I would certainly benefit if Apple actually monetized this, but I seriously doubt they would even if they could. It sounds like the patent is so broad that it would be rather abusive to collect money for it, and I can't see them trying to get all others to remove location based services from their products. However, they may be able to use it as additional ammo against infringers like Samsung or for cross-licensing deals, which I think would be fair, and also for defense against patent trolls.
The government issuing such a broad patent is simply a joke. patents should be narrower in scope.
I bet many will challenge this and it will not be enforceable
And Apple has had not LBS technology at all - no iPhone until 2007 and no LBS platform and they licensed Google maps - for Apple to get this patent in 1999 or therabouts is joke to USPTO
The government issuing such a broad patent is simply a joke. patents should be narrower in scope.
I bet many will challenge this and it will not be enforceable
And Apple has had not LBS technology at all - no iPhone until 2007 and no LBS platform and they licensed Google maps - for Apple to get this patent in 1999 or therabouts is joke to USPTO
Certainly good for the mobile markets, just the type of thing that should encourage even more development. With Apple's history of giving back to the industry, encouraging innovation and consumer choice, I think this could be great news. Facebook, Bing, Google, 4Square, Twitter, the telcos, etc. have little to be concerned with.
* What is claimed in the reissue is almost certain to be different, to some degree, from what was claimed in the original patent. The original patent must be forsaken to get the reissue.
The patent keeps talking about linking GPS coordinates to web pages and adding GPS coordinates to URLs. It seems to be very browser-specific. Would this cover apps? When a weather app shows the weather near me it is not using a browser.
"The doctrine protects third parties who have made decisions based on the scope of the original patent, only to find themselves infringing the reissued patent."
I'm not a patent lawyer but I'd think this means the patent has more value to Apple as protection and very little to go after Sumsung or Google.
"The doctrine protects third parties who have made decisions based on the scope of the original patent, only to find themselves infringing the reissued patent."
I'm not a patent lawyer but I'd think this means the patent has more value to Apple as protection and very little to go after Sumsung or Google.
Both 9 and 10 would be of particular interest. Going by those guidelines you may be correct that the reissued patent wouldn't affect products developed in the interim. I guess that's for lawyers to figure out if it comes up.
Comments
Boom!
What is mobile shopping, socializing, VR, maps/traffic/navigation, advertising...
Nay, what is Mobile Without Location Awareness?
New iOS function...
Find my Patent Infringer!
I wonder who is going to argue that injunctions pursued based on this patent aren't anti-competitive.
I can see it being considered anti-competetive to Garmin, et al -- but to computers, phones and tablets... not so much!
Remember... Apple has only a small percentage of each of these markets
If this patent can be enforced the above quote would seem to be somewhat of an understatement.
Or worse, just really freaking dangerous if you use them, as the other party starts requesting to see all your secret data.
I don't really agree with patents, but as they are a law then they should be effective.
I bet many will challenge this and it will not be enforceable
And Apple has had not LBS technology at all - no iPhone until 2007 and no LBS platform and they licensed Google maps - for Apple to get this patent in 1999 or therabouts is joke to USPTO
The government issuing such a broad patent is simply a joke. patents should be narrower in scope.
I bet many will challenge this and it will not be enforceable
And Apple has had not LBS technology at all - no iPhone until 2007 and no LBS platform and they licensed Google maps - for Apple to get this patent in 1999 or therabouts is joke to USPTO
They didn't, xerox did and apple bought it.
The slide to unlock is a perfect patent. It patents a specific method under a specific condition on a specific type of device. Targeted and narrow.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/6122520
* The reissue patent is patent no. RE42,927, issued on November 15, 2011 (U.S. patent application no. 12/874,155)
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&RS=PN/RE42927
* All reissue patents start with "RE"
* What is claimed in the reissue is almost certain to be different, to some degree, from what was claimed in the original patent. The original patent must be forsaken to get the reissue.
* U.S. Patent and Trademark Office information portal: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
And if they don't vigorously defend it, then they will lose it
That goes for trademarks, not patents.
Here is a random post on reissue patents: http://www.maierandmaier.com/documen...eissue-FAQ.pdf
From question 10
"The doctrine protects third parties who have made decisions based on the scope of the original patent, only to find themselves infringing the reissued patent."
I'm not a patent lawyer but I'd think this means the patent has more value to Apple as protection and very little to go after Sumsung or Google.
From question 10
"The doctrine protects third parties who have made decisions based on the scope of the original patent, only to find themselves infringing the reissued patent."
I'm not a patent lawyer but I'd think this means the patent has more value to Apple as protection and very little to go after Sumsung or Google.
Both 9 and 10 would be of particular interest. Going by those guidelines you may be correct that the reissued patent wouldn't affect products developed in the interim. I guess that's for lawyers to figure out if it comes up.