Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

balamw

Moderator emeritus
Aug 16, 2005
19,366
979
New England
Apologies if this has been answered, but where does it go from here? Does Apple have a right to appeal? Is it over? Does Apple reapply with a different proposal (for lack of a better word)?

From TFA:

I have said on various occasions that first Office actions and other non-final Office actions are just preliminary. Many patent claims that are rejected at this stage do ultimately survive. There are many steps inside the USPTO, followed by a potential appeal to the Federal Circuit (and in a few cases even the Supreme Court).

This is just one step in the process. I've even had patents of my own that came back from the dead after a "final" office action.

This is kind of like an opening bid.

B
 

dashiel

macrumors 6502a
Nov 12, 2003
876
0

STiNG Operation

macrumors 6502a
Aug 15, 2012
575
8
The Zoo
And then every other design in any other product. Everyone should be able to copy everyone. Sounds like a great idea! :rolleyes:

There is a better image out there but this is all I could find;)
 

Attachments

  • samsung-phones-before-and-after-iphone-was-launched.png
    samsung-phones-before-and-after-iphone-was-launched.png
    362.6 KB · Views: 716

LagunaSol

macrumors 601
Apr 3, 2003
4,798
0
Wow, talk about some BS! Guess that's what happens when you have the political power of Google and their Korean and Chinese friends.

And the sheep that cheer for them.

Advertising-driven generic commodity crap for everyone! Hooray!
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
Why not?
If someone makes the same product you are forced to bring in new features. That's progress, bro.

The alternative would be a stagnating market or no new companies at all, because a few big ones would crush every new player on the field with their patents.

As opposed to crushing every new player on the field by simply taking their ideas.

Why do we have patents?
Historically they were designed to allow inventors like e.g. that light-pulp-guy to make a living from their invention.

The trouble is in those times it was easy to be one man, who could make a new invention, today it is next to impossible to make the next big ios-android-device as a one man show. Well you could do it, but you would be 80 when you are finished and your product would be outdated like 50 years ago, assuming you start in your twenties.

And this is why the patent system does not work anymore, today you do not have one guy, you have companies and they don't need as much protection as an individual.

But what about R&D, shouldn't that be protected?

Yes and no, let me explain. Let's assume we abandon the patent system altogether, the logical fear is that no company would do R&D anymore and our technologie would stagnate on the status Quo. That is wrong. Because, if technology would simple stop evolving, no customer would buy any new product anymore, companies fear that, so they would be forced to develop new technologies. The one thing that might happen in this scenario is that some companies would not get their R&D-costs back and would fall, but that would make place for new companies with a different vision of reality and new products.

Another alternative would be to make patents limited time only, let's say 3 years, that's the time Apple abandons old iphone designes anyway so they and other companies should get enough money back.

Wow. Talk about idealistic theory with no regard for reality.
 

PsychoLogicXen

macrumors member
Jun 9, 2011
77
8
Orange County, CA
I'd rather watch the Gangnam Style music video on repeat for hours than hear or read another word about patents, lawsuits, litigation, or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
 

Krazy Bill

macrumors 68030
Dec 21, 2011
2,985
3
Maybe I'm blind but looking at the list of patent holders reaffirms my belief that Apple only hires Males. (Or at least puts only males in high-profile positions).

Seriously... where are all the gals at Apple?
 

NorEaster

macrumors regular
Feb 14, 2012
239
23
For all the Apple fanatics out there crying foul and expressing shock/outrage and wondering "how is this possible?! Damn the USPTO!": just remember that you were the ones quick to denounce Samsung and loved to use the USPTO's patent grants to Apple as canon for these lawsuits. Please keep the hypocrisy to a minimum when you attack the USPTO or the patent filing/granting process.

Also, please read the link that KnightWRX posted. The "rubber banding" patent that Apple claimed their own (and that you all love to use as proof that Samsung infringed) was invalidated. There is prior art.

And it has already been invalidated based on prior art. It's "ingenious", but Apple didn't come up with it :

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57537912-37/uspto-nixes-apple-patent-used-in-victory-over-samsung/
 

lilo777

macrumors 603
Nov 25, 2009
5,144
0
Maybe I'm blind but looking at the list of patent holders reaffirms my belief that Apple only hires Males. (Or at least puts only males in high-profile positions).

Seriously... where are all the gals at Apple?

They were too ashamed to put their signature under this phony patent ;)
 

teejaysyke

macrumors regular
Aug 5, 2012
170
56
Oh, I like the looks of this. I love Apple but suing to nullify competition is not a good look. Karma is coming :cool:
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
I don't know the actual percentage, but I'd bet 99.9% of all patents for which a reexamination was requested receive a preliminary invalidation. And I don't think the patent office can refuse to do a reexamination on a patent.

So the question then is, how many patents survive reexamination?

As luck would have it, I have a patent reexamination paper in my files. Here is the overall finding, using USPTO supplied statistics for the years 1981 to 2006:

patent_reexamination.png

The upshot is that only 29% of reexamined patents came through untouched, with all orginal claims valid.

That percentage of fully upheld patents drops to only 13% if the USPTO itself initiated the reexamination, btw.
 

dashiel

macrumors 6502a
Nov 12, 2003
876
0
For all the Apple fanatics out there crying foul and expressing shock/outrage and wondering "how is this possible?! Damn the USPTO!": just remember that you were the ones quick to denounce Samsung and loved to use the USPTO's patent grants to Apple as canon for these lawsuits. Please keep the hypocrisy to a minimum when you attack the USPTO or the patent filing/granting process.

Also, please read the link that KnightWRX posted. The "rubber banding" patent that Apple claimed their own (and that you all love to use as proof that Samsung infringed) was invalidated. There is prior art.


Speaking of jumping to denounce, you should probably actually, you know read the article and not just parrot what an effusive anti-Apple troll spouts as fact. The patent was not invalidated for prior art, it was invalidated because the USPTO thought it was obvious.

The USPTO, however, has reviewed the patent, and determined that some of the claims in Apple's filing are "anticipated." Other claims, the office says, are "obvious."
The issue for Apple is that "anticipated" and "obvious" indicate that the company's technology is a logical step in improvement, and not a true invention that supersedes previous technologies.
 

slapple

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2008
466
21
I'm so sick of this crap. How can they grant a patent, and then nullify it years later? Whats the point of getting the patent in the first place? No one out there should invent anything because people will just steal it from you. Talk about stifling innovation.

I find this amazing. How can you retract a patent? The decision process to award it in the first place would be pretty involved, and once awarded that is that! You can't just change your mind as the rest of the world catches up!

Seems like the Patent Office is swamped with applications so they just grant ANYTHING. Then only when the patent is challenged do they take a closer look. That would explain how someone was able to patent a method for a child swinging on a swingset:

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/strange-patents/strange-patents-01.html
 

genovelle

macrumors 68020
May 8, 2008
2,098
2,674
LOL, you make it sound as if iDevices only have those three things going for them.

Its no wonder Android is starting to take over Apple's mobile dominance.
What's interesting is Apple has never tried to maintain dominance in anything. They look to create interest where there was non, then others copy their moves. Even then as long as they can sell as many of their items as they can build, I don't think they care how many crappy Android products are sold. The key is don't copy them by stealing their design efforts. They should shoot every bullet they have when ever it comes up so people with pause before they do. It sounds like you love Android and want it to have the features we get from Apple that makes them different in the market. You should not want any of that. If you do buy an Apple product, Period!!
 

rrandyy

macrumors 6502
Jan 14, 2009
278
4
There are 2 grounds to invalidation :

- Prior art
- Obviousness.

You're thinking about 35 USC 102 "anticipation" and 35 USC 103 "obviousness." Prior art is used for both anticipation and obviousness.

Further, there are many grounds upon which a patent can be invalidated. These are just the most common.
 

raremage

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2005
548
0
Orlando, Florida
The problem is that patent officers have so much patents to review and too little time to review them, hence sometimes they miss details. It's only when opposition pops up and digs up prior art or claims obviousness that the reviews go ahead and sometimes, patents are invalidated after being granted.

If the USPTO had more examiners, they could be more torough in the reviews. But then again, even after many rejections and amendments by the submitter, it becomes tedious and grants go through.

The real issue I have here is of course these effects and evolutions are obvious now. In 2007 - not so much. It's impossible for a reviewer to objectively state these are obvious evolutions now that the patent has been used (and arguably violated) to make the effects in question ubiquitous.
 

bloggerblog

macrumors regular
Jun 27, 2007
103
21
The USPTO is another totally useless federal agency that is incapable of serving its sole purpose of protecting blatant ripoffs of ideas, designs, and inventions.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Either you haven't read the article to which you linked or it was your intention to mislead. The USPTO hasn't said that there's prior art for the 'rubber banding' patent, just that, in the reviewer's opinion, it was an obvious logical improvement to an existing technology.
One thing's for certain; whoever decided that it is an obvious improvement wouldn't ever have come up with it.

Sorry, I haven't re-read the article indeed. I was going by memory, but you're right, it was Samsung that presented prior art for it during the August trial, but the USPTO's decision was based on obviousness.

Obviousness btw is not for the laymen, it is for people initiated in the art. Something that is often missed by most people when discussing patents. It doesn't have to be obvious to Joe sixpack on the street, but if we're discussing software, obviousness can be for other programmers/software developers. They don't think like most people do when it comes to software, so while something might not seem obvious to others outside the art, it is for those that work in it day in and day out.

----------

The real issue I have here is of course these effects and evolutions are obvious now. In 2007 - not so much. It's impossible for a reviewer to objectively state these are obvious evolutions now that the patent has been used (and arguably violated) to make the effects in question ubiquitous.

Tests for prior art or obviousness are based on evidence prior to filling obviously. No one argues based on today's standards when trying to oppose a 10 year old patent.
 

NorEaster

macrumors regular
Feb 14, 2012
239
23
Speaking of jumping to denounce, you should probably actually, you know read the article and not just parrot what an effusive anti-Apple troll spouts as fact. The patent was not invalidated for prior art, it was invalidated because the USPTO thought it was obvious.

HAHAHAH.... are you kidding? YOU should read the article AND the actual ruling from the USPTO. The patent office states: "The following rejections are utilized by the Examiner below, referencing the proposed prior art listed on pages 23-85 of the Request".

Feel foolish yet? Oh wait...no, you're a fanatic that will efffusively spout how great Apple is and how horrible everyone else is without any shame (or without even the inclination to do some research to back your claims).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.