or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung - Page 2

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

So why grant it in the first place?

That is something Apple will likely bring up, especially if they mentioned the same prior art in their filing.
post #42 of 55

What USPTO?!? Apple didn't invent easing functions for moving objects in graphical programming? Well....DUH!!!!

post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I'd like to remind everyone about Microsoft and their FAT patent. First it was granted, then a huge lobby of companies and organizations protested and asked for re-examination. The USPTO invalidated several patents, MS appealed and a couple years later they were validated and remain valid to this date.

Since you mention it...

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses.  Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...

It's only obvious once someone thinks of it. 1rolleyes.gif
 

post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

So why grant it in the first place?

I think USPTO keeps the application fee. It's probably a case of inappropriate incentives.
post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

What do you need him for? He only shows up first when it's good for Apple anyway. Everyone's favorite shill explained it pretty well and clearly on his blog this morning, even if the last paragraph shows his biased colors straight through.

Umm.... I assume you forgot to read the first sentence of my post.

post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Since you mention it...
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/
Preliminary, not final. And MS has several FAT patents that were invalidated only to be reinstated later on.

Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #48 of 55

Seems like Apple just wants to patent anything and everything, hoping the slow response by the patent office will give them enough time for legal injunctions and block competitors from releasing products.

 

Or in other words, becoming a practicing patent troll.

 

Wasting thousands if not millions of dollars of tax payers money (through the USPTO) with frivolous "patents".

 

What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.

 

That is both legally and ethically wrong.


Edited by Galbi - 10/23/12 at 9:39am

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Preliminary, not final. And MS has several FAT patents that were invalidated only to be reinstated later on.
Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.

You seem to be a fan of the FAT patent. Do you think it should be considered standard-essential? After all they've gone after nearly everyone including linux-based providers, with Microsoft feeling that every computer system makes use of it in one way or another. IMO, sure sounds essential.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 55
Apparently one of the two prior art that invalidated the rubber band patent is Apple's own patent..

Scratching my head..

How a company's patent be invalidated based on prior art of the company's own patent is beyond me..?
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Apparently one of the two prior art that invalidated the rubber band patent is Apple's own patent..
Scratching my head..
How a company's patent be invalidated based on prior art of the company's own patent is beyond me..?


That is just further proof that the USPTO is not doing their job.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #52 of 55
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.

 

That is both legally and ethically wrong.

 

lol.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #53 of 55

It's been said a million times - the US patent system is a joke.  

 

It doesn't protect real innovations, it discourages innovation, and enriches lawyers and trolls...

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Sorry, but none of the explanations above make much sense.

Where's jragosta when we need him?

I think he got banned.
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I think he got banned.

That was just a three-day ban that was lifted a week or two ago, I think.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung