Originally Posted by jragosta
Please ask someone to explain the patent system to you. The patent in question was applied for in 2004. Google's Android didn't even exist until 2005. So your claim that they couldn't possibly have copied the patent because it wasn't granted is bogus. Google could have copied it any time after the date that it was published (which is within a few weeks of filing in most cases). As usual, you are wrong.
I never said it was valid at the time that it was filed. The issue is that GoogleGuy claims that Google could not possibly have copied the patent before 2011 since the patent wasn't granted until 2011. In the real world, Google could have copied the patent at any time after publication - which would have been in 2004 (No sir. Withj the application dated
Actually, you're the one who is not reasoning things out - Google presumably isn't paying you to do so.
Under U.S. patent law, once a patent is applied for, if you continue to invest money in an infringing technology, it's at your risk. If the patent is eventually granted, you have to choose between scrapping the work or infringing and hoping you don't get caught. You may not like it, but that's the way the system works. Reputable companies do not work on things that they know violate someone else's patents (applications?). I can understand why the concept of a 'reputable company' would be confusing to you and Google.
In the real world, it happens all the time. Companies of any significant size get regular reports of patent abstracts in their field. Obviously, no one would suggest that you search 500,000 patent applications every year, but it's not that hard to get a Nerac abstract listing applications in your field so you can make sure you're not infringing on someone else's application (or, you can dig up prior art to show that you were there first). You might also get some ideas for ways around the patent which would not fall under the claims of the patent but might accomplish the same thing. My company had only about 50 employees. If we could afford a Nerac abstract, I'm sure that both Google and Samsung could. Again, reputable companies stay on top of what's happening in the world and make an effort not to violate others' intellectual property.
Jr, you're making stuff up again. Google could not have copied any Apple patent for unified search in the past few years because Apple didn't have a patent for unified search until Dec. 27 of 2011. That confuses you for some reason. If you apply for a passport, do you then head to the gate for a flight for China? Apply for a mortgage and start putting up the fence? Apply for a college and call yourself a Dr?
Add this as another incorrect statement of yours: The USPTO began publishing patent applications in 2000, but not until 18 months after application. So the very earliest publication date for this search patent would have been sometime in mid-2006. It's not "within a few weeks of filing in most cases" as you told the forum. You're coming unarmed again.
And what evidence to you have that any company won't work on a tech feature or apply for a patent because someone else is also working in that field even on the same general idea and requesting patents too? When you can give a reasoned argument why Apple for instance should not be working on voice control for a TV simply because Google already applied for a patent on that feature we'll have a valid discussion point.
Then explain how a reputable Apple gets blindsided by a patent claim they weren't aware of if it's so simple that even Jragosta could do it? It's not for lack of money. Or would you instead claim a reputable Apple knows about them but chooses to proceed and/or infringe anyway? Do a search for "Apple sued for patent infringement" then comment on whether any of those cases say:
-Apple isn't reputable
-Too cheap to pay for Nerac abstracts
-Doesn't respect others IP
...or just perhaps can't possibly be aware of every patent application, claim and award. If keeping track of your competitors IP is so easy, how does Apple miss the much more obvious standard-essential ones like Nokia asserted against them?
Apple may be the smartest, most focused and most organized tech player in the world, so if they get "surprise" IP claims from competitors how do you expect any of the others to avoid it?
BTW, Android development didn't start in 2005. That's when Google bought the company. Android development itself goes back to 2003.
Edited by Gatorguy - 7/4/12 at 12:51pm