the US Patent Office!

haha.... you made me lol all over the floor

 

[GoodWatch]

Allen's claims are vague and baseless. His 'Patents' are completely unenforceable.

So they were awarded by the 'Patent Clown'? Like all the other thousands upon thousands similar patents? If this is the case, you should go after the Patent Offices, not the ones that own the patents. Fight the system from within I say

 

[lPHONE]

NO, NO, NO!
YOU'VE ALL GOT IT WRONG!!!!


Mr. Allen isn't desperate for money, he's just doing this to make everyone think he's broke and at the last moment he's going to announce the breakthrough device that will rival the iPhone!

I has seen video of it on YouTube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxk_WywMTzc

 

[davelanger]

Yeah, patents have become so stupid, they issue them for anything. I should try to patent "Breathing" or "Walking".

This is just as bad as Monsanto Seed Company and how they sue every farmer because their roundup blows in other farmers fields.

I mean serious how can they let people patent things like SEEDS and basic internet search features.

I know I am going to patent typing on the internet.

 

[jlseattle]

Rewrite the patent laws

I can't believe that people can get away with just broad sweeping patents. I feel the laws need to be changed. If someone submits a patent then it should be very specific on what the patent is for. It should be down to a specific process or interface that is used. OR there should be rules on the expiration of legal repercussion's to when an person or entity infringes on a patent versus the legal right to take action. Like maybe setting up a statute of limitations of 2 years after first infringement. This gives the infringed the right to notify the parties that are infringing on the patent.

This technology has been around a while to keep this "ace in the hole" hidden until you need some cash is just crappy. This is why our legal system is so clogged up. Lawyers making money everywhere.

Also, (with a statute of limitations) if an interested party is legally pursuing a company this will give the company ample opportunity to make changes or pay fees to the party who owns the patent.

This just makes me frustrated at the patent process. This system needs to be cleaned up. I can't imagine owning a company and trying to dig through the patent office trying to find a patent that you might be infringing upon. Only to then be sued 20 years later by the person who applied for a patent you infringed on.

 

[vpndev]

no imagining required

I can't imagine owning a company and trying to dig through the patent office trying to find a patent that you might be infringing upon. Only to then be sued 20 years later by the person who applied for a patent you infringed on.

No need to imagine. That IS how it is.

Bad - yes.

About to change - only if we push.

 

[aughsum]

Paul Allen = patent troll... didn't see that one coming.

Page 2.

 

[kernkraft]

You should also do "kidz".

I didn't mean that in the wrong way, but with these ones, I actually don't mind.

 

[quistlogic]

!

You're using words to describe a picture? I'm suing you.

 

[DMann]

All things are relative, of course. I get nervous when I have less than $20K in my checking account -

Being that this amount would hardly suffice in covering my two mortgages, let alone entertaining and living expenses, nervousness seems justified here.

Paul Allen = patent troll... didn't see that one coming.

Page 2.

Can't really blame him for trying, you know, after the preeminent success of the Courier, Kin, Zune.....

 

[Bytor65]

Can't really blame him for trying, you know, after the preeminent success of the Courier, Kin, Zune.....

Allen left Microsoft nearly 30 years ago...

But his personal ventures are even less successful. He purchased a controlling interest in Charter Communications that went chapter 11 last year, which can't have been good for his position.

 

[DMann]

Allen left Microsoft nearly 30 years ago...

But his personal ventures are even less successful. He purchased a controlling interest in Charter Communications that went chapter 11 last year, which can't have been good for his position.

Nevertheless, As I understand it, Allard stayed on as a Senior VP until May, 2010.

The Courier had been his pet project, among others.

True, Charter Communications going belly-up hasn't helped his position any - nor have his dwindling holdings of MS shares.