The original linking patent (that serves no purpose but to allow them to backdate their "invention" by 7 years) was filed in 1999. This particular patent was filed in 2006!!!
WTF?
And it was granted? WTF indeed... especially for a patent that seems to patent ideas and not designs. Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable.
I think if Microsoft did what Apple is doing right now with the Apps store, you would be up in arms.
Microsoft is already doing exactly that with their Windows Mobile Marketplace. Nobody seems to be up in arms about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
Imagine what would happen if Microsoft decided not to "approve" iTunes for Windows....
I don't recall Apple ever not "approving" Windows Media for Mac OS. Apple hasn't blocked Flash from Mac OS either. Or were you referring to the fact that as a convicted monopolist, Microsoft has to play by different rules than other, non-monopoly companies like Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
There is so much hypocrisy here it is nauseating.
There's an unpleasant amount of false comparisons and off topic posts too. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, an overly broad patent with a description that seems to match almost every mobile phone made in the last ten years at least as well as it matches the iPhone.
EDIT: There's a typo in the AppleInsider article. The company's name is NetAirus not NetArirus. A Google search is still all articles about this patent lawsuit, and nothing on what, if anything, the company actually does. So I stand by my statement that the odds of these guys being patent trolls approaches 100%.
There seems to be a lot of animosity towards the Patent Office. I'd like to hear some solid ideas on how it could be reformed without causing chaos to the whole system. Sure you can recommend to only allow "designs" rather than "ideas," but how do you define these so there is no gray area. This patent may be a good example.
Read the claims. They are a good fit for iPhone, although vague. Doesn't make any mention of the keyboard in the description.
Actually, they could apply to any smart phone on the market, however you go after the company with the money. It's crass but my lecturer has a good phrase to keep in mind is "where's the money?"
Patents have a requirement to be non-vague. You can't patent an idea or concept, you patent inventions.
This patent is vague, it has no specificity as to how the device would work, it is just a concept, and where it is specific as to features, the iPhone diverges (keyboard, hinge).
The problem is that the US Patent Office seems to be allowing patents that are just ideas.
The problem is that the US Patent Office seems to be allowing patents that are just ideas.
I totally agree with your post. However, it is not really the Patent Office's fault. This agency which is supposed to deal with cutting-edge science and technology is saddled with very poor technological resources.
Patent law is patent law. The the Patent Office tried to restrict approval only to applications that were within the four corners of the law, then the back-up in applications would be a stack of paper extending from Earth to the Moon.
The Office has chosen to approve the fairly dubious claims and then let the courts sort out the disputes that arise.
Read the claims. They are a good fit for iPhone, although vague. Doesn't make any mention of the keyboard in the description.
This is absurd. You don't get (or at least you're not supposed to get) a patent for an idea. You're supposed to get a patent for a specific method of implementation of an idea. Otherwise, Chester Gould, the cartoonist who drew "Dick Tracy", could have patented the idea for the Dick Tracy wrist watch that did all kinds of things that smart phones do today.
I have an idea that future computers will be able to read our minds. Should I be able to obtain a patent for that? No. I should only be able to obtain a patent for the specific engineering approach that I use to execute the idea. If I don't have an engineering approach, no patent should ever be issued.
Patent law (and its operation) needs to be completely rethought. The patent office can't keep up with all the patents filed and they don't know enough to properly accept or reject patents. It still bugs me that Amazon got a patent on "one-click shopping" (for which I believe Apple is paying a license fee to use). That would be like getting a patent on a "quick reply" button on forums like this one or by using the radio buttons to choose an icon for your message instead of typing in a matching code. You're not supposed to be able to get a patent on obvious methods and business practices.
Clearly, neither appleinsider, nor the majority of the people who posted comments to this story know anything about patent law. Therefore, appleinsider and the majority of the people posting comments should refrain from making judgements regarding the validity of this patent. This story defies even the fundamentals of patent law, is incorrect, and misinforms anyone who reads it. The written description of a patent, including the abstract, has little to do with what the patent protects. The most important part of a patent is the claims. The claims are what the patent protects, not the disclosure. The claims are merely interpreted in light of the disclosure. The disclosure therefore enables the claims to be interpreted and the invention to be constructed and used by others. Did apple insider read or even consider the claims? No. They read some broad portions of the specification and concluded that the patent should never have been allowed. It would take a competent attorney hours to read the claims and disclosure and prosecution history of this patent before arriving on any opinion regarding it's validity.
This is the main claim of the patent:
1. A method for handset unit communication comprising the following steps in any order: a) transmitting first data via wireless communication to a local area communication base unit a relatively short distance away; b) receiving second data via wireless communication from the local area communication base unit a relatively short distance away; c) using said handset unit to communicate, selectively, the first and second data to and from the local area communication base unit and to communicate third and fourth data to and from an external wide area network, wherein the communication of the first, second, third and fourth data are not necessarily performed simultaneously, and wherein the transmit power level of the handset unit when transmitting to the local area communication base unit is lower than when transmitting to the external wide area network; and d) wherein the first and second data include data formatted for computer e-mail.
Each and every one of these steps must be performed by a device for it to infringe on this patent.
I'm not going to comment on the validity or invalidity, but the steps performed are a bit more involved than the apple insider story leads you to believe. Thus, any discussion regarding the validity should focus on whether these steps were known at the time this invention was filed.
As for the ramblings regarding what is and what is not patentable, that is defined by 35 USC 101 and tons of precedential court decisions that I'm not going to even get into.
I apologize for the tone of this, but I'm quite irritated with people who post expert analysis of topics on the internet for which they lack even a fundamental understanding. It just spreads misinformation that other people read and assume is correct.
I totally agree with your post. However, it is not really the Patent Office's fault. This agency which is supposed to deal with cutting-edge science and technology is saddled with very poor technological resources.
Patent law is patent law. The the Patent Office tried to restrict approval only to applications that were within the four corners of the law, then the back-up in applications would be a stack of paper extending from Earth to the Moon.
The Office has chosen to approve the fairly dubious claims and then let the courts sort out the disputes that arise.
This is absurd. You don't get (or at least you're not supposed to get) a patent for an idea. You're supposed to get a patent for a specific method of implementation of an idea. Otherwise, Chester Gould, the cartoonist who drew "Dick Tracy", could have patented the idea for the Dick Tracy wrist watch that did all kinds of things that smart phones do today.
I have an idea that future computers will be able to read our minds. Should I be able to obtain a patent for that? No. I should only be able to obtain a patent for the specific engineering approach that I use to execute the idea. If I don't have an engineering approach, no patent should ever be issued.
Patent law (and its operation) needs to be completely rethought. The patent office can't keep up with all the patents filed and they don't know enough to properly accept or reject patents. It still bugs me that Amazon got a patent on "one-click shopping" (for which I believe Apple is paying a license fee to use). That would be like getting a patent on a "quick reply" button on forums like this one or by using the radio buttons to choose an icon for your message instead of typing in a matching code. You're not supposed to be able to get a patent on obvious methods and business practices.
Patent law already accounts for this. It's called enablement.
I think if Microsoft did what Apple is doing right now with the Apps store, you would be up in arms.
Imagine what would happen if Microsoft decided not to "approve" iTunes for Windows....
There is so much hypocrisy here it is nauseating.
If Microsoft did what Apple did for their music players then I would have no problem with that because it's Microsoft's product.
However Microsoft not approving iTunes on Windows would be more of a kill blow to Microsoft than it would be to Apple. People want to synch to their iPod or iPhone or iPad and so by refusing to let iTunes on Windows people would be more inclined to buy a Mac in order to do so. That would be less sales to Microsoft.
But it's only the App Store that Apple is limiting and fair enough too. On the desktop Apple doesn't stop Microsoft from releasing Windows Media Player that was Microsoft's decision so your argument is only one sided.
Apple's control over the App Store is NOT a monopoly when it's ALL their own product. Seriously, if you had built a product and an infrastructure to support that product then seriously wouldn't you want to control that infrastructure to ensure its integrity? If not you're going to lose out big time.
Apple is doing nothing wrong and to think it is is to completely misunderstand the scenario altogether.
There seems to be a lot of animosity towards the Patent Office. I'd like to hear some solid ideas on how it could be reformed without causing chaos to the whole system. Sure you can recommend to only allow "designs" rather than "ideas," but how do you define these so there is no gray area. This patent may be a good example.
That's simple. Come to the realisation that there is no such thing as a new concept and scrap the entire patent system altogether and get everyone to work together to progress technology with their own thoughts and ideas and not try to hold onto patents in the hope of getting money from someone instead of building products based on that patent.
Capitalism has done more damage to the progress of technology than the religious system did in the Dark Ages.
Patents have a requirement to be non-vague. You can't patent an idea or concept, you patent inventions.
This patent is vague, it has no specificity as to how the device would work, it is just a concept, and where it is specific as to features, the iPhone diverges (keyboard, hinge).
The actual CLAIMS of this patent (which are supposed to describe the processes that are supposedly granted protection by the patent) do not mention keyboards or hinges at all.
Quote:
The problem is that the US Patent Office seems to be allowing patents that are just ideas.
Comments
The original linking patent (that serves no purpose but to allow them to backdate their "invention" by 7 years) was filed in 1999. This particular patent was filed in 2006!!!
WTF?
And it was granted? WTF indeed... especially for a patent that seems to patent ideas and not designs. Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable.
I think if Microsoft did what Apple is doing right now with the Apps store, you would be up in arms.
Microsoft is already doing exactly that with their Windows Mobile Marketplace. Nobody seems to be up in arms about that.
Imagine what would happen if Microsoft decided not to "approve" iTunes for Windows....
I don't recall Apple ever not "approving" Windows Media for Mac OS. Apple hasn't blocked Flash from Mac OS either. Or were you referring to the fact that as a convicted monopolist, Microsoft has to play by different rules than other, non-monopoly companies like Apple?
There is so much hypocrisy here it is nauseating.
There's an unpleasant amount of false comparisons and off topic posts too. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, an overly broad patent with a description that seems to match almost every mobile phone made in the last ten years at least as well as it matches the iPhone.
EDIT: There's a typo in the AppleInsider article. The company's name is NetAirus not NetArirus. A Google search is still all articles about this patent lawsuit, and nothing on what, if anything, the company actually does. So I stand by my statement that the odds of these guys being patent trolls approaches 100%.
I just filed a patent for a "Thing that does stuff"
Please contact my licensing department for a menu of fee options.
Funny, but I think there are more specifics than you suggest. The full patent can be found here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/7103380.
There seems to be a lot of animosity towards the Patent Office. I'd like to hear some solid ideas on how it could be reformed without causing chaos to the whole system. Sure you can recommend to only allow "designs" rather than "ideas," but how do you define these so there is no gray area. This patent may be a good example.
Read the claims. They are a good fit for iPhone, although vague. Doesn't make any mention of the keyboard in the description.
Actually, they could apply to any smart phone on the market, however you go after the company with the money. It's crass but my lecturer has a good phrase to keep in mind is "where's the money?"
Patents have a requirement to be non-vague. You can't patent an idea or concept, you patent inventions.
This patent is vague, it has no specificity as to how the device would work, it is just a concept, and where it is specific as to features, the iPhone diverges (keyboard, hinge).
The problem is that the US Patent Office seems to be allowing patents that are just ideas.
I just filed a pantent for a "Thing that does stuff"
Please contact my licensing department for a menu of fee options.
...
The problem is that the US Patent Office seems to be allowing patents that are just ideas.
I totally agree with your post. However, it is not really the Patent Office's fault. This agency which is supposed to deal with cutting-edge science and technology is saddled with very poor technological resources.
Patent law is patent law. The the Patent Office tried to restrict approval only to applications that were within the four corners of the law, then the back-up in applications would be a stack of paper extending from Earth to the Moon.
The Office has chosen to approve the fairly dubious claims and then let the courts sort out the disputes that arise.
Read the claims. They are a good fit for iPhone, although vague. Doesn't make any mention of the keyboard in the description.
This is absurd. You don't get (or at least you're not supposed to get) a patent for an idea. You're supposed to get a patent for a specific method of implementation of an idea. Otherwise, Chester Gould, the cartoonist who drew "Dick Tracy", could have patented the idea for the Dick Tracy wrist watch that did all kinds of things that smart phones do today.
I have an idea that future computers will be able to read our minds. Should I be able to obtain a patent for that? No. I should only be able to obtain a patent for the specific engineering approach that I use to execute the idea. If I don't have an engineering approach, no patent should ever be issued.
Patent law (and its operation) needs to be completely rethought. The patent office can't keep up with all the patents filed and they don't know enough to properly accept or reject patents. It still bugs me that Amazon got a patent on "one-click shopping" (for which I believe Apple is paying a license fee to use). That would be like getting a patent on a "quick reply" button on forums like this one or by using the radio buttons to choose an icon for your message instead of typing in a matching code. You're not supposed to be able to get a patent on obvious methods and business practices.
This is the main claim of the patent:
1. A method for handset unit communication comprising the following steps in any order: a) transmitting first data via wireless communication to a local area communication base unit a relatively short distance away; b) receiving second data via wireless communication from the local area communication base unit a relatively short distance away; c) using said handset unit to communicate, selectively, the first and second data to and from the local area communication base unit and to communicate third and fourth data to and from an external wide area network, wherein the communication of the first, second, third and fourth data are not necessarily performed simultaneously, and wherein the transmit power level of the handset unit when transmitting to the local area communication base unit is lower than when transmitting to the external wide area network; and d) wherein the first and second data include data formatted for computer e-mail.
Each and every one of these steps must be performed by a device for it to infringe on this patent.
I'm not going to comment on the validity or invalidity, but the steps performed are a bit more involved than the apple insider story leads you to believe. Thus, any discussion regarding the validity should focus on whether these steps were known at the time this invention was filed.
As for the ramblings regarding what is and what is not patentable, that is defined by 35 USC 101 and tons of precedential court decisions that I'm not going to even get into.
I apologize for the tone of this, but I'm quite irritated with people who post expert analysis of topics on the internet for which they lack even a fundamental understanding. It just spreads misinformation that other people read and assume is correct.
I totally agree with your post. However, it is not really the Patent Office's fault. This agency which is supposed to deal with cutting-edge science and technology is saddled with very poor technological resources.
Patent law is patent law. The the Patent Office tried to restrict approval only to applications that were within the four corners of the law, then the back-up in applications would be a stack of paper extending from Earth to the Moon.
The Office has chosen to approve the fairly dubious claims and then let the courts sort out the disputes that arise.
Everything you just wrote is incorrect.
This is absurd. You don't get (or at least you're not supposed to get) a patent for an idea. You're supposed to get a patent for a specific method of implementation of an idea. Otherwise, Chester Gould, the cartoonist who drew "Dick Tracy", could have patented the idea for the Dick Tracy wrist watch that did all kinds of things that smart phones do today.
I have an idea that future computers will be able to read our minds. Should I be able to obtain a patent for that? No. I should only be able to obtain a patent for the specific engineering approach that I use to execute the idea. If I don't have an engineering approach, no patent should ever be issued.
Patent law (and its operation) needs to be completely rethought. The patent office can't keep up with all the patents filed and they don't know enough to properly accept or reject patents. It still bugs me that Amazon got a patent on "one-click shopping" (for which I believe Apple is paying a license fee to use). That would be like getting a patent on a "quick reply" button on forums like this one or by using the radio buttons to choose an icon for your message instead of typing in a matching code. You're not supposed to be able to get a patent on obvious methods and business practices.
Patent law already accounts for this. It's called enablement.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac.../2100_2164.htm
I think if Microsoft did what Apple is doing right now with the Apps store, you would be up in arms.
Imagine what would happen if Microsoft decided not to "approve" iTunes for Windows....
There is so much hypocrisy here it is nauseating.
If Microsoft did what Apple did for their music players then I would have no problem with that because it's Microsoft's product.
However Microsoft not approving iTunes on Windows would be more of a kill blow to Microsoft than it would be to Apple. People want to synch to their iPod or iPhone or iPad and so by refusing to let iTunes on Windows people would be more inclined to buy a Mac in order to do so. That would be less sales to Microsoft.
But it's only the App Store that Apple is limiting and fair enough too. On the desktop Apple doesn't stop Microsoft from releasing Windows Media Player that was Microsoft's decision so your argument is only one sided.
Apple's control over the App Store is NOT a monopoly when it's ALL their own product. Seriously, if you had built a product and an infrastructure to support that product then seriously wouldn't you want to control that infrastructure to ensure its integrity? If not you're going to lose out big time.
Apple is doing nothing wrong and to think it is is to completely misunderstand the scenario altogether.
Funny, but I think there are more specifics than you suggest. The full patent can be found here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/7103380.
There seems to be a lot of animosity towards the Patent Office. I'd like to hear some solid ideas on how it could be reformed without causing chaos to the whole system. Sure you can recommend to only allow "designs" rather than "ideas," but how do you define these so there is no gray area. This patent may be a good example.
That's simple. Come to the realisation that there is no such thing as a new concept and scrap the entire patent system altogether and get everyone to work together to progress technology with their own thoughts and ideas and not try to hold onto patents in the hope of getting money from someone instead of building products based on that patent.
Capitalism has done more damage to the progress of technology than the religious system did in the Dark Ages.
Patents have a requirement to be non-vague. You can't patent an idea or concept, you patent inventions.
This patent is vague, it has no specificity as to how the device would work, it is just a concept, and where it is specific as to features, the iPhone diverges (keyboard, hinge).
The actual CLAIMS of this patent (which are supposed to describe the processes that are supposedly granted protection by the patent) do not mention keyboards or hinges at all.
The problem is that the US Patent Office seems to be allowing patents that are just ideas.
Agreed.