FFS I had a spinning mobile baby thing doing just that 35 years ago in my crib... It's the ancestor of that thing... Come on someone tell the inventor of that thing so he can sue this guy...
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.
Pennsylvania Man Sues Apple Over Web Carousel Use
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see no reason to believe it isn't. The patent is older and this is hardly the first time somebody has managed to patent a ridiculously obvious or long-since-common thing. Here, for example, is a patent that was granted on a 3-button computer mouse where the middle button sticks up farther than the other two:
https://www.google.com/patents/US5157381
...it was applied for in 1990.
And if you had a stupidly-obvious patent like that somehow granted, why not go for it? Sure, your chances of winning are extremely low, but if you do, you're rich. It's better odds than the lottery, at least. Same for the lawyers taking the case--sure, maybe you fail 99 times, but if you succeed once, jackpot.
Because he has a patent that is only valid on paper, and anybody could tell that. It will be invalidated due to prior art, and should never have been granted in the first place.
If the guy was ignorant and didn't realize this, you could chalk it up to optimism. But I'm quite sure he knew at the time he filed that his patent was garbage, and he certainly does by now. He's just hoping for a lottery jackpot payout--that some idiot judge will side with him or Apple will roll over and pay out because their legal team is lazy. It's extremely unlikely, and in the end probably a waste of everybody's time, but he got lucky at the USPTO, so why not try for the payoff.
You can--and should--blame the patent office for granting it in the first place, and more to the point the entire system is completely broken, particularly when it comes to software, but it's compounded by all the people who see the weakness and try to exploit it.
[doublepost=1468007357][/doublepost]
Thing is, if he used a computer at all he should have known perfectly well the patent was junk when he applied for it. Yes, it was granted, and he might as well try to cash in, but I seriously doubt he didn't know about any prior art when he filed unless he never used the internet or played any video games.
He also, unquestionably, ignored literally thousands of websites and pieces of software doing exactly the same thing and is only going after Apple. Of course, he also ignored websites doing the same thing before he even applied for his patent, so there's that...
You're right that he's not a troll in the traditional sense, though. Traditional trolls buy a pile of patents from some failing company then sift through them looking for something to sue over. This guy wasn't doing anything with his patent (including defending it against thousands of infringers), but at least he managed to get it granted himself.
Even if the patent is legit, what it describes doesn't resemble Apple's shifting display:
Pennsylvania resident Samuel Lit has hit Apple with a lawsuit claiming that the company infringed on his patent for web carousels, according to documents filed in the Northern Illinois District Court (via AppleInsider). Apple's website typically features a homepage with a carousel containing four to five windows displaying its products.
Lit owns U.S. Patent No. 8,793,330, which is a "system and method for displaying graphics, art, text, animation, video and other content." It's described as a "three-dimensional 'Display Carousel' system" that can cycle through its windows in a rotating manner that makes it look like a carousel at a predetermined speed.
The lawsuit claims that Apple's website, which also has a system that cycles through windows in a rotating manner at a predetermined speed, infringes some or all of the 20 claims of the patent. Some of Apple's infringements on Claim 16 include having a "system for displaying content," a "display carousel embedded" into the website, a display engine to deliver the carousel content when its on a web browser, and a database to track how many customers purchase things linked from the carousel.
Lit is seeking "reasonable" royalties with interest. While Lit is a radio broadcaster, he used to work with software systems and engines for Hy Lit Radio Technologies, which was named after his father Hy Lit, another radio broadcaster. He previously attempted to monetize his patent via a website called YourDisplayCarousel.com but the site shut down in December.
Article Link: Pennsylvania Man Sues Apple Over Web Carousel Use
It's described as a "three-dimensional 'Display Carousel' system" that can cycle through its windows in a rotating manner that makes it look like a carousel at a predetermined speed.
To wit:
- Apple's image layout isn't emulating 3D
- It doesn't rotate the image in a way that a 3D design would (i.e., with the images turning on a 3D carousel type of layout
- The Apple design doesn't "cycle through its windows in a rotating manner", it shifts them horizontally in an endless loop.
So he couldn't make any money with his Patent? I guess his next step is to patent troll successful companies, hoping they will pay him to go away?
Likewise, among other patents, Apple's slide-to-unlock patent was looked upon by experienced people the same way, and has since been invalidated around the world.
Prior art did not stop it from being granted in the first place, nor did it stop Apple from attempting to use it against their competition.
To be fair, Apple almost certainly filed because they actually thought they had something patentable. So it's quite possible that this guy actually thought so too.
Indeed, why not.
Software patent trial outcomes often seem to hinge on venue and legal maneuvering, along with luck of the draw of judge / jury.
Last edited:
True in both cases, but inasmuch as the patent system is broken it should have prevented it from being granted, and that would have prevented the trial from ever happening. Once Apple had it, you'd kind of expect them to use it--like this guy--and slide to unlock is if nothing else a lot less common than carousel displays, but the fact in both cases is that it was an idea that shouldn't have been patentable and even if it was prior art should have long since made that impossible.
I don't know whether Apple's engineers genuinely thought this was something patentable or not. It seems very likely they'd have been aware of prior examples, but at least slide-to-unlock wasn't a super-common thing.
The issue with this guy's patent is that, by the time he filed, that kind of thing had been widely used on the web, in video games, and probably elsewhere. If he is technically competent enough to have thought up the idea and to file a patent for it, it seems exceptionally unlikely that he could have gone through life without noticing anybody else doing the same thing.
Possible, but he'd have to have been some kind of reclusive developer who never used the web, rarely played video games, and (depending on whether you think it's "rotating" or not) also never heard of Cover Flow the company or seen its work as implemented in iTunes and iPods, and also did no due diligence to confirm these things existed before filing his patent.
Again, not technically impossible--he could have been a reclusive, computer-patent-filing technophobe who was also too lazy to check for prior art before filing his patent, figuring if the USPTO granted it there must not be any. But that seems extremely unlikely.
[doublepost=1468018462][/doublepost]
The sad part is, the USPTO has demonstrated repeatedly that he could probably get one today if he was willing to go through the filing process.
If you can patent a 3-button mouse in 1990 and a 3D carousel display in 2008, you can obviously get a patent on just about anything.
wonder which route this man took?!
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Pen...2e13d35bc74ed0!2m2!1d-81.5157535!2d27.6648274
We can never use the abstract description. We must look up and use the actual patented claim(s) that are said to be infringed. In his lawsuit, it's this claim:16. A system for displaying content, said system comprising: a display carousel embedded into a website or webpage, said display carousel comprising one or more display windows configured to display said content and to revolve at a predetermined rate of speed when said display carousel is displayed with said website or webpage on said web browser, a display engine configured to deliver said content to said display windows of said display carousel when said website or webpage is displayed on a web browser, wherein said display engine is in communication with said website or webpage and a server of said system, and a database comprising storage and retrieval functionality for statistical and financial information about said content displayed on said display carousel, wherein said database is in communication with said server, wherein said content is instantly passed between said display engine and said display carousel when said display carousel is displayed with said website or webpage on said web browser.
As we can see, that claim has nothing to do with 3D. (Another claim does note it as a possible variation.)
What the inventor claims Apple infringes, is an automatically changing display of info windows, that also gives Apple statistics on which ones are clicked.
This is the claim which should be debated over obviousness.
Last edited:
Not disagreeing however you are stating facts not in evidence. It does seem likely that he has seen something similar.
This appears to be one of the outliers we occasionally see filter through. If for nothing else but that reason I will be interested in the outcome.
When am I going to see someone holding a patent for "mobile phones" and sues the entire mobile phone companies??? Or someone with a "car" patent and sues all car manufactures in the world???
So
I disagree.
By the way, most software patents now end up getting knocked out by 35 USC 101 and the Alice decision.
I disagree.
By the way, most software patents now end up getting knocked out by 35 USC 101 and the Alice decision.
If you mean that there's not definitive evidence he knew there was prior art when he filed, yes, that's true. However, given that the patent itself references many websites as examples, it is nearly impossible to believe that a web developer in 2008 wasn't aware of any of the existing examples.
If you mean there's no evidence that he hasn't defended it from the hundreds if not thousands of websites and other things that have infringed since it was granted in 2009, again, technically it's possible he has. But given, again, the sheer number of sites that infringe on at least one of the 20 things the patent claims, the chances that he or his lawyers have sent out hundreds of cease-and-desist or similar letters claiming infringement to websites, developers, etc. over the past 7 years and it hasn't made the news before (and that nobody took him to court to have the thing invalidated already) is very close to zero.
I am actually fairly certain I, personally, used a carousel infringing on several of the patent's claims on a website some time in the last 5 or 6 years, and I know I never received any legal notices. I'm not Apple, sure, but I got paid for the site, too.
I am interested to see what happens as well, though. If you read through the patent, it's very clearly some web dev who figured he was being clever enough that he could squeeze a patent through with enough of a kitchen-sink approach that if somebody came up with some profitable carousel-esque advertising platform in the future he'd be able to cash in on it. I rather hope that this will go nowhere and be invalidated, but who knows.
That was my point - thx. It may very well be the "size" of the infringer in this case.
The US patent system is beyond broken. Let's take something that doesn't exist right now, but will soonish, such as holograms.
Just patent every possible method you can imagine. Hockey puck that projects upwards. Projector against a wall. Projector against some kind of hockey puck thing shooting up etc. Do that for enough "just around the corner" technologies and you're bound to have a winner. Wait for someone to actually do the work, then sue them for "infringing your rights", even though most of the time there is literally no other alternative (you have a rectangular device mostly covered in a screen? You stole my phone design!).
Just patent every possible method you can imagine. Hockey puck that projects upwards. Projector against a wall. Projector against some kind of hockey puck thing shooting up etc. Do that for enough "just around the corner" technologies and you're bound to have a winner. Wait for someone to actually do the work, then sue them for "infringing your rights", even though most of the time there is literally no other alternative (you have a rectangular device mostly covered in a screen? You stole my phone design!).
Hello Apple, welcome to the Karma Carousel, or in other words what goes arround, comes arround. But seriously, the US Patent System is in a dire need of a total overhaul. We can point the finger of blame against patent trolls as often as we want, but the simple fact of life is, whenever the system has loopholes, there will be people expoiting it.
The thing that always surprises me whenever a patent is invalidated as a result of a patent lawsuit is that people rush to either blame either the suing party or the party being suit, where in fact one should blame the Patent Office for issuing an invalid patent in the first place. They are making their purses fat by issuing new patents on existing inventions left, right, center. To me, it seems like a license to print money.
The thing that always surprises me whenever a patent is invalidated as a result of a patent lawsuit is that people rush to either blame either the suing party or the party being suit, where in fact one should blame the Patent Office for issuing an invalid patent in the first place. They are making their purses fat by issuing new patents on existing inventions left, right, center. To me, it seems like a license to print money.
Does it need a total overhaul or does it need new well defined rules and guidelines for digital? The more look at this the more I am having trouble seeing how a single set of rules will work.
Software and non-physical invention shouldn't have fallen under patent. it was a mistake that is being abused today by just about everyone (Including Apple)
The problem with patents is that they're aimed at INVENTION and they're supposed to protect the method that the invention uses to accomplish a task
However, how do you do that in software when the method to accomplish the task is code and not physical in any way. The Patent office decided that they would issue software patents based on outcomes, ignoring the tools, since you can't patent code.
this has backfired, because it's clear that some things are "obvious" in nature, This has led software patents to be on the outcome, and not the method.
If we were to make an analogy here:
Imagine if software patents were applied to a simple tool, like a Hammer.
With physical patents, you would patent the hammer as "a physical, anvil shaped portable device attached to a physical handle in order to drive with force, a nail into a surface".
now thats pretty specific. It allows other people to invent other items that can accomplish the same overall task of driving a nail into a surface, while forcing them to come up with another physical invention. Person B can come along and create a "hammer" that say, uses pistons, or gun powder, or. Anything else. it is the method and how the invention itself is used. NOT the outcome that is patented
in software patents, it would be worded something like;
"Mode and apparatus for driving a nail into a surface". this is vague and doesn't describe the invention itself, but the intention of the invention. Now this Patent can be used against anyone else who creates anything that could drive a nail into a surface, regardless if the invention is similar to a hammer or not.
at the end of the day though, so many of these companies know how to game this system. the Patent office is flooded by it and eventually just grants patents with the mindset that it'll be up to the industry to police itself and fight it's own patent disputes to prove validity of a patent, isntead of them doing their jobs in the first place.
My point exactly. Something different is needed be it a non-patent / non-copyright solution. Shoehorning it into the current patent system design doesn't work.
They're going somewhere... How much is this moron's time worth and how much is the 20 apple employees that are handling this moron worth?