What's the difference? Everyone's been infringing on Apple's work in one way or the other already, with total impunity.
Let em. Even after several years, nothing even comes close to the iOS + Apple hardware User Experience. Apple has ruled Consumer Satisfaction with iOS devices since their introduction.
The only concern is that others are making a massive profit (mostly Samsung) from Apple's work.
Apple policy has always been to patent as much as they can and then protect what they can, aggressively. Not everything will stick.
What's really interesting, though, is that the patent WAS ALREADY GRANTED, and the entire patent - all of it - was invalidated, which is very rare. Is the USPTO bowing (unduly or under compulsion) to some external pressure here?
I was going to write the exact same thing.
Adding to the bolded statement above, the negative side from a PR standpoint has been more damaging to Apple worldwide than anything else.*
Imagine for a minute if Apple would have just let the whole thing fly, meaning no lawsuits. Even going further, to just basically shrug their shoulders at the whole "copy & clone" market. The attitude that Apple doesn't care because they are absolutely 100% only concerned with innovating and making "the absolute best products and UX money can buy"... living up to their motto so to speak... would have IMHO been worth far more than the twisted media and headline hunters have made out Apple to be.
People around the world are ALWAYS going to want cheap knock-offs... of ANY product. While it does get out of hand and is infuriating I'm sure for the designers and companies making those products, by and large they hold their heads (their public image) high, knowing... and the world knowing as well... that THEY are the trend-setters, the innovators, the companies and initial products that move the world forward.
Apple: hold your head high; shrug off the imitators; continue to lead the tech-world. It's a far different connected world today than the first time around with Microsoft. We know. The world knows. No need to shove it in their face with continuous lawsuits... and in this case, an entire government against you and your engineers.
Hell. If I'm Apple and TC... I don't even comment on it. Why give the press any more fodder to twist around and shoot ya with?!
* Apple has made my life far more difficult in many ways as a consultant, just because I have to get through the twisted media stories before I can get to integrating a customer with their devices. Recent stories here have put Apple at the center of Foxcon mother's babies dying at an alarming rate due to them working too many hours. Yes. Infant mortality in 1-child-China is NOW also Apple's... and ONLY Apple's fault. :no:
The main problem with these patents is that they patent the result rather than the method. A general patent on heuristics to recognize commands passed through a touch-screen essentially prevents everyone else from implementing touch-screens, because all touch-screen implementations are based on heuristics (you need to make a best guess f what the user wants to do from a sea of input ambiguity).
The main problem with these patents is that they patent the result rather than the method. A general patent on heuristics to recognize commands passed through a touch-screen essentially prevents everyone else from implementing touch-screens, because all touch-screen implementations are based on heuristics (you need to make a best guess f what the user wants to do from a sea of input ambiguity).
During the Apple/Moto trial with Judge Posner where infringement on this patent was claimed Apple's own experts could not succinctly explain what was meant by "heuristics". It's simply a vague and imprecise term, with Posner invalidating a big swath of the patents claims for that and other reasons.
Imagine for a minute if Apple would have just let the whole thing fly, meaning no lawsuits. Even going further, to just basically shrug their shoulders at the whole "copy & clone" market. The attitude that Apple doesn't care because they are absolutely 100% only concerned with innovating and making "the absolute best products and UX money can buy"... living up to their motto so to speak... would have IMHO been worth far more than the twisted media and headline hunters have made out Apple to be.
I can imagine the race to the bottom as everyone cloned the iDevices on the cheap side. It would have been the LCD descent to TN crap all over again: because TN is cheaper than VA and IPS, most LCD monitor vendors dropped the latter offers, resulting in monitors that I bought in 2006 to not be replaceable because there's nothing in the market at 21" or smaller that either matches or surpasses their quality.
People around the world are ALWAYS going to want cheap knock-offs... of ANY product. While it does get out of hand and is infuriating I'm sure for the designers and companies making those products, by and large they hold their heads (their public image) high, knowing... and the world knowing as well... that THEY are the trend-setters, the innovators, the companies and initial products that move the world forward.
That's not what pays the bills, and it doesn't benefit the consumer either.
* Apple has made my life far more difficult in many ways as a consultant, just because I have to get through the twisted media stories before I can get to integrating a customer with their devices. Recent stories here have put Apple at the center of Foxcon mother's babies dying at an alarming rate due to them working too many hours. Yes. Infant mortality in 1-child-China is NOW also Apple's... and ONLY Apple's fault.
Your always welcome to bring your own citations into the discussion, particularly if they disagree with what I've written. Promise I won''t toss a troll tag at you for challenging me.
You're also appear to be confused with the stats. They don't show that 90% of all issued patents have validity issues. The numbers are for challenged and re-examined patents for which evidence of invalidity has to be submitted before the reexamination is even granted. If there's no apparent evidence of problematic patent claims there's no re-exam by the USPTO. Understand now?
Don't you love the way GG completely dodged the issue raised by EricTheHalfBee:
Quote:
There's one big flaw with your numbers and the studies you took them from (unless you found a new source) - those numbers aren't broken down by industry or company.
Apparently, his closest thing to a response to that is,
Quote:
Your always welcome to bring your own citations into the discussion, particularly if they disagree with what I've written. Promise I won''t toss a troll tag at you for challenging me.
So, first, he goes on the offensive, aggressively (what else can the bold mean in this context) challenging his questioner to produce his own stats, then, just in case we weren't thrown completely off his track, he throws out a complete non sequitur related to trolling. Very professionally done, GG.
But, of course, the point still stands unanswered that the numbers are too general to be meaningful in this discussion. So, why does he post them? Because, as usual, he expects that most of us won't ever click on them, fewer still actually read them, and "citing sources" has become the modern day equivalent of presenting good data in a good argument -- i.e., including links to "sources" lends credibility to your argument, even if the sources are junk.
And, oh, GG, no one thinks you're a troll. You've never, to my knowledge been accused of trolling. We all know you are a professional shill.
Don't you love the way GG completely dodged the issue raised by EricTheHalfBee:
Apparently, his closest thing to a response to that is,
So, first, he goes on the offensive, aggressively (what else can the bold mean in this context) challenging his questioner to produce his own stats, then, just in case we weren't thrown completely off his track, he throws out a complete non sequitur related to trolling. Very professionally done, GG.
But, of course, the point still stands unanswered that the numbers are too general to be meaningful in this discussion. So, why does he post them? Because, as usual, he expects that most of us won't ever click on them, fewer still actually read them, and "citing sources" has become the modern day equivalent of presenting good data in a good argument -- i.e., including links to "sources" lends credibility to your argument, even if the sources are junk.
And, oh, GG, no one thinks you're a troll. You've never, to my knowledge been accused of trolling. We all know you are a professional shill.
Can both of you stick to FACTS and cut out the personal stuff? If you want to wage a personal war then do by PM.......
I find it humorous to read postings by people (including AI) about IP matters. For the most part you guys get it all wrong. I guess that is why us patent lawyers can charge $300-$500/hr.
First off, this patent has not been invalidated. It has not even been "preliminarily invalidated". The patent is under reexamination. Apple has received an action on the merits. Talk to any patent attorney with significant prosecution experience and they will tell you that 90% of the time they get a first action where all the claims are rejected. This is totally expected and it means nothing in terms of whether claims will eventually be allowed.
Secondly, the patent office doesn't invalidate patents. They reject or allow patent claims. The only place to invalidate a patent is a court of law.
I haven't read the claims or the prior art that provoked the re-exam, but if this is a typical re-exam, the claims were probably issued too broadly given the newly discovered prior art. Apple will narrow the claims to overcome the prior art and the patent will reissue.
The most ridiculous comments in this thread are the ones where you all opine about whether the patent office is broken or the patent office screwed up. Unless you read and analyze the claims in light of the prior art you have no idea whether the patent is allowable. A PATENT IS NOT DEFINED BY ITS DISCLOSURE.....A PATENT IS DEFINED BY ITS CLAIMS.
You are clearly not a patent lawyer because your "facts" are just wrong. I don't even know where to begin. Let's pick one thing to make this easy for you: The highlighted part about the patent office only allowing or rejecting patent claims and that a court of law . If you are a patent lawyer, you'd realize how wrong these three sentences are. I'm giving you a chance to retract, apologize and admit you're full of shit. Or I can do it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
One more thing.... the patent office does a pretty good job of searching the prior art. Examiners have like 10-15 hours to review the prior art, the patent application, and write up a rejection. You can't expect them to find every piece of prior art known to mankind.
You are contradicting yourself. Spending 10-15 hours to do any search is hardly a pretty good job. You can argue the history of human inventions is large to make a good search affordable. But you can't argue they do a good job in less than 2 days.
Exactly what I did by putting him on ignore months ago. I've never insulted nor attacked him personally (nor any other poster here AFAIK).
Simply overlooking him is the best I can do.
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
so then back up your claims with proof! You refused to let it go....so prove it........
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
Truly pathetic. First grant a patent, then revoke it. And not just any patents, plural, actually, but the heart and soul of the way 400M devices are used around the world. I think we are all better of if a patent is granted it should remain that way. (And the stock has zilch to do with it)
What is truly pathetic is the idea is that you can patent the brilliant idea of using GESTURES to control your device. Thank God this piece of garbage was overturned.
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
I certainly question the competency of the USPTO, but it also doesn't help that Apple massively abuses the system. For example, their 'Siri' patent application was submitted to the USPTO a mind-blowing 10 times before finally being accepted! When you are able to spam the USPTO like this with patent applications, of course a few are going to 'sneak through the cracks'.
What's worse is that have $120Bn in the bank certainly helps (a mere mortal might think twice about spending so much money trying to patent obvious ideas), which means that the rich get richer.
The original Surface was in no way, shape, or form the "original idea for multitouch". Particularly since it didn't exist until after the introduction of the iPhone.
Comments
I was going to write the exact same thing.
Adding to the bolded statement above, the negative side from a PR standpoint has been more damaging to Apple worldwide than anything else.*
Imagine for a minute if Apple would have just let the whole thing fly, meaning no lawsuits. Even going further, to just basically shrug their shoulders at the whole "copy & clone" market. The attitude that Apple doesn't care because they are absolutely 100% only concerned with innovating and making "the absolute best products and UX money can buy"... living up to their motto so to speak... would have IMHO been worth far more than the twisted media and headline hunters have made out Apple to be.
People around the world are ALWAYS going to want cheap knock-offs... of ANY product. While it does get out of hand and is infuriating I'm sure for the designers and companies making those products, by and large they hold their heads (their public image) high, knowing... and the world knowing as well... that THEY are the trend-setters, the innovators, the companies and initial products that move the world forward.
Apple: hold your head high; shrug off the imitators; continue to lead the tech-world. It's a far different connected world today than the first time around with Microsoft. We know. The world knows. No need to shove it in their face with continuous lawsuits... and in this case, an entire government against you and your engineers.
Hell. If I'm Apple and TC... I don't even comment on it. Why give the press any more fodder to twist around and shoot ya with?!
* Apple has made my life far more difficult in many ways as a consultant, just because I have to get through the twisted media stories before I can get to integrating a customer with their devices. Recent stories here have put Apple at the center of Foxcon mother's babies dying at an alarming rate due to them working too many hours. Yes. Infant mortality in 1-child-China is NOW also Apple's... and ONLY Apple's fault. :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
The main problem with these patents is that they patent the result rather than the method. A general patent on heuristics to recognize commands passed through a touch-screen essentially prevents everyone else from implementing touch-screens, because all touch-screen implementations are based on heuristics (you need to make a best guess f what the user wants to do from a sea of input ambiguity).
During the Apple/Moto trial with Judge Posner where infringement on this patent was claimed Apple's own experts could not succinctly explain what was meant by "heuristics". It's simply a vague and imprecise term, with Posner invalidating a big swath of the patents claims for that and other reasons.
I can imagine the race to the bottom as everyone cloned the iDevices on the cheap side. It would have been the LCD descent to TN crap all over again: because TN is cheaper than VA and IPS, most LCD monitor vendors dropped the latter offers, resulting in monitors that I bought in 2006 to not be replaceable because there's nothing in the market at 21" or smaller that either matches or surpasses their quality.
That's not what pays the bills, and it doesn't benefit the consumer either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
* Apple has made my life far more difficult in many ways as a consultant, just because I have to get through the twisted media stories before I can get to integrating a customer with their devices. Recent stories here have put Apple at the center of Foxcon mother's babies dying at an alarming rate due to them working too many hours. Yes. Infant mortality in 1-child-China is NOW also Apple's... and ONLY Apple's fault.
Perhaps you can buy them off with some cheap Christmas baubles.
Roh Roh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
http://www.andrewskurth.com/pressroom-publications-802.html
http://kppb.com/kppb/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&catid=3&Itemid=29
Your always welcome to bring your own citations into the discussion, particularly if they disagree with what I've written. Promise I won''t toss a troll tag at you for challenging me.
You're also appear to be confused with the stats. They don't show that 90% of all issued patents have validity issues. The numbers are for challenged and re-examined patents for which evidence of invalidity has to be submitted before the reexamination is even granted. If there's no apparent evidence of problematic patent claims there's no re-exam by the USPTO. Understand now?
Don't you love the way GG completely dodged the issue raised by EricTheHalfBee:
Quote:
There's one big flaw with your numbers and the studies you took them from (unless you found a new source) - those numbers aren't broken down by industry or company.
Apparently, his closest thing to a response to that is,
Quote:
Your always welcome to bring your own citations into the discussion, particularly if they disagree with what I've written. Promise I won''t toss a troll tag at you for challenging me.
So, first, he goes on the offensive, aggressively (what else can the bold mean in this context) challenging his questioner to produce his own stats, then, just in case we weren't thrown completely off his track, he throws out a complete non sequitur related to trolling. Very professionally done, GG.
But, of course, the point still stands unanswered that the numbers are too general to be meaningful in this discussion. So, why does he post them? Because, as usual, he expects that most of us won't ever click on them, fewer still actually read them, and "citing sources" has become the modern day equivalent of presenting good data in a good argument -- i.e., including links to "sources" lends credibility to your argument, even if the sources are junk.
And, oh, GG, no one thinks you're a troll. You've never, to my knowledge been accused of trolling. We all know you are a professional shill.
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Don't you love the way GG completely dodged the issue raised by EricTheHalfBee:
Apparently, his closest thing to a response to that is,
So, first, he goes on the offensive, aggressively (what else can the bold mean in this context) challenging his questioner to produce his own stats, then, just in case we weren't thrown completely off his track, he throws out a complete non sequitur related to trolling. Very professionally done, GG.
But, of course, the point still stands unanswered that the numbers are too general to be meaningful in this discussion. So, why does he post them? Because, as usual, he expects that most of us won't ever click on them, fewer still actually read them, and "citing sources" has become the modern day equivalent of presenting good data in a good argument -- i.e., including links to "sources" lends credibility to your argument, even if the sources are junk.
And, oh, GG, no one thinks you're a troll. You've never, to my knowledge been accused of trolling. We all know you are a professional shill.
Can both of you stick to FACTS and cut out the personal stuff? If you want to wage a personal war then do by PM.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Can both of you stick to FACTS and cut out the personal stuff? If you want to wage a personal war then do by PM.......
Exactly what I did by putting him on ignore months ago. I've never insulted nor attacked him personally (nor any other poster here AFAIK).
Simply overlooking him is the best I can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
I find it humorous to read postings by people (including AI) about IP matters. For the most part you guys get it all wrong. I guess that is why us patent lawyers can charge $300-$500/hr.
First off, this patent has not been invalidated. It has not even been "preliminarily invalidated". The patent is under reexamination. Apple has received an action on the merits. Talk to any patent attorney with significant prosecution experience and they will tell you that 90% of the time they get a first action where all the claims are rejected. This is totally expected and it means nothing in terms of whether claims will eventually be allowed.
Secondly, the patent office doesn't invalidate patents. They reject or allow patent claims. The only place to invalidate a patent is a court of law.
I haven't read the claims or the prior art that provoked the re-exam, but if this is a typical re-exam, the claims were probably issued too broadly given the newly discovered prior art. Apple will narrow the claims to overcome the prior art and the patent will reissue.
The most ridiculous comments in this thread are the ones where you all opine about whether the patent office is broken or the patent office screwed up. Unless you read and analyze the claims in light of the prior art you have no idea whether the patent is allowable. A PATENT IS NOT DEFINED BY ITS DISCLOSURE.....A PATENT IS DEFINED BY ITS CLAIMS.
You are clearly not a patent lawyer because your "facts" are just wrong. I don't even know where to begin. Let's pick one thing to make this easy for you: The highlighted part about the patent office only allowing or rejecting patent claims and that a court of law . If you are a patent lawyer, you'd realize how wrong these three sentences are. I'm giving you a chance to retract, apologize and admit you're full of shit. Or I can do it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
One more thing.... the patent office does a pretty good job of searching the prior art. Examiners have like 10-15 hours to review the prior art, the patent application, and write up a rejection. You can't expect them to find every piece of prior art known to mankind.
You are contradicting yourself. Spending 10-15 hours to do any search is hardly a pretty good job. You can argue the history of human inventions is large to make a good search affordable. But you can't argue they do a good job in less than 2 days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
And yet Amazon's one-touch ordering patent stands despite all attempts to invalidate it.
It hardly matters because Amazon transactions often take more than one touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Exactly what I did by putting him on ignore months ago. I've never insulted nor attacked him personally (nor any other poster here AFAIK).
Simply overlooking him is the best I can do.
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
so then back up your claims with proof! You refused to let it go....so prove it........
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
Being metacritical? This is so deep!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Truly pathetic. First grant a patent, then revoke it. And not just any patents, plural, actually, but the heart and soul of the way 400M devices are used around the world. I think we are all better of if a patent is granted it should remain that way. (And the stock has zilch to do with it)
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }What is truly pathetic is the idea is that you can patent the brilliant idea of using GESTURES to control your device. Thank God this piece of garbage was overturned.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Admittedly my discussion of your post was meta-criticism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It's interesting to analyze the techniques of the propagandist. As for discussion of your professional activities here, if you'd just come clean about it, we wouldn't have to keep revisiting that particular topic.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Why don't you guys get a room?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
I certainly question the competency of the USPTO, but it also doesn't help that Apple massively abuses the system. For example, their 'Siri' patent application was submitted to the USPTO a mind-blowing 10 times before finally being accepted! When you are able to spam the USPTO like this with patent applications, of course a few are going to 'sneak through the cracks'.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }What's worse is that have $120Bn in the bank certainly helps (a mere mortal might think twice about spending so much money trying to patent obvious ideas), which means that the rich get richer.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The original Surface was in no way, shape, or form the "original idea for multitouch". Particularly since it didn't exist until after the introduction of the iPhone.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }You are absolutely right: both Apple and Microsoft were only 40(!) years late to the party. Check out the Wikipedia account.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }