or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial - Page 2

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

For all the handwringing here, there really was prior art. Autocorrect existed prior to the iPhone, for example in Microsoft Office, and likely in PDAs or other smartphones as well. Apple was not entitled to claim a patent on a pre-existing technology.

There were three different patents cited as prior art and covering all but a couple of claims. The only claim at issue in Apple's '172 infringement assertions in the Apple Samsung case was Claim 18. It's been found to be anticipated by both U.S. Patent Number 6,801,190, referred to as "Robinson" in the filings and International Patent Number WO 2005/008899 which is referred to as "Ng".

FWIW those are the same patents (plus one other) that Samsung brought up to Judge Koh before she made a decision from the bench that the patent was valid and Sammy was infringing. There's legal commenters saying she'll likely reverse her infringement decision now but of course anticipating what Judge Koh might do is akin to a coin flip IMO.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236159767/14-08-07-Samsung-Filing-on-Office-Action-in-Reexamination-of-Apple-s-172-Patent
Edited by Gatorguy - 8/8/14 at 9:33am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.
Show us on the doll where the bad multinational corporation touched you.
"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


The day Apple starts doing that, the day they cease being Apple. I don't want Apple to be like every other corporation that spends billions buying influence in Washington DC. I want Apple to win in court for the right reasons not because they're spending billions lobbying politicians and government agencies.

 

Its not about buying influence.

 

its about protecting their stake.

 

Its about playing on a level playing field.

 

Right now Apple could be right and still lose out (ebooks case, Samsung copycat trial)

 

That is the REAL WORLD.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Its not about buying influence.

its about protecting their stake.

Its about playing on a level playing field.

Right now Apple could be right and still lose out (ebooks case, Samsung copycat trial)

That is the REAL WORLD.
Well then I'd rather Apple lose out than line the pockets of politicians and government officials.
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

The whole problem here to me is that the USPTO grants patents, then invalidates them later after challenges. We need a better patent system that gets it right the first time. But since this is a government beauracracy that obviously can never happen, not in a million years.
Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.
post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.

I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 
Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.

That would cost too much. USPTO actually makes money unlike other government offices. They charge for patents and they charge even more to review them when contested as well. The more reviews the better from their perspective.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?

The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.

 

"After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners."

 

 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)

post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.

"After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners."


 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)

You got it. Gaming the system.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
...
Innovation is both a physical and abstract reality.

Innovation happens everyday without patents.

post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


You got it. Gaming the system.

 

What's wrong with that? If the law is already a tangled mess, then the only way to navigate the law is to use the tangle against itself.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What's wrong with that? If the law is already a tangled mess, then the only way to navigate the law is to use the tangle against itself.
Nothing is wrong with it. The big guys know how the game is played and the little guys eventually catch on or give up.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagMan1979 View Post

They likely got invalidated due to an "anonymous" claim being filed to have them thrown out. Wouldn't surprise me a single bit if the anonymous party was someone with ties to Scamsung.

Apple will just appeal and have the decision reversed and the patent will stand, just watch.

The USPTO usually attempts to dismiss patents as soon as an anonymous claim is filed, forcing the patent holder to begin, in some cases multiple, appeals.

Just goes to show how broken the patent system is.

Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

Endorsing theft is not conducive to a good society; doing so leads to an amoral one.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.

Possession by the devil is one possibility, but I will—as a magnaminous gesture—let her speak for herself.
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 8/9/14 at 2:24pm
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Bottom line is this:  If Apple wants to win the US court they need to increase their lobbing in Washington DC.  PERIOD. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/05/09/google-workers-top-microsoft-facebook-peers-in.html?page=all

Google workers top Microsoft, Facebook peers in political donations



No need to fight evil with evil. Better to end corruption.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial