Apple wins appeal reversing $625.5 million Cover Flow patent dispute

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    Aren't patents supposed to protect the inventor? How is it that they can be sold? Doesn't that go a little bit beyond the notion?



    Wouldn't the patent be considered 'Intellectual Property' of the creator thus allowing the creator to do as they wish... Selling it or licensing it out for royalty fees. The patent gives cover to fight in court if the creator finds someone using the IP without just compensation of some sort.



    In the meantime, wonder what Apple's legal team were paid? Court awards 625.5 million and the lawyers successfully have that reversed on appeal and it only cost Apple 625 million in lawyer fees...
  • Reply 22 of 29
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    I don't know really which side I fall on. Apple should pay where they have clearly used other people's/organization's works. On the other hand, there's too many generic patents that are not specific and never led to an actual product. Those patents should be invalidated.
  • Reply 23 of 29
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member
    Apple's lawyers just saved the company over $600 million, say what you want about lawyers but I'd say the money Apple spends on them is money well spent.
  • Reply 24 of 29
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,269member
    The whole notion of patenting the flipping of stacked documents/images seems "patently" absurd to me. This method of revealing data is as old as time. Think of the wind flipping calendars in old movies as a metaphor for the passage of time. Does MGM have prior art? Shouldn't something have to be truly new in order to be patented.
  • Reply 25 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    It will be settled. The losing side can now appeal it to the appellate court. There was a jury trial in District Court. The jury found Apple violated the patents and awarded the huge fine. The judge in that case, responding to Apple's Motion to Have the Judgement thrown out, over turned the jury decision. It is silly to have a jury decide complex patent issues anyway. Apparently, Texas Courts don't always rule in favor of the Plaintiff.



    This victory by Apple just puts pressure on the other side to settle for far less. If the other side loses on Appeal, the Supreme Court will be the only other option. The Supreme Court will not take the case.



    The same thing will happen here as when Apple was victorious against the latest Beatle suit at the trial court level. Apple will pay the other side some undisclosed sum, and the other side will take far less.



    The other side paid five million for the patents. I see Apple paying twenty five million. That more then doubles the other side's investment and pays the attorneys.



    Question: If the Judge said the patents are valid, yet, also said that Apple did NOT violate the patents, why should Apple need to settle. If they didn't violate the valid patents, I would think Apple should not have to pay them a dime. I'm not a legal guy, am I missing something? Also, can Apple sue them for attorneys' fees for wasting their time and resources?
  • Reply 26 of 29
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Why was this even patentable in the first place? That diagram shows a virtual version of file folders on a desk in chronological order arranged as overlapping tiles. Isn't this all obvious?



    If they're patenting a unique technological method of animating the icons or conserving memory while doing so or integrating updates, then fine, but i don't see that.



    Apple holds a patent (and is suing others with it) that says that ANY method of using a touch screen to unlock the device is a patent they own, no matter how the unlocking is achieved.



    Software patents like this ARE Bogus and should be done away with. But if Apple is going to use their own offensively to try and attack their competitors, they can't suites brought against them written off as "excessive" and patents as "too broad."



    I REALLY hope those companies defending against Apple lawsuits use this case to strengthen their own.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Apple holds a patent (and is suing others with it) that says that ANY method of using a touch screen to unlock the device is a patent they own, no matter how the unlocking is achieved.



    Software patents like this ARE Bogus and should be done away with. But if Apple is going to use their own offensively to try and attack their competitors, they can't suites brought against them written off as "excessive" and patents as "too broad."



    I REALLY hope those companies defending against Apple lawsuits use this case to strengthen their own.



    Hey, after Apple getting sued for years for good and bad reasons, it's about time they won some.
  • Reply 28 of 29
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    In federal Court there are three potential steps to achieving victory. First, you sue in District Court. District Court is a trial court. The losing side can then appeal that decision to the applicable Appeal Court. Appeal Courts don't decide facts, but determine if the facts were applied properly to the law. The losing side then can appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't required to look at the matter.



    So, the losing side has at least one more bite at the apple (no pun intended). So, when I say the matter will probably settle, I say that because Apple probably doesn't want to keep fighting about the matter. The plaintiff, however, has nothing to lose by appealing. Both sides will be leery of what the Appeal Court says, so the matter likely will be settled. The Plaintiff wants something. Apple doesn't want to fight about it a long time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraBuggy View Post


    Question: If the Judge said the patents are valid, yet, also said that Apple did NOT violate the patents, why should Apple need to settle. If they didn't violate the valid patents, I would think Apple should not have to pay them a dime. I'm not a legal guy, am I missing something? Also, can Apple sue them for attorneys' fees for wasting their time and resources?



  • Reply 29 of 29
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    How is that bogus? Name a company that did it before Apple. I think Apple's patent has more merit then many. At least Apple put the idea to use. Amazon was awarded a patent for one click purchasing. Apple licenses it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Apple holds a patent (and is suing others with it) that says that ANY method of using a touch screen to unlock the device is a patent they own, no matter how the unlocking is achieved.



Sign In or Register to comment.