Why? If they could have been gotten rid of without litigation? Do you assume that they have no viable claims?
Yes. If Apple/Nintendo did believe there was something to it, they would likely have settled because if they had negotiated and not settled, that would show that they did believe they were using/violating some of the patent.
If they didn't think they were using/violating the patent, why would they have any negotiation?
Actually I will bet you that Apple can show prior artwork on this patent. Back in 1990 or maybe before that they demonstrated a 3 dimensional mouse where you could move in space and have it control a computer and use it a 3 dimensional input device.
If they claimed merely a 3 dimensional mouse, you would likely have a good point.
Looks to me like Triton is sick of being treated badly in negotiations by these big companies. They now have a big stick. Maybe now Nintendo and Apple will start to take them seriously?
Good for them!
Sorry, but Computer Apparatus will get this tossed. The broad and non-specific nature of any implementation other than the entire realm of 3D for a computer apparatus won't stick.
A mouse which senses six degrees of motion arising from movement of the mouse within three dimensions. A hand-held device includes three accelerometers for sensing linear translation along three axes of a Cartesian coordinate system and three angular rate sensors for sensing angular rotation about the three axes. Signals produced by the sensors are processed to permit the acceleration, velocity and relative position and attitude of the device to be conveyed to a computer. Thus, a person may interact with a computer with six degrees of motion in three-dimensional space. Computer interface ports and unique address identification ensure proper communication with the computer regardless of the orientation of the mouse.
This goes back to 1970 during the Space Race.
This covers any electronic apparatus that wants to manage coordinates in 3D Space. That will get tossed.
We have to stop this nonsense - given this, someone will soon have a patent on breathing and all beings who breathe will either have to pay some fat moron or die.
I say kick their ass and be done with it.
Given this, no patent on breathing will ever be issued.
Take a deep breath. Calm down. Read up on patent law.
Yes. If Apple/Nintendo did believe there was something to it, they would likely have settled because if they had negotiated and not settled, that would show that they did believe they were using/violating some of the patent.
If they didn't think they were using/violating the patent, why would they have any negotiation?
For lots and lots of reasons. The negotiation/litigation decision is far from one-dimensional.
In some cases, the big infringing company will decide to continue infringing and refuse to negotiate. In some cases, a company that is not infringing will nevertheless settle.
You cannot conclude much about the merits from your analysis of the dynamics.
Pretty much. The aphorism of Apple before Jobs in the 90s was litigation over innovation. It?s not a great way to do business. it?s like gambling, except I?d rather pay a vig than lawyer fees.
Wow. Has anyone noticed apple have layed off the suing, and are now becoming the sued???
Now???
I suppose yes, if "now" means 1978, 1991, or 2003, when they were sued by the Beatles
1994... by Carl Sagan, over the unadvertised internal product name for the Mac 7100, "BHA," said (a) to stand for Butt-Head Astronomer and (b) to mean Sagan,
1997 over AppleCare,
1998 over AppleiMac.com
2000 over itunes.co.uk
2004 over sales by independent distributors
2005 over battery life,
2006 by Creative Technology over alleged patent infringement by the iPod
2007 by Cisco over the trademark "iPhone"
2007 by customers demanding that the iPhone work on Verizon
2008 by Typhoon Touch Technologies
April 2010 by Kodak over digital imaging
April 2010 by Nokia over wireless phone technology
June, 2010 over iPhone reception in low cell strength areas
My guess is that they are motivated by money. Do you have anything that strikes you as more likely than that?
Well contrary to popular belief, these things are only supposed to be about money in the secondary sense. While money can be a motivator, it's supposed to be about the primacy of ideas and who thought of what first. Thats why it looks suspicious, and why a court might reduce a settlement if in fact the patent holder only chooses to defend it in court when it looks like they are going to have a payday.
It's the very perversion of copyright law to make it less about IP and protecting innovators and more about money and protecting revenue streams that's the main problem with patent and copyright law today.
No, different. Apple sues only when a competitor tries to profit from, or dilute the uniqueness of Apple's ideas. Patent trolls usually don't compete with the companies they sue. Like SCO and RAMBUS. They treat patent lawsuits as a revenue source.
Well contrary to popular belief, these things are only supposed to be about money in the secondary sense. While money can be a motivator, it's supposed to be about the primacy of ideas and who thought of what first.
I think that you mistake the judiciary for the legislature. These things are indeed about the values you identify - but the court is bound to hear and decide cases based upon the law as written.
Maybe you need to vote the bums out and replace them with better legislators? Dunno.
But lamenting that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation seems like misplaced concern to me.
Looks to me like Triton is sick of being treated badly in negotiations by these big companies. They now have a big stick. Maybe now Nintendo and Apple will start to take them seriously?
Good for them!
My opinion.... what a crock. A this is not about a mouse... they want to feed of anyone they can.
PS, suing in Marshall texas is like saying.... "I don't have a case but I want your money"..
A new lawsuit takes aim at the accelerometer- and gyroscope-powered abilities of Apple's iPhone 4, ......l.
The complaint was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent lawsuits are often filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
Marshall texas says it all. This is the premier spot for patent trolls who really do not have a case. This town LIVES on these types of trials. And they favor the suing person, no matter what they are suing about. Just check the numbers.
Marshall texas says it all. ... This town LIVES on these types of trials.
Yeah? From Wikipedia:
Marshall is a city in Harrison County in the northeastern corner of Texas. Marshall is a major cultural and educational center in East Texas and the tri-state area. ... The city's large African American population and the presence of black institutions of higher learning made Marshall a center of the civil rights movement in the South. The city is known for holding one of the largest light festivals in the United States, the Wonderland of Lights,[4] and, as the self-proclaimed Pottery Capital of the World, for its sizable pottery industry.
Marshall is also referred to by various nicknames; the Cultural Capital of East Texas,[5] the Gateway of Texas, the Athens of Texas[6] the City of Seven Flags and Center Stage,
Marshall's economy is diversified and includes services such as Insurance claims processing at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, education at several institutes of higher learning, manufacturing such as wood kitchen cabinets at Republic Industries and pottery at several manufacturers. Tourism is also an important industry with about one million tourists visiting the city each year.
This patent seems to specifically reference a mouse.
"A mouse which senses six degrees of motion arising from movement of the mouse within three dimensions."
And that's the first sentence of the abstract.
But at the most abstract level, this patent is really for an analog-to-digital processor, it just happens to be for accelerometers/gyros. How can a patent be issued for this really.
I think that you mistake the judiciary for the legislature. These things are indeed about the values you identify - but the court is bound to hear and decide cases based upon the law as written.
Maybe you need to vote the bums out and replace them with better legislators? Dunno.
But lamenting that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation seems like misplaced concern to me.
I appreciate that if I was the plaintiff in this case, I might feel the same way about it as you do, but objectively your statements makes little sense to me.
I don't know what you mean by "the legislature," I was talking in the abstract about the concept of patents and copyright and what they are designed to do. I thought that was fairly clear by at least the second re-iteration of my remarks.
Patents and copyright laws are about IP and protecting ideas so that the people that come up with them can be fairly recognised and compensated. It usually ends up being about money as you say, but (as I said) that isn't the intent or the main focus, or even the main purpose of the law. I'm not sure what you're really disagreeing with here.
Secondly, I probably don't live in your country so I can't "vote the bums out" and I wouldn't want to anyway because my remarks have literally nothing to do with legislation or the legislative bodies of any countries. I'm just talking about the laws and their stated purpose.
Lastly, I never "lamented that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation." That's you putting words in my mouth. I just said that this isn't the main purpose of the law to suck money out of others that may or may not use your inventions and ideas. The purpose is to protect the ideas and those that originate them.
1994... by Carl Sagan, over the unadvertised internal product name for the Mac 7100, "BHA," said (a) to stand for Butt-Head Astronomer and (b) to mean Sagan,
Actually the real store is this, there were 3 projects going on at Apple at the time which was the very first PPC products which basically took the 040 architecture and adapted to make the PPC work with it so it really did not take full advantage of the PPC. One project was called Cold Fusion, the next was Sagan and the third Piltdown Man, which at the time cold fusion and piltdown man were consider pseudoscience. When Sagan heard of his name being associated with the other two code names he send a cease and desist order at which time they change the name to BHA and some how Sagan found out again and then sued Apple. Needless to say the engineers got some verbal tongue lashing. Some people just can not take a joke.
Very few people at the time knew what BHA meant, but Sagan found out.
Lastly, I never "lamented that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation." That's you putting words in my mouth. I just said that this isn't the main purpose of the law to suck money out of others that may or may not use your inventions and ideas. The purpose is to protect the ideas and those that originate them.
In post 57, I quoted your wonderings about what might motivate the plaintiffs, and my reply was money.
In number 70, you lamented that these things were not "supposed to be about money".
So I pointed out that your problem may be with what the law says, which is a legislative function.
I pointed out that the judicial system is doing nothing wrong. I pointed out that most every plaintiff in the judicial system seeks compensation.
I pointed out that if you don't like the status quo of plaintiffs seeking compensation, instead of some abstract rendering of "what this stuff is all about", and lamentations about the reality of the judicial system, then maybe you might like to change the laws that you disagree with.
Comments
Why? If they could have been gotten rid of without litigation? Do you assume that they have no viable claims?
Yes. If Apple/Nintendo did believe there was something to it, they would likely have settled because if they had negotiated and not settled, that would show that they did believe they were using/violating some of the patent.
If they didn't think they were using/violating the patent, why would they have any negotiation?
Actually I will bet you that Apple can show prior artwork on this patent. Back in 1990 or maybe before that they demonstrated a 3 dimensional mouse where you could move in space and have it control a computer and use it a 3 dimensional input device.
If they claimed merely a 3 dimensional mouse, you would likely have a good point.
Looks to me like Triton is sick of being treated badly in negotiations by these big companies. They now have a big stick. Maybe now Nintendo and Apple will start to take them seriously?
Good for them!
Sorry, but Computer Apparatus will get this tossed. The broad and non-specific nature of any implementation other than the entire realm of 3D for a computer apparatus won't stick.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/5181181
A mouse which senses six degrees of motion arising from movement of the mouse within three dimensions. A hand-held device includes three accelerometers for sensing linear translation along three axes of a Cartesian coordinate system and three angular rate sensors for sensing angular rotation about the three axes. Signals produced by the sensors are processed to permit the acceleration, velocity and relative position and attitude of the device to be conveyed to a computer. Thus, a person may interact with a computer with six degrees of motion in three-dimensional space. Computer interface ports and unique address identification ensure proper communication with the computer regardless of the orientation of the mouse.
This goes back to 1970 during the Space Race.
This covers any electronic apparatus that wants to manage coordinates in 3D Space. That will get tossed.
We have to stop this nonsense - given this, someone will soon have a patent on breathing and all beings who breathe will either have to pay some fat moron or die.
I say kick their ass and be done with it.
Given this, no patent on breathing will ever be issued.
Take a deep breath. Calm down. Read up on patent law.
Yes. If Apple/Nintendo did believe there was something to it, they would likely have settled because if they had negotiated and not settled, that would show that they did believe they were using/violating some of the patent.
If they didn't think they were using/violating the patent, why would they have any negotiation?
For lots and lots of reasons. The negotiation/litigation decision is far from one-dimensional.
In some cases, the big infringing company will decide to continue infringing and refuse to negotiate. In some cases, a company that is not infringing will nevertheless settle.
You cannot conclude much about the merits from your analysis of the dynamics.
Was it the same when Apple sued everyone around?
Pretty much. The aphorism of Apple before Jobs in the 90s was litigation over innovation. It?s not a great way to do business. it?s like gambling, except I?d rather pay a vig than lawyer fees.
Wow. Has anyone noticed apple have layed off the suing, and are now becoming the sued???
Now???
I suppose yes, if "now" means 1978, 1991, or 2003, when they were sued by the Beatles
1994... by Carl Sagan, over the unadvertised internal product name for the Mac 7100, "BHA," said (a) to stand for Butt-Head Astronomer and (b) to mean Sagan,
1997 over AppleCare,
1998 over AppleiMac.com
2000 over itunes.co.uk
2004 over sales by independent distributors
2005 over battery life,
2006 by Creative Technology over alleged patent infringement by the iPod
2007 by Cisco over the trademark "iPhone"
2007 by customers demanding that the iPhone work on Verizon
2008 by Typhoon Touch Technologies
April 2010 by Kodak over digital imaging
April 2010 by Nokia over wireless phone technology
June, 2010 over iPhone reception in low cell strength areas
Have I missed a few (hundred)?
My guess is that they are motivated by money. Do you have anything that strikes you as more likely than that?
Well contrary to popular belief, these things are only supposed to be about money in the secondary sense. While money can be a motivator, it's supposed to be about the primacy of ideas and who thought of what first. Thats why it looks suspicious, and why a court might reduce a settlement if in fact the patent holder only chooses to defend it in court when it looks like they are going to have a payday.
It's the very perversion of copyright law to make it less about IP and protecting innovators and more about money and protecting revenue streams that's the main problem with patent and copyright law today.
Was it the same when Apple sued everyone around?
No, different. Apple sues only when a competitor tries to profit from, or dilute the uniqueness of Apple's ideas. Patent trolls usually don't compete with the companies they sue. Like SCO and RAMBUS. They treat patent lawsuits as a revenue source.
You cannot conclude much about the merits from your analysis of the dynamics.
Based on the article, there is nothing we can conclude except Apple is being sued.
So why discuss anything else?
Well contrary to popular belief, these things are only supposed to be about money in the secondary sense. While money can be a motivator, it's supposed to be about the primacy of ideas and who thought of what first.
I think that you mistake the judiciary for the legislature. These things are indeed about the values you identify - but the court is bound to hear and decide cases based upon the law as written.
Maybe you need to vote the bums out and replace them with better legislators? Dunno.
But lamenting that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation seems like misplaced concern to me.
Based on the article, there is nothing we can conclude except Apple is being sued.
So why discuss anything else?
I disagree. We can conclude huge amounts beyond "Apple is being sued".
Was that the part where you claim to tune out background noise? I'm not getting your point.
No, the part about "I am going to patent breathing." But then I suppose you were being ironic.
Looks to me like Triton is sick of being treated badly in negotiations by these big companies. They now have a big stick. Maybe now Nintendo and Apple will start to take them seriously?
Good for them!
My opinion.... what a crock. A this is not about a mouse... they want to feed of anyone they can.
PS, suing in Marshall texas is like saying.... "I don't have a case but I want your money"..
en
A new lawsuit takes aim at the accelerometer- and gyroscope-powered abilities of Apple's iPhone 4, ......l.
The complaint was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent lawsuits are often filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
Marshall texas says it all. This is the premier spot for patent trolls who really do not have a case. This town LIVES on these types of trials. And they favor the suing person, no matter what they are suing about. Just check the numbers.
Just a thought,
en
Marshall texas says it all. ... This town LIVES on these types of trials.
Yeah? From Wikipedia:
Marshall is a city in Harrison County in the northeastern corner of Texas. Marshall is a major cultural and educational center in East Texas and the tri-state area. ... The city's large African American population and the presence of black institutions of higher learning made Marshall a center of the civil rights movement in the South. The city is known for holding one of the largest light festivals in the United States, the Wonderland of Lights,[4] and, as the self-proclaimed Pottery Capital of the World, for its sizable pottery industry.
Marshall is also referred to by various nicknames; the Cultural Capital of East Texas,[5] the Gateway of Texas, the Athens of Texas[6] the City of Seven Flags and Center Stage,
Marshall's economy is diversified and includes services such as Insurance claims processing at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, education at several institutes of higher learning, manufacturing such as wood kitchen cabinets at Republic Industries and pottery at several manufacturers. Tourism is also an important industry with about one million tourists visiting the city each year.
"A mouse which senses six degrees of motion arising from movement of the mouse within three dimensions."
And that's the first sentence of the abstract.
But at the most abstract level, this patent is really for an analog-to-digital processor, it just happens to be for accelerometers/gyros. How can a patent be issued for this really.
I think that you mistake the judiciary for the legislature. These things are indeed about the values you identify - but the court is bound to hear and decide cases based upon the law as written.
Maybe you need to vote the bums out and replace them with better legislators? Dunno.
But lamenting that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation seems like misplaced concern to me.
I appreciate that if I was the plaintiff in this case, I might feel the same way about it as you do, but objectively your statements makes little sense to me.
I don't know what you mean by "the legislature," I was talking in the abstract about the concept of patents and copyright and what they are designed to do. I thought that was fairly clear by at least the second re-iteration of my remarks.
Patents and copyright laws are about IP and protecting ideas so that the people that come up with them can be fairly recognised and compensated. It usually ends up being about money as you say, but (as I said) that isn't the intent or the main focus, or even the main purpose of the law. I'm not sure what you're really disagreeing with here.
Secondly, I probably don't live in your country so I can't "vote the bums out" and I wouldn't want to anyway because my remarks have literally nothing to do with legislation or the legislative bodies of any countries. I'm just talking about the laws and their stated purpose.
Lastly, I never "lamented that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation." That's you putting words in my mouth. I just said that this isn't the main purpose of the law to suck money out of others that may or may not use your inventions and ideas. The purpose is to protect the ideas and those that originate them.
1994... by Carl Sagan, over the unadvertised internal product name for the Mac 7100, "BHA," said (a) to stand for Butt-Head Astronomer and (b) to mean Sagan,
Actually the real store is this, there were 3 projects going on at Apple at the time which was the very first PPC products which basically took the 040 architecture and adapted to make the PPC work with it so it really did not take full advantage of the PPC. One project was called Cold Fusion, the next was Sagan and the third Piltdown Man, which at the time cold fusion and piltdown man were consider pseudoscience. When Sagan heard of his name being associated with the other two code names he send a cease and desist order at which time they change the name to BHA and some how Sagan found out again and then sued Apple. Needless to say the engineers got some verbal tongue lashing. Some people just can not take a joke.
Very few people at the time knew what BHA meant, but Sagan found out.
Lastly, I never "lamented that a plaintiff may be interested in compensation." That's you putting words in my mouth. I just said that this isn't the main purpose of the law to suck money out of others that may or may not use your inventions and ideas. The purpose is to protect the ideas and those that originate them.
In post 57, I quoted your wonderings about what might motivate the plaintiffs, and my reply was money.
In number 70, you lamented that these things were not "supposed to be about money".
So I pointed out that your problem may be with what the law says, which is a legislative function.
I pointed out that the judicial system is doing nothing wrong. I pointed out that most every plaintiff in the judicial system seeks compensation.
I pointed out that if you don't like the status quo of plaintiffs seeking compensation, instead of some abstract rendering of "what this stuff is all about", and lamentations about the reality of the judicial system, then maybe you might like to change the laws that you disagree with.
I hope that clears things up.