USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 58
    srangersranger Posts: 473member


    Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses.  Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 58
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    So why grant it in the first place?

    That is something Apple will likely bring up, especially if they mentioned the same prior art in their filing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 58


    What USPTO?!? Apple didn't invent easing functions for moving objects in graphical programming? Well....DUH!!!!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 58
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    I'd like to remind everyone about Microsoft and their FAT patent. First it was granted, then a huge lobby of companies and organizations protested and asked for re-examination. The USPTO invalidated several patents, MS appealed and a couple years later they were validated and remain valid to this date.



    Since you mention it...


    http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 58

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses.  Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...



    It's only obvious once someone has come up with it. image

     

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 58

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses.  Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...



    It's only obvious once someone thinks of it. image

     

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 58
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,954member
    So why grant it in the first place?

    I think USPTO keeps the application fee. It's probably a case of inappropriate incentives.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 58

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post


    This is like a football team winning by a couple of touchdowns, only to read in Monday's newspaper that they lost because the Rules Committee decided that morning that all rushing touchdowns are invalid. Not only do you not win that game, but you are no longer in the playoffs, and your investment in a rushing attack was wasted. 


     


    It may be the law, and business as usual, but it still seems wrong that the organization that gave you the green light, turns around and gives you a ticket for moving forward with the patent. I would like to know on what basis it was deemed invalid? Which sifi/fantasy show did this patent in, and on the basis of such things, can any patent issued by this office mean anything? 







    You forgot to mention that the match was rigged before it even started.



    Anyways, back to the story:

    ... imageimageimage... cannot stop.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 58

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    What do you need him for? He only shows up first when it's good for Apple anyway. Everyone's favorite shill explained it pretty well and clearly on his blog this morning, even if the last paragraph shows his biased colors straight through.



    Umm.... I assume you forgot to read the first sentence of my post.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 58
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Preliminary, not final. And MS has several FAT patents that were invalidated only to be reinstated later on.

    Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 58
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member


    Seems like Apple just wants to patent anything and everything, hoping the slow response by the patent office will give them enough time for legal injunctions and block competitors from releasing products.


     


    Or in other words, becoming a practicing patent troll.


     


    Wasting thousands if not millions of dollars of tax payers money (through the USPTO) with frivolous "patents".


     


    What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.


     


    That is both legally and ethically wrong.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 58
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,771member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post





    Preliminary, not final. And MS has several FAT patents that were invalidated only to be reinstated later on.

    Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.


    You seem to be a fan of the FAT patent. Do you think it should be considered standard-essential? After all they've gone after nearly everyone including linux-based providers, with Microsoft feeling that every computer system makes use of it in one way or another. IMO, sure sounds essential.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 58
    Apparently one of the two prior art that invalidated the rubber band patent is Apple's own patent..

    Scratching my head..

    How a company's patent be invalidated based on prior art of the company's own patent is beyond me..?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 58
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post



    Apparently one of the two prior art that invalidated the rubber band patent is Apple's own patent..

    Scratching my head..

    How a company's patent be invalidated based on prior art of the company's own patent is beyond me..?




    That is just further proof that the USPTO is not doing their job.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 58


    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.


     


    That is both legally and ethically wrong.



     


    lol.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 58
    mikeb85mikeb85 Posts: 506member


    It's been said a million times - the US patent system is a joke.  


     


    It doesn't protect real innovations, it discourages innovation, and enriches lawyers and trolls...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 58
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Sorry, but none of the explanations above make much sense.

    Where's jragosta when we need him?

    I think he got banned.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 58
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,954member
    quinney wrote: »
    I think he got banned.

    That was just a three-day ban that was lifted a week or two ago, I think.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.