or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs' original iPhone keynote video used to invalidate Apple patent in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs' original iPhone keynote video used to invalidate Apple patent in Germany - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

'Ironic' is not the right word to describe this twist. It's bizarre. It will affect a lot of EU companies too, so I am guessing it'll be thrown out on appeal to a court at the EU level.

 

Why would it be thrown out when it's how patent law works in that country? The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time. While I don't imagine it was ever Apple's intention to do something like that, the point still stands.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post



What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.

The laws of the U.S do not apply throughout the entire world and override all other laws, despite what some people seem to think. A U.S. patent is only valid in the U.S. To protect your inventions around the world you need to file for patents in the appropriate regions - and for obvious reasons those patents are subject to the regional laws. The lack of a twelve-month grace period is one of the differences between EU and US patent law.

 

This decision doesn't even involve the U.S. patent: that patent has no validity in the European jurisdiction, just as the EU's decision has no significance in the U.S. This decision can't be "used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents" because it has nothing to do with them. EU patents, sure, but that isn't a problem - if an EU patent is invalid under EU law, that's the way it is. It certainly isn't a case for the ~U.S. government~.

post #42 of 78

If the presentation is prior art => Fire the patent prosecutors. 

 

Surely nobody would argue with that...?

 

Edit: ...and if the lawyers knew about the presentation far enough in advance, sue them for malpractice!

I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #43 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Psychotic nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iRon man View Post

Now that all makes sense doesn't it!

The boss of the company that owns the patent demoing what they say is the same patent invalidates the patent because it shows that someone else had already thought of it???

I must be missing something here...

Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.

Patent law is fairly straightforward. It is very well known among people who deal with the matter that you can not publicly display a technology in most countries before filing for a patent. (The US is a little different, but you still have to apply for the patent within 1 year of public disclosure). This is a simple, bush league mistake. Basically, Apple screwed up and the court ruled correctly.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jguther View Post

Unfortunately, the courts have to follow the letter of the law, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense in this case. Same thing in every country.

Unless it involves the rape of a 14 year old.
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

'Ironic' is not the right word to describe this twist. It's bizarre. It will affect a lot of EU companies too, so I am guessing it'll be thrown out on appeal to a court at the EU level.

Not at all. It won't affect that many EU companies because it's well known and most companies follow the rules. Most people dealing with European patents understand the rules and follow them. There's absolutely nothing new here nor any grounds for it to be appealed. It's simple Patent 101.

Even in my earlier days developing new water treatment products, it was always made clear to me that I could not talk about something that we planned to patent at ANY time before the patent was filed in Europe.

I don't know if Apple messed up due to arrogance, incompetence, or simple negligence, but Apple simply messed up. It's not the fault of the patent system.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not at all. It won't affect that many EU companies because it's well known and most companies follow the rules. Most people dealing with European patents understand the rules and follow them. There's absolutely nothing new here nor any grounds for it to be appealed. It's simple Patent 101.
How do you then interpret this last para of the article: "
Apple could use Thursday's outcome, specifically the finding that "Lira" and "LaunchTile" don't invalidate the European photo bounce-back patent, to its advantage in the utility model proceedings. The company can ultimately request the Mannheim court to restart the claim against Samsung and even possibly use that property against other companies until it expires in 2017."

What is it about the "European" patent that is different from the German? If there is a conflict between the two, how does it get resolved?

Add: Since MyopiaRocks +1-ed jragosta's post, he could perhaps answer this as well (in case jragosta does not see my question)?
Edited by anantksundaram - 9/27/13 at 7:06am
post #47 of 78

I hope Steve doesn't get fired over this, pretty big mistake.

/s

post #48 of 78
Jobs should have known better. Every IP attorney would vehemently counsel against making a public disclosure until the patent is filed for. In our company, we have a thorough check-off process to help insure a mistake like this never happens (even though the US has a grace period, we wouldn't do it anyway).

edit: regarding the prior art comments, that's not really the concept at play here. Because Jobs made a public presentation of the technology, the technology is then considered public information with the caveat the US extends a grace period (probably to protect people who mess this up). As we all know, you can't patent public information.
Edited by Hudson1 - 9/27/13 at 7:13am
post #49 of 78
Basically they're saying you should have considered filing in Europe as important as filing in the US?
Following their logic... if Apple's patent filing in the US can't be considered a valid effort to assert ownership in Europe or at least extend the grace period for a European filing, then a demo presented in the US for a product initially launched in the US exclusively, shouldn't invalidate a European filing.
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TogetherWeStand View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

Attention outraged Apple fans! Your enemy for today is: Germany / The Germans.

...GO!!

 

:no: Every country has stupid laws that should be scrapped as they make no sense. To pick 1 country, or its people, out is wrong. :no: 

 

This is 1 more reason I think IP laws etc should be controlled by 1 court / organisation worldwide, & not by individual countries.

So do many people. The problem is that  americans want their law and their screwed up values to be exported to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't so happy about that idea. Ever wonder why ??

post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gopiballava View Post

Here's one way to think about it: Does it seem fair for a company to show you some cool ideas and then, retro-actively, go back and tell you that some of them are patented and need to be licensed? I don't think that's very fair.
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.

 

Get used to the Idea that America does NOT rule the world bro ! May be hard to get your head around it but you will be a better person if you manage .

post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

 

Get used to the Idea that America does NOT rule the world bro ! May be hard to get your head around it but you will be a better person if you manage .

As a somewhat neutral observer, I've got news for you: America clearly does.

 

It has been quite laughable watching countries like UK, France, Germany, Japan, NZ, etc. just bend over for the NSA. And countries like Sweden over Assange. And countries in Latin America over the 'drug war.' And countries like Australia over Kim Dotcom, surveillance, military bases etc.

 

There may be a couple of countries -- e.g., China, Brazil -- that still try and assert themselves, but it sure does seem like most of them, esp. those in the EU, are a bunch of -- I hate to say this -- US lapdogs.

post #53 of 78
This is what comes of using Europe's "first to file" approach as opposed to the U.S.'s old "first to invent" approach. First to file is a horrible approach that allows someone to literally invalidate years of effort by purposefully or inadvertently disclosing. And yet - our stupid congress has gone along with this stupid approach. Thanks for dragging U.S, down to your level, Europe.
post #54 of 78
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time.

 

Except that didn’t happen here, at all, in any respect. No, the point does not stand.

 

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
This is a simple, bush league mistake. Basically, Apple screwed up and the court ruled correctly.

 

Like fun.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #55 of 78
This validates that one's biggest enemy is himself.

Samsung latest invention Samsung Gear shows that it cannot design good product on its own.
post #56 of 78

Steve Jobs must be screaming in his grave right about now, I know I would be...

post #57 of 78
How the hell can you have prior art against yourself lol.
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

How the hell can you have prior art against yourself lol.

They don't have prior art against themselves. They have released the art to the public - which means that it's no longer patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Like fun.

Instead of stupid, smart-ass remarks, why don't you tell me what you think is wrong with my statement?

How many European patents have you been involved with, btw?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #59 of 78
Ummm the prior art as it were was by Apple. So that really makes zero sense

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotASheep View Post

Now, now....

Let's not hate on the Germans too much...

after all, pro-software-patent-industry, pro-Oracle, anti-Google, anti-Samsung paid shill, Florian Müller is German.

and... Germans hate Koreans even more than the Japanese do.



Wow, a link to a website called "Rectangles and Rounded Corners". Classy.
post #61 of 78

I feel their pain: with science data we have to be very careful about the sequence of our public pronouncements, publications and patent filings. Tech Transfer (our university patent and licensing department) get's antsy when we head out to meetings. :)

post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Ummm the prior art as it were was by Apple. So that really makes zero sense

 

I am sorry Apple you lose your accusation of patent violation because Apple did it before you.

 

So if you do something before you do it then everyone else can copy it and their defense for ripping you off is to claim that you didn't tell us we couldn't until after we already did. 

 

That clears it up. 

post #63 of 78
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
…why don’t you tell me what you think is wrong with my statement?

 

Below:

 

Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
How the hell can you have prior art against yourself lol.

 

Not YOUR statement; the statement being made.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #64 of 78
I wonder how many EU companies, German in particular, have publicly available presentations that predate the filing dates of their patents. It would be nice to go down the list and invalidate a huge swath of tech patents across several of their key industries, like automotive, industrial, pharmaceutical, software, etc. Mercedes, SAP and Bayer could use a good reality check. 1wink.gif
post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post


You are. He showed it before the patent was filed.

 

I would think they had a "patent pending" which allows 12 months prior to filing a full patent. This time is to allow you to show your work and stay protected*. 

 

 

*which it only does for the big boys. The little guy gets hosed as the big companies know if they all tell you no, you won't file for the full patent (which cost $10,000 + vs. the pending which is only $300ish) so they wait you out. 

post #66 of 78

Makes sense to have to file for the patent prior to showing or releasing a product.  However, when patents are filed and granted, they get released for viewing, thus eliminating the secrecy that Apple so loves to have.

post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And countries like Australia over Kim Dotcom, surveillance, military bases etc.

You may have messed up your geography there. And there are a number of people in NZ that would be happy to get rid of that particular fat German
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.

Hi, you don't seem to appreciate my expert advance here?

Oops, hang on - I wasn't giving any - just trying to understand something that didn't make sense to me.

Some good replies are helping a lot.
Quote:
Patent law is fairly straightforward. It is very well known among people who deal with the matter

Unfortunately this reply is not one of the helpful replies.

Apologies for annoying you.
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

However it does mean you cant lead people into a situation where you've done a public demo, they've checked for any patent applications before copying, they then make there own version only to be subject to a patent at a later date.

This makes it a lot clearer - thanks.

I guess the next question I have (without knowing the case more than reading the article):

Is the feature that was demo'd copied between the SteveJobs demo and patent application (when it would be fair to say they could've copied it because they couldn't find any copyrights), or after it was applied for when it wouldn't be so fair.

Even then, was the Patent copied and produced in Europe; or copied in Asia for example, and sold in Europe (as I would guess the case would be).

And I guess that leads me to think that the patent obviously relates to the sale of an item, and not the production of it in the region the patent is granted?
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRon man View Post


This makes it a lot clearer - thanks.

I guess the next question I have (without knowing the case more than reading the article):

Is the feature that was demo'd copied between the SteveJobs demo and patent application (when it would be fair to say they could've copied it because they couldn't find any copyrights), or after it was applied for when it wouldn't be so fair.

Even then, was the Patent copied and produced in Europe; or copied in Asia for example, and sold in Europe (as I would guess the case would be).

And I guess that leads me to think that the patent obviously relates to the sale of an item, and not the production of it in the region the patent is granted?

 

Patent means that in that region, competitors can neither produce or sale an infringing item. It is a state granted monopoly  so it is absolutely normal that the rules of disclosure are so stringent. 

 

But the important point here is that Apple would have been ok if they had linked the EU patent to the original US one.   In that case the EU patent is an extension of the US one and the US rules apply. They probably did not so because having separate patents gives you added protection against invalidation. More, of all juridictions available in EU, they choose  to battle Samsung in Germany where, while courts are speedy, the threshold for infringement is probably higher than say in Netherland of France. EU rules means that you can fight a particular point in one country at a time.

post #71 of 78
Awesome, thanks
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I would think they had a "patent pending" which allows 12 months prior to filing a full patent. This time is to allow you to show your work and stay protected*. 


*which it only does for the big boys. The little guy gets hosed as the big companies know if they all tell you no, you won't file for the full patent (which cost $10,000 + vs. the pending which is only $300ish) so they wait you out. 

That is only true in the U.S. As the article states, you have no grace period in Europe. As soon as you publicly display a technology, your ability to patent it is gone.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That is only true in the U.S. As the article states, you have no grace period in Europe. As soon as you publicly display a technology, your ability to patent it is gone.

 

Then how does the European patent office work? You file once for a full patent? 

 

Also, if prior art is a reason to null and void a patent, why would it not also be reason enough to show you were first to the idea and thus have some rights to it? 

 

This all seems like logic black hole to me. 

post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

And there are a number of people in NZ that would be happy to get rid of that particular fat German

I'm failing to see what obesity has got to do with this. And place of birth. Besides, after being on the 'wrong side' of copyright he now is actually all for the protection of copyright. How is that wrong?
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I'm failing to see what obesity has got to do with this. And place of birth. Besides, after being on the 'wrong side' of copyright he now is actually all for the protection of copyright. How is that wrong?

Here in NZ we generally tend to be a more reserved bunch of people - showboating and excessive displays of wealth don't tend to sit as comfortably.

Being a big boy from overseas probably isn't the real issue here, although I guess like many places obesity along with wealth can bring to mind someone living a life of excess...

Some like him too though.

I don't personally hold any strong opinions about him.
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRon man View Post

Some like him too though.

I don't personally hold any strong opinions about him.

I actually do. I think he looks, well, the word repulsive comes to mind, but English is not my native language, so I may be overstating it here.

I was actually wandering why jfanning doesn't like him.

Still, thanks for posting.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I actually do. I think he looks, well, the word repulsive comes to mind, but English is not my native language, so I may be overstating it here.

I was actually wandering why jfanning doesn't like him.

Still, thanks for posting.

He is waste of tax payers money (partly due to him, and partly due to the NZ Police, FBI cock up). Also, we recently had another case in NZ in which a SA emigrant was going to be refused residence due to his weight, Kim was significantly larger that the SA gentleman, but due to him having a free dollars in the bank is allowed in with welcome arms
post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


He is waste of tax payers money (partly due to him, and partly due to the NZ Police, FBI cock up). Also, we recently had another case in NZ in which a SA emigrant was going to be refused residence due to his weight, Kim was significantly larger that the SA gentleman, but due to him having a free dollars in the bank is allowed in with welcome arms

Ah, ok, thanks for this. True, should be treated equally.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs' original iPhone keynote video used to invalidate Apple patent in Germany