Reissued patent could give Apple control of location-based services

2

Comments

  • absolutedesignzabsolutedesignz Posts: 1,930member
    I wonder who is going to argue that injunctions pursued based on this patent aren't anti-competitive.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,461member, moderator


    Boom!
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,461member, moderator
    Yeesus Marta!



    What is mobile shopping, socializing, VR, maps/traffic/navigation, advertising...



    Nay, what is Mobile Without Location Awareness?
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,461member, moderator


    New iOS function...



    Find my Patent Infringer!
  • jrobjrob Posts: 49member
    I would certainly benefit if Apple actually monetized this, but I seriously doubt they would even if they could. It sounds like the patent is so broad that it would be rather abusive to collect money for it, and I can't see them trying to get all others to remove location based services from their products. However, they may be able to use it as additional ammo against infringers like Samsung or for cross-licensing deals, which I think would be fair, and also for defense against patent trolls.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,461member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    I wonder who is going to argue that injunctions pursued based on this patent aren't anti-competitive.



    I can see it being considered anti-competetive to Garmin, et al -- but to computers, phones and tablets... not so much!



    Remember... Apple has only a small percentage of each of these markets
  • steverancesteverance Posts: 27member
    " it seems that the iPhone maker now owns a very powerful piece of intellectual property."



    If this patent can be enforced the above quote would seem to be somewhat of an understatement.
  • cy_starkmancy_starkman Posts: 488member
    the current battles in the Apple vs Samsung HTC et al vs Apple war are starting to suggest that patents are nearly useless.



    Or worse, just really freaking dangerous if you use them, as the other party starts requesting to see all your secret data.



    I don't really agree with patents, but as they are a law then they should be effective.
  • eat@meeat@me Posts: 321member
    The government issuing such a broad patent is simply a joke. patents should be narrower in scope.



    I bet many will challenge this and it will not be enforceable



    And Apple has had not LBS technology at all - no iPhone until 2007 and no LBS platform and they licensed Google maps - for Apple to get this patent in 1999 or therabouts is joke to USPTO
  • irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eat@me View Post


    The government issuing such a broad patent is simply a joke. patents should be narrower in scope.



    I bet many will challenge this and it will not be enforceable



    And Apple has had not LBS technology at all - no iPhone until 2007 and no LBS platform and they licensed Google maps - for Apple to get this patent in 1999 or therabouts is joke to USPTO



    They didn't, xerox did and apple bought it.
  • machead75machead75 Posts: 28member
    There go Apple's silver bullet!
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,960member
    This one patent could be worth more than the 12 Billion Google paid for Motorola.
  • steven n.steven n. Posts: 823member
    Broad. Open. Non-specific.



    The slide to unlock is a perfect patent. It patents a specific method under a specific condition on a specific type of device. Targeted and narrow.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,854member
    Certainly good for the mobile markets, just the type of thing that should encourage even more development. With Apple's history of giving back to the industry, encouraging innovation and consumer choice, I think this could be great news. Facebook, Bing, Google, 4Square, Twitter, the telcos, etc. have little to be concerned with.
  • elvisisaliveelvisisalive Posts: 6member
    * The original patent is patent no. 6,122,520, issued on September 19, 2000 (U.S. patent application no. 09/023,116).

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/6122520



    * The reissue patent is patent no. RE42,927, issued on November 15, 2011 (U.S. patent application no. 12/874,155)

    http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&RS=PN/RE42927



    * All reissue patents start with "RE"



    * What is claimed in the reissue is almost certain to be different, to some degree, from what was claimed in the original patent. The original patent must be forsaken to get the reissue.



    * U.S. Patent and Trademark Office information portal: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
  • elvisisaliveelvisisalive Posts: 6member
    Here is a random post on reissue patents: http://www.maierandmaier.com/documen...eissue-FAQ.pdf
  • jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,268member
    The patent keeps talking about linking GPS coordinates to web pages and adding GPS coordinates to URLs. It seems to be very browser-specific. Would this cover apps? When a weather app shows the weather near me it is not using a browser.
  • banchobancho Posts: 1,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    And if they don't vigorously defend it, then they will lose it



    That goes for trademarks, not patents.
  • hezetationhezetation Posts: 674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ElvisIsAlive View Post


    Here is a random post on reissue patents: http://www.maierandmaier.com/documen...eissue-FAQ.pdf



    From question 10



    "The doctrine protects third parties who have made decisions based on the scope of the original patent, only to find themselves infringing the reissued patent."



    I'm not a patent lawyer but I'd think this means the patent has more value to Apple as protection and very little to go after Sumsung or Google.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezetation View Post


    From question 10



    "The doctrine protects third parties who have made decisions based on the scope of the original patent, only to find themselves infringing the reissued patent."



    I'm not a patent lawyer but I'd think this means the patent has more value to Apple as protection and very little to go after Sumsung or Google.



    Both 9 and 10 would be of particular interest. Going by those guidelines you may be correct that the reissued patent wouldn't affect products developed in the interim. I guess that's for lawyers to figure out if it comes up.
Sign In or Register to comment.