'Automated browsing tool' patent holder sues Apple over iTunes, Apple TV

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,783member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    I don't like patent trolling. He should've sued when the products were first introduced now years and years later after they've been proven to be successful.



    Well that's the whole point. Wait until the products ARE successful, then sue. You can claim your patent is more valuable that way. It's all about money anyway.
  • Reply 22 of 38
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    When Apple does something to someone, be it sue for trademark/patent violation, people here think "MMM GOOD!"

    When the roles are reversed "GRRR BAD!"



    I could careless about who sues Apple, who Apple sues, that is not my point at all. All I want is consistency, but I'm looking at the wrong place for that apparently. So continue on thinking when Apple does something, it's good but when it happens to them, it's bad. Sorry folks, generic trademarks from both aisles are stupid, and so are the majority of software patents that are granted. That includes patents issued to Apple as well.



    The inability to read here is sad sometimes. It doesn't surprise me given the lack of consistency of most Mac users and their defensive nature because of their loyalty to a company that honestly, doesn't care about any of us; just our money. Brand loyalty breeds stupidity. One only has to look at a majority of blind nationalist posing as Patriots of America to understand that.



    Your beef are with fans of Apple, yet your vitriol implies that Apple is at fault for creating such a collection of fans.



    Did it ever occur to you that when Apple has consistently lead the industry in customer satisfaction that it's because they've earned it and when people own products that exceed their expectations in quality for their buying power that it is incumbent upon the competition to innovate to regain that mind share?



    Being sued comes with the territory of becoming successful.



    You give the impression that you feel inundated or overburdened by this pro-Apple defense, on an Apple focused web site, that you wish them failure if only to silence the hundreds of millions of satisfied customers that keeps expanding more rapidly than the rest of the industry, despite every effort of the competition to take whatever means necessary to try and derail their well-earned successes.



    The amount of propagandist journalists who get paid to shill for Android [to name one example] on tech sites, to political sites, to basic blogs unrelated to the technologies has even spilled over to pro-Apple sites.



    And you wonder how come pro-Apple sites are sick of it and defend the products, and the company they invest heavily in to keep their lives with computing meeting their needs?
  • Reply 23 of 38
    kenburgkenburg Posts: 23member
    First, I am amazed at how negligent Apple is when it comes to patenting their own creations. Also, how often Apple loses these suits. They must feel that the cost of litigation - IF they're caught - is favorable to negotiations and costs of licensing in the first place. They are the doers in the industry. Others may have ideas, but Apple sees the potential and brings things to fruition where others pay for patents that go unfulfilled. Even if they lose and have to pay $4 million, that's probably less than they would have paid for licensing or salary over the course of those years.
  • Reply 24 of 38
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    When Apple sues = good

    When Apple gets sued = bad



    Most of you are against this lawsuit, I bet if the roles were reversed there would be 50 replies already about how this is a "slam dunk for Apple" and how they need to defend their patents. One only has to look at the trademark lawsuit threads and past threads of Apple being sued to know this would be the case.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    Awww, how mature of you! I can tell that lack of maturity impacts your ability to read an entire post thoroughly. Go skim through threads where Apple are suing because their patents being violated, suddenly the patent system isn't so evil. Since you clearly have selective reading and ignored the other part of my post, Apple has been sued for violating trademarks too, plenty of times. The responses in those threads are just as predictable as what your next response is going to be.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    When Apple does something to someone, be it sue for trademark/patent violation, people here think "MMM GOOD!"

    When the roles are reversed "GRRR BAD!"



    I could careless about who sues Apple, who Apple sues, that is not my point at all. All I want is consistency, but I'm looking at the wrong place for that apparently. So continue on thinking when Apple does something, it's good but when it happens to them, it's bad. Sorry folks, generic trademarks from both aisles are stupid, and so are the majority of software patents that are granted. That includes patents issued to Apple as well.



    The inability to read here is sad sometimes. It doesn't surprise me given the lack of consistency of most Mac users and their defensive nature because of their loyalty to a company that honestly, doesn't care about any of us; just our money. Brand loyalty breeds stupidity. One only has to look at a majority of blind nationalist posing as Patriots of America to understand that.



    Would you like a tissue?



    Come here little man, someone needs a virtual hug.
  • Reply 25 of 38
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    It was like that when I got here
  • Reply 26 of 38
    Just from reading the abstract of the patent it look like it more closely resembles many of the flash players that you find on news sites that automatically go from video to video. The initial few sentences may relate to something iTunes does, but it does not play any content in a web environment so it almost seams not to qualify. Also a big part of this is the generation of dynamically generated web pages which a big chuck of the web does now.



    Sounds like they need to go after Flash developers too.



    It's all about one click delivery of multiple video resources from one click based on dynamically generated content. Although iTunes does work as a web browser for the store, I have a feeling it's more app for the functions they are suing on.



    I guess we will see. I wanted to see if anything they were suing on was valid and I find it a bit of a stretch. there a some similarities, but the actual action and methodology appears to be quite different. But that is just my take from a quick scan of the patent.



    I am sure they will pick this apart and if Apple violated the patent they will have to pay up. Otherwise, the alternate violators may be web sites that use flash versions of this and that may be hard for them to collect on.
  • Reply 27 of 38
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    When Apple does something to someone, be it sue for trademark/patent violation, people here think "MMM GOOD!"

    When the roles are reversed "GRRR BAD!"



    I could careless about who sues Apple, who Apple sues, that is not my point at all. All I want is consistency, but I'm looking at the wrong place for that apparently. So continue on thinking when Apple does something, it's good but when it happens to them, it's bad. Sorry folks, generic trademarks from both aisles are stupid, and so are the majority of software patents that are granted. That includes patents issued to Apple as well.



    The inability to read here is sad sometimes. It doesn't surprise me given the lack of consistency of most Mac users and their defensive nature because of their loyalty to a company that honestly, doesn't care about any of us; just our money. Brand loyalty breeds stupidity. One only has to look at a majority of blind nationalist posing as Patriots of America to understand that.



    I agree with the previous poster - take a big gulp of STFU - you have no clue what you are talking about. Your last paragraph says it all. You are nothing more than a troll and hater when you make the absolutely absurd statement that Apple is "a company that honestly, doesn't care about any of us". The complete opposite is true - they are singularly focused on creating the best possible consumer experience, period! Further, the fact that they have, by far, the highest ratings for customer satisfaction and customer service and support says it all. You, on the other hand, should go have that drink.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kenburg View Post


    First, I am amazed at how negligent Apple is when it comes to patenting their own creations. Also, how often Apple loses these suits. They must feel that the cost of litigation - IF they're caught - is favorable to negotiations and costs of licensing in the first place. They are the doers in the industry. Others may have ideas, but Apple sees the potential and brings things to fruition where others pay for patents that go unfulfilled. Even if they lose and have to pay $4 million, that's probably less than they would have paid for licensing or salary over the course of those years.



    What are you talking about? They win greater than 9/10ths of all lawsuits that ever go to trial.



    Since 2007 they've been awarded more than 3000 patents for their product lines.



    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...le-google-htc/



    Of course they have far more than those recent patents in their entire portfolio.



    At the rate in which Apple is putting an effort into advanced R&D Apple should push past 1,000 patents issued in 2011 alone.



    It's March and Apple is about to surpass 200 patents granted by the end of next week, through the USPTO, for 2011.



    That 1,000 mark is still < 20% of what IBM pumped out last year. Yet, which company actually puts larger portions of it's IP to making products that produce a huge ROI?



    It's not IBM.



    Patent Production growth leaders:



    http://www.ificlaims.com/news/top-patents.html



    They'll have to push Apple passed 100% growth for 2011 by next year's report.



    So, Apple isn't resting on any thing with respect to R&D and Patenting their research.
  • Reply 29 of 38
    haryncharync Posts: 2member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rivertrip View Post


    You don't think inventors should be able to sell their intellectual property?



    I think he was referring to some of the garbage that goes through the eastern district of Texas. For example, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit there over the invention of a drug. There were absolutely no facts to back up the case and the jury awarded J&J $2 billion dollars, which at the time was the largest amount ever awarded. On appeal the decision was reversed and the appeals court judge basically said he could not believe how wrong-headed the original decision was. That district almost always rules for the plaintiff. It's become a second industry.
  • Reply 30 of 38
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The owner of a patent related to "automated browsing" of Web content in a television-style format has accused Apple of stealing his ideas through products like the Apple TV and iTunes.



    A new lawsuit was filed this week in a U.S. District Court in Delaware by the company Robocast against Apple. Robocast is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,155,451, entitled "Automated browsing system for publishers and users on networks serving internet and remote devices."



    In its complaint, Robocast notes that the company's founder, Damon Torres, "pioneered the use of automated web browsing" in the '90s. It credits him for creating a "new paradigm" in the Web browsing experience.



    "Mr. Torres foresaw the far broader potential of the Web as a medium for content delivery that functioned more like television, but with the significant benefits provided by user interactivity and control, and the vast resources accessible via the Internet," the complaint reads.



    Torres originally filed his patent application in September of 1996, and by 2001 customers included Internet publisher Hachette Filipacchi and InfoSpace. Robocast was apparently also highlighted as part of the Microsoft TV developer program in 2001.



    The lawsuit claims that Robocast technology was shown off at the Spring Internet World show in Los Angeles, Calif., in April 1999. At that show, it is claimed that Apple employee Fred Reynolds visited Robocast's booth and saw its product.



    "Apple has since incorporated Robocast's patented automated browsing technology into a number of its products and services, including at least the following: Apple TV, FrontRow, and iTunes," the complaint reads.



    Robocast has asked that the court find Apple in violation of the '451 patent. The company seeks either a permanent injunction against Apple, or that the court award Robocast a compulsory ongoing licensing fee.



    Another Patent Troll company trying to get rich quick by going to court. Lame!!!!
  • Reply 31 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    When Apple sues = good

    When Apple gets sued = bad



    Most of you are against this lawsuit, I bet if the roles were reversed there would be 50 replies already about how this is a "slam dunk for Apple" and how they need to defend their patents. One only has to look at the trademark lawsuit threads and past threads of Apple being sued to know this would be the case.



    Sadly, I think I have to agree. I HATE seeing Apple sued, and usually feel the suites have no merit, but this one sounds like Apple may have borrowed part of his idea. Maybe Apple could license it cheaply based on the volume they do?
  • Reply 32 of 38
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rivertrip View Post


    You don't think inventors should be able to sell their intellectual property?



    Just saying that 99% of the time we see Apple sued by a holding company in East Texas the claims seem to be dubious at best.



    If you own patents simply as a business to bring lawsuits against successful companies and have no intention of producing anything yourself, especially when the claims are really far fetched, that is called patent trolling.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by powerbrent View Post


    Sadly, I think I have to agree. I HATE seeing Apple sued, and usually feel the suites have no merit, but this one sounds like Apple may have borrowed part of his idea. Maybe Apple could license it cheaply based on the volume they do?



    Maybe Apple could offer a licensing fee based on what they sell iTunes software for (zero) or how much it costs to install the software on an Apple TV (also zero).
  • Reply 34 of 38
    Another pig at the trough.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by IVK View Post


    When Apple does something to someone, be it sue for trademark/patent violation, people here think "MMM GOOD!"

    When the roles are reversed "GRRR BAD!"



    I could careless about who sues Apple, who Apple sues, that is not my point at all. All I want is consistency, but I'm looking at the wrong place for that apparently. So continue on thinking when Apple does something, it's good but when it happens to them, it's bad. Sorry folks, generic trademarks from both aisles are stupid, and so are the majority of software patents that are granted. That includes patents issued to Apple as well.



    The inability to read here is sad sometimes. It doesn't surprise me given the lack of consistency of most Mac users and their defensive nature because of their loyalty to a company that honestly, doesn't care about any of us; just our money. Brand loyalty breeds stupidity. One only has to look at a majority of blind nationalist posing as Patriots of America to understand that.



    Then why even post here? What drove you to throw down the gauntlet and not expect a response? Sure fine - love your anti-capitalist commentary - but again why here? What a thorough-going waste of your personal wisdom and insight. Do you know categorically that this suit is defensible? Did you know that the other suits were defensible? Are you a patent lawyer? You obviously only skimmed a few threads and grabbed just what served your commentary.



    Your commentary is painfully obvious in its attempt to garner responses - like a spoiled brat throwing a fit among adults until it gets whatever attention it can get - bad or good. You are not offering discussion here you are deliberately goading responses by the use of the phrases above and previously. So here you go. Enjoy the attention.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    The idiots at the patent office need to stop granting patents for vague crap like this. This is such crap.
  • Reply 37 of 38
    s8er01zs8er01z Posts: 144member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bfpseller View Post


    I really hate all of these patents sue. Patent law in US needs a revision



    Same here... this 'I had a dream' bs has got to stop.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    [QUOTE]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "Mr. Torres foresaw the far broader potential of the Web as a medium for content delivery that functioned more like television, but with the significant benefits provided by user interactivity and control, and the vast resources accessible via the Internet," the complaint reads.



    ...and I have foreseen that one million dollars would make my life more financially sound. Can I patent that?
Sign In or Register to comment.