Seriously, I am waiting for his take on this. We may have a different viewpoint on the overall issue of patents, but he is very knowledgeable on the subject.
My take, too, was that this feature seems to have been a part of the OS for many years. What took them so long? Unless these guys are not users of the patent, but just holding company trolls, and it took this long for the patent to be sold and resold many times. Another of Intellectual Vultures shell corporations set up to sue over just one particular patent?
"Patent holders must bring infringement actions within six years from the date of infringement; if the suit is not brought in this time limit, it is time-barred, ratifying the infringement. While patent litigation proceeds much like any other federal case, the complicated legal issues surrounding patent validity and infringement are reserved for the court's determination, although some patent litigation cases use juries for other aspects of the overall case."
Sounds more like disk image restore than permissions/disk repair but surely there's prior art for both. It would be funny if these clowns thought they were going to walk away with a bag of royalty cash but instead got their patent invalidated.
Keep the patent laws by the way, without it us non-manufacturing countries would be bankrupt tomorrow. I wouldn't want to sacrifice our economy so we can steal a few movies.
Support please. When has Apple caused suit to someone's bits that they have been using for well past ten years? And remember Disk first aid?
I will stand corrected if you can supply a documented example.
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997
"An interactive computer-controlled display system having a processor, a data display screen, a cursor control device for interactively positioning a cursor on the data display screen, and a window generator that generates and displays a window on a data display screen. The window region provides status and control information in one or more data display areas. The individiual data display areas may be controlled through the use of controls and indicators on the control strip itself using cursor control keys"
Support please. When has Apple caused suit to someone's bits that they have been using for well past ten years? And remember Disk first aid?
I will stand corrected if you can supply a documented example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997
"An interactive computer-controlled display system having a processor, a data display screen, a cursor control device for interactively positioning a cursor on the data display screen, and a window generator that generates and displays a window on a data display screen. The window region provides status and control information in one or more data display areas. The individiual data display areas may be controlled through the use of controls and indicators on the control strip itself using cursor control keys"
That was Apple's Control Strip patent. Are you saying that Samsung has been infringing that for a decade or more? On which devices?
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997
It's late, Gatorguy, and I have been reading and posting madly on TMO so am sort of played out and the eyes are staying. But I will try to be clear and get it right.
Question. Who's patent is it you have mentioned? Apple's or other?
OK.
I would like to see an Apple patent that Apple got after another company had been using said patent ten or more years before Apple applied and got the patent.
Example: company XYZ has been doing 123 for ten or more years before Apple patented it. (Apple patents 123 one year ago.) Now Apple turns round and sues XYZ claiming it is violating patent 123 which it recently, one year ago, patented.
If this patent you mentions does this, then that is crappy, nay really creepy, on Apple's part and I accede. Let me know please.
Namaste,
mhikl
PS I'd even accept a somewhat shorter period of company XYZ having been using patent 123 but you'd have to supply the dates and time length please.
PPS I didn't see other chaps' posts till now but still too tired to think clearly enough to reason 'bout this till tomorrow.
That was Apple's Control Strip patent. Are you saying that Samsung has been infringing that for a decade or more? On which devices?
It's probably covers every computer device in use today, handheld or otherwise, with trackballs or arrow keys for controlling the placement of a cursor in a window on the display. Apple is using it in this case against every Galaxy model whether tablet or smartphone.
At Mhaki:
You want instead some patent that Apple claims on IP that was in prior use to their application and in addition is now claimed against Samsung? That has nothing to do with what I wrote that you felt the need to challenge. I responded to this: "What do they expect courts to do, ban the whole Operating System for some 13 year old Patent?" I said that Apple has done the same themselves, using very old patents to claim infringement and attempt to ban a device.
You misunderstood what I claimed, and I misunderstood what you wanted me to "prove'. I haven't the time to do that one, and Samsung has already done that, challenging the validity of some patents Apple claims if I'm correct. And the basis is normally that the tech or procedure was already in use before the patent was granted, correct? There's likely dozens of patents controlled by Apple that could be invalidated, some on the basis of "prior art" if someone had the money, time and a reason to challenge them.
I think for there to be patent infringement - the target of your claim should with have code that executes in exactly the same way or an interface that works in exactly the same way - for your claim to have any merit whatsoever.
I suppose that could lead to cases being argued of very subtle differences and lead someone to steal code and modify it just enough to try to avoid infringement.
But what I think is that if there is no evidence at all that the defendant in the case copied any element of your design or line of code then it is not infringement.
ANd that is perhaps part of the problem - so many of these patents seem to cover very vague general ideas - rather than specific implementations. It almost as if the folks filing the patent really have no idea how to do what they are describing as might be possible - then waiting for someone else to do the hard work of figuring out how to make an idea in to a reality - and the suing because they had a nearly identical concept years ago.
Is here any sort of statute of limitations on patents? there is on copyright and trademark, right? or at least the the extent that after a certain period of time literary works become part of the public domain and name brand drugs can be made generic. Why not the same with patents - file your patent and you had say 10 years to bring a product using the contents of that patent to market - if you don't then your idea becomes public domain and ANYONE can use it - 10 years should be enough time to raise venture capital or find a partner etc for those without the means of producing a product themselves - if you DO bright he product to market within 10 years - then you get an extension that cover 10 years from the date of first sale of the product - or something along those lines.
It's probably covers every computer device in use today, handheld or otherwise, with trackballs or arrow keys for controlling the placement of a cursor in a window on the display. Apple is using it in this case against every Galaxy model whether tablet or smartphone.
At Mhaki:
You want instead some patent that Apple claims on IP that was in prior use to their application and in addition is now claimed against Samsung? That has nothing to do with what I wrote that you felt the need to challenge. I responded to this: "What do they expect courts to do, ban the whole Operating System for some 13 year old Patent?" I said that Apple has done the same themselves, using very old patents to claim infringement and attempt to ban a device.
You misunderstood what I claimed, and I misunderstood what you wanted me to "prove'. I haven't the time to do that one, and Samsung has already done that, challenging the validity of some patents Apple claims if I'm correct. And the basis is normally that the tech or procedure was already in use before the patent was granted, correct? There's likely dozens of patents controlled by Apple that could be invalidated, some on the basis of "prior art" if someone had the money, time and a reason to challenge them.
I'm not sure that is correct - that patent is very specifically about opening and controlling a particular type of window to display system information. I'm not sure in what way they may believe Samsung might be infringing it on their current devices, but on the other hand, in the current patent wars these companies seem to be throwing everything they can find at each other.
I'm not sure that is correct - that patent is very specifically about opening and controlling a particular type of window to display system information. I'm not sure in what way they may believe Samsung might be infringing it on their current devices, but on the other hand, in the current patent wars these companies seem to be throwing everything they can find at each other.
IMHO, it's not at all specific. Very general in the way the relationship between controller and display is described. In any case it's plainly obvious that a patent applied for 14 years ago did not envision use in a touchscreen mobile environment. But Apple seems to feel it's egregious enough to warrant removal of the Galaxy devices from the marketplace.
At Mhaki:. . . You misunderstood what I claimed, and I misunderstood what you wanted me to "prove'. . . .
Looks right.
I'd be surprised if Apple did what I went on to outline. I have heard accusations to the same before so had to find out if there was actually evidence to the point.
I am a huge Apple fan for I feel it is changing the world for the better, but I'm not blind to any faults. I just have problems with those who don't question and those who don't give credit. Neither does their cause any good.
It sounds like they patented the unix command rdist. According to the man page, it first appeared in 4.3BSD, so I'd say there's prior art.
Yeah, THAT is more ludicrous than Disk utilities itself --
It sounds like it is patenting "compare a current state to a previous state" -- so it isn't just any disk repair -- it's disk repair with a "correct image" -- and I can ONLY assume that this would be checking the "permissions", because anything else is probably just a front-end to rdist and unix commands.
There might be SOME disk utility software that does this -- and even you might look at "time machine" because it compares "versions" but isn't used to repair -- but even on the face of it, I don't know what sort of "snapshot disk repair" is actually in Disk Utility...
>> My guess is this is a "fishing expedition" and they hope to either have Apple throw money at them to not bother going to court, or they hope to get a judge and court that are confused by technology. They probably timed this, to go with a "fat" Apple bank account, coupled with Numerous lawsuits -- so the "pile on" effect would make Apple quick to settle.
-- just a guess, I don't really know nor do I care except for idle sport.
What I think they haven't considered, however, is that a lot of Apple's lawyers are probably on retainer, and Apple isn't going to pay much more to squash this lawsuit -- and having been burned by legal wrangling and patent infringement before -- I think they also SET AN EXAMPLE and will fight to the end over a parking ticket.
I think Apple doesn't want to be seen as a pushover ... but who knows, maybe they did infringe something -- I just don't see how being as there is nothing that cannot be cobbled together from other UNIX utilities.
I think for there to be patent infringement - the target of your claim should with have code that executes in exactly the same way or an interface that works in exactly the same way - for your claim to have any merit whatsoever.
I suppose that could lead to cases being argued of very subtle differences and lead someone to steal code and modify it just enough to try to avoid infringement.
But what I think is that if there is no evidence at all that the defendant in the case copied any element of your design or line of code then it is not infringement.
ANd that is perhaps part of the problem - so many of these patents seem to cover very vague general ideas - rather than specific implementations. It almost as if the folks filing the patent really have no idea how to do what they are describing as might be possible - then waiting for someone else to do the hard work of figuring out how to make an idea in to a reality - and the suing because they had a nearly identical concept years ago.
I disagree as coding is merely implementation or 'building'. IP law protects the far more important Design phase - the thinking before the doing. Many developers are incapable of design or even grasping what it is so to them it seems fluffy and ill-defined. Design is Apple's critical point of difference, it covers not just functionality but how it is delivered and they should have recourse to protect this essential, and generally absent, component of information technology products.
Sorry but weren't these features in OS 6, 7, 8 and 9?
These all were earlier than 1998.
Is the patent office on drugs???
They just can't know every single patent & how it might be applied. If Apple can prove prior use then they can invalidate the patent.
The problem with the patent system isn't in what you can patent but in the requirements to obtain one. In the least you should be required to present specifics to implementation so it is clear what your patent applies to. A lot of the patents that patent trolls use don't even apply to the implementation they are going after, they are just looking for anything out there that they could possibly claim uses similar technology to their patent.
An example, If I want to patent a glue for sticking little pieces of paper with notes on stuff then I should specify possible use of the glue & receive a patent on that. If someone else later uses the glue to secure pre-packaged foldable paper airplanes then that is an entirely different use than I patented. It still takes a bit of genius to think up new ways to use a product & you shouldn't be penalized just because you didn't create the glue recipe. Sorry but it seems ridiculous to me that we can patent chemical recipes, you can't patent food recipes. Besides, if you patent a recipe how precise do you need to be, what if you change an ingredient by a tiny fraction but behavior is still the same.
Patenting methods & chemical recipes to me is an engine to slow scientific growth, you are forcing people to re-invent the wheel. Patent application/implimentation, not just the recipe or idea.
Edit: this also would apply to drug patents, it's totally ridiculous that drug companies can chemically alter natural ingredients & then patent them. People think the profits will motivate further research in medicine but instead it divides us in our fight against disease because everyone is more focused on making their cure unique than making it work.
Comments
Apple has done so itself.
Support please. When has Apple caused suit to someone's bits that they have been using for well past ten years? And remember Disk first aid?
I will stand corrected if you can supply a documented example.
Seriously, I am waiting for his take on this. We may have a different viewpoint on the overall issue of patents, but he is very knowledgeable on the subject.
My take, too, was that this feature seems to have been a part of the OS for many years. What took them so long? Unless these guys are not users of the patent, but just holding company trolls, and it took this long for the patent to be sold and resold many times. Another of Intellectual Vultures shell corporations set up to sue over just one particular patent?
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/pat...itigation.html
Keep the patent laws by the way, without it us non-manufacturing countries would be bankrupt tomorrow. I wouldn't want to sacrifice our economy so we can steal a few movies.
McD
Support please. When has Apple caused suit to someone's bits that they have been using for well past ten years? And remember Disk first aid?
I will stand corrected if you can supply a documented example.
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997
"An interactive computer-controlled display system having a processor, a data display screen, a cursor control device for interactively positioning a cursor on the data display screen, and a window generator that generates and displays a window on a data display screen. The window region provides status and control information in one or more data display areas. The individiual data display areas may be controlled through the use of controls and indicators on the control strip itself using cursor control keys"
Support please. When has Apple caused suit to someone's bits that they have been using for well past ten years? And remember Disk first aid?
I will stand corrected if you can supply a documented example.
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997
"An interactive computer-controlled display system having a processor, a data display screen, a cursor control device for interactively positioning a cursor on the data display screen, and a window generator that generates and displays a window on a data display screen. The window region provides status and control information in one or more data display areas. The individiual data display areas may be controlled through the use of controls and indicators on the control strip itself using cursor control keys"
That was Apple's Control Strip patent. Are you saying that Samsung has been infringing that for a decade or more? On which devices?
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997 ...
That wasn't the scenario he questioned and is not at all to the point.
Try this one asserted by Apple against Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Patent number: 6493002
Filing date: Mar 20, 1997
It's late, Gatorguy, and I have been reading and posting madly on TMO so am sort of played out and the eyes are staying. But I will try to be clear and get it right.
Question. Who's patent is it you have mentioned? Apple's or other?
OK.
I would like to see an Apple patent that Apple got after another company had been using said patent ten or more years before Apple applied and got the patent.
Example: company XYZ has been doing 123 for ten or more years before Apple patented it. (Apple patents 123 one year ago.) Now Apple turns round and sues XYZ claiming it is violating patent 123 which it recently, one year ago, patented.
If this patent you mentions does this, then that is crappy, nay really creepy, on Apple's part and I accede. Let me know please.
Namaste,
mhikl
PS I'd even accept a somewhat shorter period of company XYZ having been using patent 123 but you'd have to supply the dates and time length please.
PPS I didn't see other chaps' posts till now but still too tired to think clearly enough to reason 'bout this till tomorrow.
That was Apple's Control Strip patent. Are you saying that Samsung has been infringing that for a decade or more? On which devices?
It's probably covers every computer device in use today, handheld or otherwise, with trackballs or arrow keys for controlling the placement of a cursor in a window on the display. Apple is using it in this case against every Galaxy model whether tablet or smartphone.
At Mhaki:
You want instead some patent that Apple claims on IP that was in prior use to their application and in addition is now claimed against Samsung? That has nothing to do with what I wrote that you felt the need to challenge. I responded to this: "What do they expect courts to do, ban the whole Operating System for some 13 year old Patent?" I said that Apple has done the same themselves, using very old patents to claim infringement and attempt to ban a device.
You misunderstood what I claimed, and I misunderstood what you wanted me to "prove'. I haven't the time to do that one, and Samsung has already done that, challenging the validity of some patents Apple claims if I'm correct. And the basis is normally that the tech or procedure was already in use before the patent was granted, correct? There's likely dozens of patents controlled by Apple that could be invalidated, some on the basis of "prior art" if someone had the money, time and a reason to challenge them.
I suppose that could lead to cases being argued of very subtle differences and lead someone to steal code and modify it just enough to try to avoid infringement.
But what I think is that if there is no evidence at all that the defendant in the case copied any element of your design or line of code then it is not infringement.
ANd that is perhaps part of the problem - so many of these patents seem to cover very vague general ideas - rather than specific implementations. It almost as if the folks filing the patent really have no idea how to do what they are describing as might be possible - then waiting for someone else to do the hard work of figuring out how to make an idea in to a reality - and the suing because they had a nearly identical concept years ago.
Is here any sort of statute of limitations on patents? there is on copyright and trademark, right? or at least the the extent that after a certain period of time literary works become part of the public domain and name brand drugs can be made generic. Why not the same with patents - file your patent and you had say 10 years to bring a product using the contents of that patent to market - if you don't then your idea becomes public domain and ANYONE can use it - 10 years should be enough time to raise venture capital or find a partner etc for those without the means of producing a product themselves - if you DO bright he product to market within 10 years - then you get an extension that cover 10 years from the date of first sale of the product - or something along those lines.
It's probably covers every computer device in use today, handheld or otherwise, with trackballs or arrow keys for controlling the placement of a cursor in a window on the display. Apple is using it in this case against every Galaxy model whether tablet or smartphone.
At Mhaki:
You want instead some patent that Apple claims on IP that was in prior use to their application and in addition is now claimed against Samsung? That has nothing to do with what I wrote that you felt the need to challenge. I responded to this: "What do they expect courts to do, ban the whole Operating System for some 13 year old Patent?" I said that Apple has done the same themselves, using very old patents to claim infringement and attempt to ban a device.
You misunderstood what I claimed, and I misunderstood what you wanted me to "prove'. I haven't the time to do that one, and Samsung has already done that, challenging the validity of some patents Apple claims if I'm correct. And the basis is normally that the tech or procedure was already in use before the patent was granted, correct? There's likely dozens of patents controlled by Apple that could be invalidated, some on the basis of "prior art" if someone had the money, time and a reason to challenge them.
I'm not sure that is correct - that patent is very specifically about opening and controlling a particular type of window to display system information. I'm not sure in what way they may believe Samsung might be infringing it on their current devices, but on the other hand, in the current patent wars these companies seem to be throwing everything they can find at each other.
Sorry but weren't these features in OS 6, 7, 8 and 9?
These all were earlier than 1998.
Is the patent office on drugs???
In short, YES
I'm not sure that is correct - that patent is very specifically about opening and controlling a particular type of window to display system information. I'm not sure in what way they may believe Samsung might be infringing it on their current devices, but on the other hand, in the current patent wars these companies seem to be throwing everything they can find at each other.
IMHO, it's not at all specific. Very general in the way the relationship between controller and display is described. In any case it's plainly obvious that a patent applied for 14 years ago did not envision use in a touchscreen mobile environment. But Apple seems to feel it's egregious enough to warrant removal of the Galaxy devices from the marketplace.
At Mhaki:. . . You misunderstood what I claimed, and I misunderstood what you wanted me to "prove'. . . .
Looks right.
I'd be surprised if Apple did what I went on to outline. I have heard accusations to the same before so had to find out if there was actually evidence to the point.
I am a huge Apple fan for I feel it is changing the world for the better, but I'm not blind to any faults. I just have problems with those who don't question and those who don't give credit. Neither does their cause any good.
Glad we could clear up the misunderstanding.
Namaste Gatorguy
It sounds like they patented the unix command rdist. According to the man page, it first appeared in 4.3BSD, so I'd say there's prior art.
Yeah, THAT is more ludicrous than Disk utilities itself --
It sounds like it is patenting "compare a current state to a previous state" -- so it isn't just any disk repair -- it's disk repair with a "correct image" -- and I can ONLY assume that this would be checking the "permissions", because anything else is probably just a front-end to rdist and unix commands.
There might be SOME disk utility software that does this -- and even you might look at "time machine" because it compares "versions" but isn't used to repair -- but even on the face of it, I don't know what sort of "snapshot disk repair" is actually in Disk Utility...
>> My guess is this is a "fishing expedition" and they hope to either have Apple throw money at them to not bother going to court, or they hope to get a judge and court that are confused by technology. They probably timed this, to go with a "fat" Apple bank account, coupled with Numerous lawsuits -- so the "pile on" effect would make Apple quick to settle.
-- just a guess, I don't really know nor do I care except for idle sport.
What I think they haven't considered, however, is that a lot of Apple's lawyers are probably on retainer, and Apple isn't going to pay much more to squash this lawsuit -- and having been burned by legal wrangling and patent infringement before -- I think they also SET AN EXAMPLE and will fight to the end over a parking ticket.
I think Apple doesn't want to be seen as a pushover ... but who knows, maybe they did infringe something -- I just don't see how being as there is nothing that cannot be cobbled together from other UNIX utilities.
I think for there to be patent infringement - the target of your claim should with have code that executes in exactly the same way or an interface that works in exactly the same way - for your claim to have any merit whatsoever.
I suppose that could lead to cases being argued of very subtle differences and lead someone to steal code and modify it just enough to try to avoid infringement.
But what I think is that if there is no evidence at all that the defendant in the case copied any element of your design or line of code then it is not infringement.
ANd that is perhaps part of the problem - so many of these patents seem to cover very vague general ideas - rather than specific implementations. It almost as if the folks filing the patent really have no idea how to do what they are describing as might be possible - then waiting for someone else to do the hard work of figuring out how to make an idea in to a reality - and the suing because they had a nearly identical concept years ago.
I disagree as coding is merely implementation or 'building'. IP law protects the far more important Design phase - the thinking before the doing. Many developers are incapable of design or even grasping what it is so to them it seems fluffy and ill-defined. Design is Apple's critical point of difference, it covers not just functionality but how it is delivered and they should have recourse to protect this essential, and generally absent, component of information technology products.
Sorry but weren't these features in OS 6, 7, 8 and 9?
These all were earlier than 1998.
Is the patent office on drugs???
They just can't know every single patent & how it might be applied. If Apple can prove prior use then they can invalidate the patent.
The problem with the patent system isn't in what you can patent but in the requirements to obtain one. In the least you should be required to present specifics to implementation so it is clear what your patent applies to. A lot of the patents that patent trolls use don't even apply to the implementation they are going after, they are just looking for anything out there that they could possibly claim uses similar technology to their patent.
An example, If I want to patent a glue for sticking little pieces of paper with notes on stuff then I should specify possible use of the glue & receive a patent on that. If someone else later uses the glue to secure pre-packaged foldable paper airplanes then that is an entirely different use than I patented. It still takes a bit of genius to think up new ways to use a product & you shouldn't be penalized just because you didn't create the glue recipe. Sorry but it seems ridiculous to me that we can patent chemical recipes, you can't patent food recipes. Besides, if you patent a recipe how precise do you need to be, what if you change an ingredient by a tiny fraction but behavior is still the same.
Patenting methods & chemical recipes to me is an engine to slow scientific growth, you are forcing people to re-invent the wheel. Patent application/implimentation, not just the recipe or idea.
Edit: this also would apply to drug patents, it's totally ridiculous that drug companies can chemically alter natural ingredients & then patent them. People think the profits will motivate further research in medicine but instead it divides us in our fight against disease because everyone is more focused on making their cure unique than making it work.