New patent suit accuses Apple's iOS Developer Program of infringement
A new lawsuit alleges Apple's iOS Developer Program infringes on a 2005 patent for customized web-based software.
Delaware-based Cathas Advanced Technologies filed suit this week against Apple, asserting its "Web-Based Design Software for Keep-Alive Boards," as noted by Patently Apple. The patent in question, US Patent No. 6,925,445, was originally assigned to Delphi Technologies, which specializes in patent sales and licensing.
The complaint claims Apple and its iOS Developer Program have violated the following two patent claims:
Cathas does not appear to have an active online presence. A Web search for the company did, however, turn up several other lawsuits that it has filed against other technology companies. Earlier this week, Cathas asserted the '445 patent against Oracle in a Delaware Dsitrict Court. The company also recently filed suits against LinkedIn and Groupon over a patented method for providing "supplier branding services" over a network.
The issue of patents received a large platform for discussion earlier this week at All Things D's D10 conference. During an on-stage interview, Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly defended Apple's decision to sue its competitors to protect its intellectual property. He compared the company's research efforts to creating a painting that others have signed their name onto.
When asked about lawsuits that rivals have filed against Apple, Cook said that the "vast majority" of those complaints involved standards-essential patents (SEPs). He went on to claim that the system for enforcing SEPs is "broken" and should not allow patent holders to file for injunctions.
Cook's comments on patents and innovation were echoed at the conference on the following day by Nathan Myhrvold, co-founder of Intellectual Ventures. Mhyrvold's company has been accused of being a "patent troll" for wielding IP that it bought, rather than developed. He defended the business model as dealing in "invention capital" and helping to encourage and reward innovation and research.
"Investing in patents is no different than investing in companies," he said.
Delaware-based Cathas Advanced Technologies filed suit this week against Apple, asserting its "Web-Based Design Software for Keep-Alive Boards," as noted by Patently Apple. The patent in question, US Patent No. 6,925,445, was originally assigned to Delphi Technologies, which specializes in patent sales and licensing.
The complaint claims Apple and its iOS Developer Program have violated the following two patent claims:
1. A method for electronically providing customized software to a customer, comprising the steps of: receiving a customer specification through a web interface; automatically creating customer compatible software that meets the customer specification; and electronically providing the customer compatible software to the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a customer compatible executable that is compiled from pre-existing source code that is modified to include customer specific messages provided by the customer in the customer specification.
10. A web-based software delivery system for electronically providing customized software to a customer, comprising: a web server; and software design code located on the web server for performing the steps of: receiving a customer specification through a web interface; creating customer compatible software that meets the customer specification; and electronically providing the customer compatible software to the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a customer compatible executable that is compiled from preexisting source code that is modified to include customer specific messages provided by the customer in the customer specification.
Cathas does not appear to have an active online presence. A Web search for the company did, however, turn up several other lawsuits that it has filed against other technology companies. Earlier this week, Cathas asserted the '445 patent against Oracle in a Delaware Dsitrict Court. The company also recently filed suits against LinkedIn and Groupon over a patented method for providing "supplier branding services" over a network.
The issue of patents received a large platform for discussion earlier this week at All Things D's D10 conference. During an on-stage interview, Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly defended Apple's decision to sue its competitors to protect its intellectual property. He compared the company's research efforts to creating a painting that others have signed their name onto.
When asked about lawsuits that rivals have filed against Apple, Cook said that the "vast majority" of those complaints involved standards-essential patents (SEPs). He went on to claim that the system for enforcing SEPs is "broken" and should not allow patent holders to file for injunctions.
Cook's comments on patents and innovation were echoed at the conference on the following day by Nathan Myhrvold, co-founder of Intellectual Ventures. Mhyrvold's company has been accused of being a "patent troll" for wielding IP that it bought, rather than developed. He defended the business model as dealing in "invention capital" and helping to encourage and reward innovation and research.
"Investing in patents is no different than investing in companies," he said.
Comments
This sounds nothing like what the process is...
This is my new patent and I am going to file against apple:
1. Have computer
2. Connect to a network
3. Design hardware everyone wants to buy using your computer on a network
4. Develop software using the computer on a network
5. Use computer on a network to sell product
6. Make $100 Billion dollars
7. End
"creating customer compatible software that meets the customer specification; and electronically providing the customer compatible software to the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a customer compatible executable that is compiled from preexisting source code that is modified to include customer specific messages provided by the customer in the customer specification."
Wow, that's so freaking clear. WTF is "customer compatible software?" I think they are just using "customer compatible" (which is a stupid term that is basically meaningless) in place of "customized" (which everyone can understand). Thanks IP attorneys. I can see why you're the highest paid legal specialty (ironic eye roll smiley here).
These lawyers really seem to forget the Patent Portfolio of NeXT and all it's Government Custom solutions, of old Apple after Steve and all the co-patented work under Taligent and much more.
Keep paying these hacks.
I had the pleasure of going to an estate sale this past wednesday regarding a Patent Lawyer. The monstrosity of a house with nearly 2 dozen Optiplex systems, the 16 Networked HP laserjet mid-size office printers, to the 4 HP Mopiers intermixed with law book after law book including some crisp unopened Mechanical Engineering books [not his skill but had to help those filling patents you know] to replica Excalibur Sword, Katana, etc., showed me the guy had NO TASTE and everything was just run down, including his computer systems.
He did have some fantastic US Patent, Trademark and Copyright Laws 2006 editions I picked up along with those books which combined would cost me past $500 for a whopping $.75.
Everything in the house to the 50 tailored suits reminded me that this leach had no life and the kids were selling everything. Nothing he worked on eventually will have a lasting value.
Today's patent wars always remind me to follow the merits of the patents and their products to market impacting society over those that pump out thousands of theoretical patents by hiring people like I just described in hope of one day being able to sue and ride the coat tails of success.
This patent will go no where.
Reference to claim 10. At NeXT we had dozens of patents on how to do so and way more at Apple. This one will be a quick, clean death.
This is really getting out of hand. IMHO.
That patent, if it is even valid, doesn't sound a thing like the iOS system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
That patent, if it is even valid, doesn't sound a thing like the iOS system.
It doesn't because they are referring to the iOS developers website. This patent is BS. It is basically saying any website that shows contents based on the customer ID after log in violates this patent. They will sue any website where user can log in to access their content.
this s#it will never end....
Maybe AI could start a new section called'Legal' and stop flooding the main forum with them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Maybe AI could start a new section called'Legal' and stop flooding the main forum with them?
Or maybe anyone who is not interested in reading the posts regarding legal proceeding could simply ignore those listing on the main page and not click through to the comments and take the time to post an effectively useless comment in the forums tied to that story.
Sounds like a patent troll.
Cathas does not appear to have an active online presence. A Web search for the company did, however, turn up several other lawsuits that it has filed against other technology companies.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
This is why companies have legal departments.
I really like how they use customer to refer to the developer and also to the end user. That makes for some really confusing sentences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania
Now granted I'm young but I've been reading this and other apple sites, including FOSS, for a decent amount of time and I just have to throw my hands up in the air at this point. I mean.... Really?
This is really getting out of hand. IMHO.
Right about now I would welcome any Vogons wanting to make way for a hyperspatial express route. Where's my towel?
The way I read the patent description is Entity A logs onto website and requests of Entity B (who runs the website) some software to meet his unique specification and Entity B automatically delivers such software.
Since the iOS developer website delivers nothing of the sort, this suit is going to get shot down in flames, with prejudice.
Patent troll has picked the wrong victim here and clearly has no understanding of what the patent it is attempting to exert actually means or what their chosen victim actually does!
Whichever legal numpty decided this was a good suit to pursue needs taking out and firing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CogitoDexter
The way I read the patent description is Entity A logs onto website and requests of Entity B (who runs the website) some software to meet his unique specification and Entity B automatically delivers such software.
Since the iOS developer website delivers nothing of the sort, this suit is going to get shot down in flames, with prejudice.
Patent troll has picked the wrong victim here and clearly has no understanding of what the patent it is attempting to exert actually means or what their chosen victim actually does!
Whichever legal numpty decided this was a good suit to pursue needs taking out and firing.
I agree. You don't download customized software, you download finished software. But even if it did compile a customized version of the software, so what? Those are called options. Can you now patent the idea of options and menus?
Are they going to sue restaurants because you can go online and choose which items on the menu you want and they put those together to order in a customized fashion ("no salt, with ketchup, burger medium rare") and send it to you?
They should burn down the patent office and start over. None of these patents should have ever been granted. You were never supposed to be able to patent an idea, only a specific implementation of the idea.
When I buy a book from Pragmatic Programmers, they customize the pdf with my name and offer it to me for download. Not software, but similar.
Anyway, the iOS Developer portal has no customized SOFTWARE. You can upload and request for developer certificates and provisioning profiles. However, this are certificates and identities, not software.
This will probably be thrown out of court.