NeXT had these back in 1989. We call them Services and are integral throughout OS X. Either way, Apple is covered on all fronts with both NeXT and Apple IP.
uhhh, this patent was filed in 1994 i belive? Therefore, 20 years from the filing date is 2014. So in other words, a bit of legal wrangling and delaying and the patent would no longer be valid. Apple better hurry up and get a move on.
I have no idea if you're correct or not Jr, but it doesn't seem right that HTC could be held in contempt.
The ITC action was to prevent importation of certain HTC handsets that were deemed by an ITC judge to be infringing on specific Apple IP. Handsets were held up at US customs until that government agency could verify that HTC was no longer infringing on those particular handsets, which US Customs determined had been taken care of in accordance with the ITC order. How would HTC be in contempt?
Wow. Talk about one-sided.
What really happened is that Apple sued to block importation of HTC handsets because they violated an Apple patent. ITC agreed that the patent was valid and that HTC infringed. They had every right to block the importation at that point, but instead, they said to HTC "we'll give you 4 months to remove the offending items". If HTC failed to remove the offending items, just why shouldn't they be held in contempt?
As for the rest, US customs is not the one who decides if it's infringing or not. ITC (and, ultimately, Federal court) does that. The fact that some customs inspectors let the handsets through doesn't change that. Furthermore, I don't recall seeing anywhere that Customs said the new handsets don't infringe, anyway. So where did you come up with that?
uhhh, this patent was filed in 1994 i belive? Therefore, 20 years from the filing date is 2014. So in other words, a bit of legal wrangling and delaying and the patent would no longer be valid. Apple better hurry up and get a move on.
It was somewhere around the 90's that the patent law changed. Previously, it was 17 years after issuance and it changed to 20 years after filing. Either way, this patent won't expire for 4 more years - that gives Apple plenty of useful life.
JrAgosta, I didn't see your citation for the claim HTC could be held in contempt in your reply. Like I said earlier, I don't know if you're correct or not. Perhaps you are. A citation would be helpful but I assume your statement was meant as opinion rather than fact based on your latest reply, so there is no citation to offer. Youjust weren't as clear as you should have been in the first post. Sometimes hard to tell if you're posting facts or opinion. No biggie.
.... Oh, and here's the citation you requested for the claim that US Customs cleared those specific HTC handsets, complying with the ITC.
Now U.S. customs has cleared both devices for entry into America and said the phones are in compliance with the ITC’s ruling.
JrAgosta, I didn't see your citation for the claim HTC could be held in contempt in your reply. Like I said earlier, I don't know if you're correct or not. Perhaps you are. A citation would be helpful but I assume your statement was meant as opinion rather than fact based on your latest reply, so there is no citation to offer. Youjust weren't as clear as you should have been in the first post. Sometimes hard to tell if you're posting facts or opinion. No biggie.
Since you obviously don't have any clue how courts or the patent system works, you really shouldn't be commenting.
1. ITC ruled that HTC was in contempt and gave them 4 months to fix it.
2. If it turns out that Apple is correct and HTC didn't correct their infringement, they are in contempt.
It's that simple. No opinion needed, just a basic understanding of how the court system works.
.... Oh, and here's the citation you requested for the claim that US Customs cleared those specific HTC handsets, complying with the ITC. <span style="font-family:georgia, serif;line-height:19px;">Now U.S. customs has cleared both devices for entry into America and said the phones are in compliance with the ITC’s ruling. </span>
Well, that's what HTC says. But even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it's not US Customs which rules on infringement. That's up to ITC and eventually Federal courts. If Apple is correct and HTC only made a cosmetic change (which might have fooled US Customs since they're not patent experts), then Customs erred in releasing the handsets.
If, OTOH, ITC rules that the change was sufficient, then there's not a problem - but it's not really up to Customs.
Why, so the clear inventor of an original idea can't protect it from the rest of the industry?
It's rare that there is a case like this where one party clearly invented something that no one else had thought of, that did it first, that owns all the "prior art" and that had used the idea for many years before it was even attempted to be used by others. Why shouldn't they get the rights to it? It's their idea.
It's insane to protect an idea and a bit less so to protect a specific implementation of an idea. Patent law in Europe is more like the latter than the former.
If you look at it this way patent law is more like copyright and protects the hard work of the patent holder.
The Apple patent in question is totally obvious and should never be granted to them.
Who can complain about a Motif (X window) implemetation in 2012?
Someone in Korea is popping a bottle of bubbly on the news... US customers should hurry up to get what is probably the best phone on the market right now (looks and features combined), or they'll have to settle with a Samsung.
I wouldn't be surprised if HTC can get themselves out of a ban again, but it's unfortunate Apple takes it on the smaller guy. It seems that Apple wants Samsung to retain domination in the smartphone market by going against HTC and Motorola.
Since you obviously don't have any clue how courts or the patent system works, you really shouldn't be commenting.
1. ITC ruled that HTC was in contempt and gave them 4 months to fix it.
2. If it turns out that Apple is correct and HTC didn't correct their infringement, they are in contempt.
It's that simple. No opinion needed, just a basic understanding of how the court system works.
Well, that's what HTC says. But even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it's not US Customs which rules on infringement. That's up to ITC and eventually Federal courts. If Apple is correct and HTC only made a cosmetic change (which might have fooled US Customs since they're not patent experts), then Customs erred in releasing the handsets.
If, OTOH, ITC rules that the change was sufficient, then there's not a problem - but it's not really up to Customs.
Why are you always so rude to other members? You're apparently convinced that you are smarter than the rest of us and looking down your nose at us commoners is proper behavior. I thought I've been quite polite until now but you seem incapable of basic courtesies when replying to others. I've been trying to ignore your act but it's not easy.
In reality we're equally qualified to comment on legal matters as far as I can see since neither of us has legal training and you have no idea what my experience with courts and/or attorneys has been. The big difference between you and me is I don't mind admitting I don't know everything and sometimes I'm even wrong. Don't be so full of yourself all the time. Conceit isn't considered a desirable character trait by most, and pompous isn't the new black.
You really don't have to say any more than just this.
It paints you as a complete nutter that has the opposite view of IP to almost every artist, designer and inventor that ever lived and indicates that you probably never thought up an original idea yourself. At least for the life of the artist/inventor, any original works or ideas should be protected. Virtually everyone agrees with this. No commerce of any kind can proceed without this kind of protection.
It's insane to protect an idea and a bit less so to protect a specific implementation of an idea. Patent law in Europe is more like the latter than the former.
J.
As is patent law in the U.S. You can not patent an idea in the US (or anywhere else that I know of). You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
Why are you always so rude to other members? You're apparently convinced that you are smarter than the rest of us and looking down your nose at us commoners is proper behavior. I thought I've been quite polite until now but you seem incapable of basic courtesies when replying to others. I've been trying to ignore your act but it's not easy.
I'm not rude, but I am willing to point out when you're babbling about things you don't understand - which just happens to be most of the time.
In reality we're equally qualified to comment on legal matters as far as I can see since neither of us has legal training and you have no idea what my experience with courts and/or attorneys has been. The big difference between you and me is I don't mind admitting I don't know everything and sometimes I'm even wrong. Don't be so full of yourself all the time. Conceit isn't considered a desirable character trait by most, and pompous isn't the new black.
Obviously, we're not equally qualified to comment on legal matters. I've run several different companies and have had to deal with legal matters for at lest 3 decades. You, OTOH, don't even have any idea of the most basic legal matters - like contempt of court.
As is patent law in the U.S. You can not patent an idea in the US (or anywhere else that I know of). You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
I'm not rude, but I am willing to point out when you're babbling about things you don't understand - which just happens to be most of the time.
Obviously, we're not equally qualified to comment on legal matters. I've run several different companies and have had to deal with legal matters for at lest 3 decades. You, OTOH, don't even have any idea of the most basic legal matters - like contempt of court
Since you're so certain you're correct, what part of the order could HTC be held in contempt of by the ITC judge? IANAL, nor are you, but I'm still pretty darn sure you're wrong with your supposed factual statements on the possibility of HTC being found in contempt of this order by the ITC judge.
As for your "three decades" running businesses, I was absolutely correct that you have no idea what my experience has been. My business management and business ownership spans more than your three decades. Still going strong too.
Since you're so certain you're correct, what part of the order could HTC be held in contempt of by the ITC judge? IANAL, nor are you, but I'm still pretty darn sure you're wrong with your supposed factual statements on the possibility of HTC being found in contempt of this order by the ITC judge.
The part where HTC was ordered to redesign their product within 4 months. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?
As for your "three decades" running businesses, I was absolutely correct that you have no idea what my experience has been. My business management and business ownership spans more than your three decades. Still going strong too.
Sorry, but your newspaper route doesn't count.
It's clear from your posts that you don't have any clue what you're talking about when it comes to business or legal matters. Maybe Google doesn't pay you enough for you to get an education.
Why, so the clear inventor of an original idea can't protect it from the rest of the industry?
It's rare that there is a case like this where one party clearly invented something that no one else had thought of, that did it first, that owns all the "prior art" and that had used the idea for many years before it was even attempted to be used by others. Why shouldn't they get the rights to it? It's their idea.
Seriously?!?
I have news for you, Apple did NOT invent regular expressions in programming. This patent deserves to be grouped with the likes of Amazon's "one-click" patent, and the handful of other patents that are abusive, anti-competitive, and completely void of any "invention". Fortunately for Apple, the fact that this patent is SO old makes invalidation from "prior art" extremely difficult.
Jragosta, you don't show any inclination to do just a tiny bit of research to understand why you're likely wrong so I'll sort it out for you.
First off, this was just a Section 337 investigation that resulted in an Exclusion Order affecting imports only. That's not the same as an injunction, which would have to be ordered by a Federal Court rather than the ITC. It wasn't even accompanied by a Cease and Desist order, meaning HTC could market any existing product already in the US.
What Apple wants now is for the ITC to find that HTC is still infringing which would then allow them to hopefully get a C&D order. That would prevent HTC from selling any of the offending product that has now been allowed to enter the US.
Contempt proceedings would be brought to enforce a Federal Court injunction, not an Exclusion Order from the ITC. Apple has no injunction in hand to request enforcement of against HTC, and since it's the ITC there's no allowance for contempt proceedings. They're limited to ordering civil penalties if the Cease and Desist order is violated, and in this case even those don't apply since there isn't yet any C&D to violate.
Remind me again which one of us had no business commenting on legal issues we knew nothing about?
Based on your past behavior I think this is the part where you typically disappear rather than admit to the possibility you might be wrong. Either that or time to drag out the strawman, and don't forget the ad-homs.
Comments
NeXT had these back in 1989. We call them Services and are integral throughout OS X. Either way, Apple is covered on all fronts with both NeXT and Apple IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
If Tim Cook hates litigation, he must be a masochist.
I hate having to discipline my child, but it's something that I may have to occasionally do nevertheless.
uhhh, this patent was filed in 1994 i belive? Therefore, 20 years from the filing date is 2014. So in other words, a bit of legal wrangling and delaying and the patent would no longer be valid. Apple better hurry up and get a move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
If Tim Cook hates litigation, he must be a masochist.
This doesn't follow at all. Sounds like you're just making a back-handed insult about his sexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This doesn't follow at all. Sounds like you're just making a back-handed insult about his sexuality.
huh?
He means if he doesn't like it, why do it?
How did gay get into this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This doesn't follow at all. Sounds like you're just making a back-handed insult about his sexuality.
Ah, this isn't that kind of… I'm not talking about this stuff.
Don't worry, it's nothing to do with Tim Cook's sexuality, real or imagined. Masochism can exist outside that realm entirely.
Wow. Talk about one-sided.
What really happened is that Apple sued to block importation of HTC handsets because they violated an Apple patent. ITC agreed that the patent was valid and that HTC infringed. They had every right to block the importation at that point, but instead, they said to HTC "we'll give you 4 months to remove the offending items". If HTC failed to remove the offending items, just why shouldn't they be held in contempt?
As for the rest, US customs is not the one who decides if it's infringing or not. ITC (and, ultimately, Federal court) does that. The fact that some customs inspectors let the handsets through doesn't change that. Furthermore, I don't recall seeing anywhere that Customs said the new handsets don't infringe, anyway. So where did you come up with that?
Where did you get 1994?
The patent was filed in 1996 and issued in 1999:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5946647.html
It was somewhere around the 90's that the patent law changed. Previously, it was 17 years after issuance and it changed to 20 years after filing. Either way, this patent won't expire for 4 more years - that gives Apple plenty of useful life.
JrAgosta, I didn't see your citation for the claim HTC could be held in contempt in your reply. Like I said earlier, I don't know if you're correct or not. Perhaps you are. A citation would be helpful but I assume your statement was meant as opinion rather than fact based on your latest reply, so there is no citation to offer. Youjust weren't as clear as you should have been in the first post. Sometimes hard to tell if you're posting facts or opinion. No biggie.
.... Oh, and here's the citation you requested for the claim that US Customs cleared those specific HTC handsets, complying with the ITC.
Now U.S. customs has cleared both devices for entry into America and said the phones are in compliance with the ITC’s ruling.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/29/evo-one-x-clear-customs/
Since you obviously don't have any clue how courts or the patent system works, you really shouldn't be commenting.
1. ITC ruled that HTC was in contempt and gave them 4 months to fix it.
2. If it turns out that Apple is correct and HTC didn't correct their infringement, they are in contempt.
It's that simple. No opinion needed, just a basic understanding of how the court system works.
Well, that's what HTC says. But even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it's not US Customs which rules on infringement. That's up to ITC and eventually Federal courts. If Apple is correct and HTC only made a cosmetic change (which might have fooled US Customs since they're not patent experts), then Customs erred in releasing the handsets.
If, OTOH, ITC rules that the change was sufficient, then there's not a problem - but it's not really up to Customs.
It's insane to protect an idea and a bit less so to protect a specific implementation of an idea. Patent law in Europe is more like the latter than the former.
If you look at it this way patent law is more like copyright and protects the hard work of the patent holder.
The Apple patent in question is totally obvious and should never be granted to them.
Who can complain about a Motif (X window) implemetation in 2012?
J.
Someone in Korea is popping a bottle of bubbly on the news... US customers should hurry up to get what is probably the best phone on the market right now (looks and features combined), or they'll have to settle with a Samsung.
I wouldn't be surprised if HTC can get themselves out of a ban again, but it's unfortunate Apple takes it on the smaller guy. It seems that Apple wants Samsung to retain domination in the smartphone market by going against HTC and Motorola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therbo
[...] they don't exist but some do.
/brain cramp
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Since you obviously don't have any clue how courts or the patent system works, you really shouldn't be commenting.
1. ITC ruled that HTC was in contempt and gave them 4 months to fix it.
2. If it turns out that Apple is correct and HTC didn't correct their infringement, they are in contempt.
It's that simple. No opinion needed, just a basic understanding of how the court system works.
Well, that's what HTC says. But even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it's not US Customs which rules on infringement. That's up to ITC and eventually Federal courts. If Apple is correct and HTC only made a cosmetic change (which might have fooled US Customs since they're not patent experts), then Customs erred in releasing the handsets.
If, OTOH, ITC rules that the change was sufficient, then there's not a problem - but it's not really up to Customs.
Why are you always so rude to other members? You're apparently convinced that you are smarter than the rest of us and looking down your nose at us commoners is proper behavior. I thought I've been quite polite until now but you seem incapable of basic courtesies when replying to others. I've been trying to ignore your act but it's not easy.
In reality we're equally qualified to comment on legal matters as far as I can see since neither of us has legal training and you have no idea what my experience with courts and/or attorneys has been. The big difference between you and me is I don't mind admitting I don't know everything and sometimes I'm even wrong. Don't be so full of yourself all the time. Conceit isn't considered a desirable character trait by most, and pompous isn't the new black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
It's insane to protect an idea ...
You really don't have to say any more than just this.
It paints you as a complete nutter that has the opposite view of IP to almost every artist, designer and inventor that ever lived and indicates that you probably never thought up an original idea yourself. At least for the life of the artist/inventor, any original works or ideas should be protected. Virtually everyone agrees with this. No commerce of any kind can proceed without this kind of protection.
As is patent law in the U.S. You can not patent an idea in the US (or anywhere else that I know of). You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
I'm not rude, but I am willing to point out when you're babbling about things you don't understand - which just happens to be most of the time.
Obviously, we're not equally qualified to comment on legal matters. I've run several different companies and have had to deal with legal matters for at lest 3 decades. You, OTOH, don't even have any idea of the most basic legal matters - like contempt of court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As is patent law in the U.S. You can not patent an idea in the US (or anywhere else that I know of). You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
I'm not rude, but I am willing to point out when you're babbling about things you don't understand - which just happens to be most of the time.
Obviously, we're not equally qualified to comment on legal matters. I've run several different companies and have had to deal with legal matters for at lest 3 decades. You, OTOH, don't even have any idea of the most basic legal matters - like contempt of court
Since you're so certain you're correct, what part of the order could HTC be held in contempt of by the ITC judge? IANAL, nor are you, but I'm still pretty darn sure you're wrong with your supposed factual statements on the possibility of HTC being found in contempt of this order by the ITC judge.
As for your "three decades" running businesses, I was absolutely correct that you have no idea what my experience has been. My business management and business ownership spans more than your three decades. Still going strong too.
The part where HTC was ordered to redesign their product within 4 months. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?
Sorry, but your newspaper route doesn't count.
It's clear from your posts that you don't have any clue what you're talking about when it comes to business or legal matters. Maybe Google doesn't pay you enough for you to get an education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Why, so the clear inventor of an original idea can't protect it from the rest of the industry?
It's rare that there is a case like this where one party clearly invented something that no one else had thought of, that did it first, that owns all the "prior art" and that had used the idea for many years before it was even attempted to be used by others. Why shouldn't they get the rights to it? It's their idea.
Seriously?!?
I have news for you, Apple did NOT invent regular expressions in programming. This patent deserves to be grouped with the likes of Amazon's "one-click" patent, and the handful of other patents that are abusive, anti-competitive, and completely void of any "invention". Fortunately for Apple, the fact that this patent is SO old makes invalidation from "prior art" extremely difficult.
Jragosta, you don't show any inclination to do just a tiny bit of research to understand why you're likely wrong so I'll sort it out for you.
First off, this was just a Section 337 investigation that resulted in an Exclusion Order affecting imports only. That's not the same as an injunction, which would have to be ordered by a Federal Court rather than the ITC. It wasn't even accompanied by a Cease and Desist order, meaning HTC could market any existing product already in the US.
What Apple wants now is for the ITC to find that HTC is still infringing which would then allow them to hopefully get a C&D order. That would prevent HTC from selling any of the offending product that has now been allowed to enter the US.
Contempt proceedings would be brought to enforce a Federal Court injunction, not an Exclusion Order from the ITC. Apple has no injunction in hand to request enforcement of against HTC, and since it's the ITC there's no allowance for contempt proceedings. They're limited to ordering civil penalties if the Cease and Desist order is violated, and in this case even those don't apply since there isn't yet any C&D to violate.
Remind me again which one of us had no business commenting on legal issues we knew nothing about?
Based on your past behavior I think this is the part where you typically disappear rather than admit to the possibility you might be wrong. Either that or time to drag out the strawman, and don't forget the ad-homs.