New patent lawsuit targets Apple over iPhone 5's call forwarding feature

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jax44 View Post



    Ah, the venerable Eastern District of Texas patent troll court. What a way for a town to make a living!.


     


    There is no such thing as a patent troll. There are property rights and there are entities that may or may not be violating those rights. The courts decide. The use of inflammatory language by people without an understanding of the issues (and I include the prez in this criticism) does not change facts.

  • Reply 22 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    My Little iPony.

    iPonyno, iPonyalamino, and AirSpurs to be released this fall.
  • Reply 23 of 36
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,613member
    I love the part about how Apple "induces users to use the functionality" by letting them know the functionality is available, like it would have been okay if Apple had violated the patent, but didn't let the users know the feature was available.

    I also love the "..at least the iPhone 4s and 5.." comment as if Bluebonnet didn't bother to figure out if Apple's other phones infringe the patent or not.

    As others have stated, the patent system has become ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to patent the concept of call forwarding, only the specific methodology. And displaying the capability to the user should not be patentable under any circumstances. Besides, call forwarding was developed more than 25 years ago - why is there still a patent on it?



  • Reply 24 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    zoetmb wrote: »
    I love the part about how Apple "induces users to use the functionality" by letting them know the functionality is available, like it would have been okay if Apple had violated the patent, but didn't let the users know the feature was available.
    ...

    As others have stated, the patent system has become ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to patent the concept of call forwarding, only the specific methodology. And displaying the capability to the user should not be patentable under any circumstances. Besides, call forwarding was developed more than 25 years ago - why is there still a patent on it?

    No one is patenting a concept, you should know better than that.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    There is no such thing as a patent troll. There are property rights and there are entities that may or may not be violating those rights. The courts decide. The use of inflammatory language by people without an understanding of the issues (and I include the prez in this criticism) does not change facts.

    You may be in the minority in claiming there's no such thing as patent trolls. Besides the President, patent professionals at the blog site PatentlyO use the term and acknowledges they exist. So does The Essential Patent Blog. So does PatentlyApple. The Chief Judge of the US Appeals Court Federal Circuit, Randall Rader, has suggestions on how they should be dealt with. Florian Mueller says they exist too, but he's funny about it. The only trolls are the ones suing Android device makers or Google. Otherwise he calls them Patent Assertion Entities or Non-Practicing Entities. :rolleyes::D

    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/what_is_a_paten.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html?_r=0

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/samsung-sides-with-patent-troll.html
    but when it's Google they're suing he calls them "NPE's"
    "Intellectual Ventures ("IV"), the world's largest non-practicing entity,"
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/intellectual-ventures-files-second.html
  • Reply 26 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You may be in the minority in claiming there's no such thing as patent trolls. Besides the President, patent professionals at the blog site PatentlyO use the term and acknowledges they exist. So does The Essential Patent Blog. So does PatentlyApple. The Chief Judge of the US Appeals Court Federal Circuit, Randall Rader, has suggestions on how they should be dealt with. Florian Mueller says they exist too, but he's funny about it. The only trolls are the ones suing Android device makers or Google. Otherwise he calls them Patent Assertion Entities or Non-Practicing Entities. :rolleyes::D

    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/what_is_a_paten.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html?_r=0

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/samsung-sides-with-patent-troll.html
    but when it's Google they're suing he calls them "NPE's"
    "Intellectual Ventures ("IV"), the world's largest non-practicing entity,"
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/06/intellectual-ventures-files-second.html

    "...Detkin is the man who coined the term "patent troll." He came up with it back in in 1999, when he was working for Intel."

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

    The term is loaded and expresses the point of view of people defending against lawsuits which MAY or MAY NOT be valid, a judgment which does not belong to litigants or third parties, including the president... whom I consider a complete failure as a constitutional law professor.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    "...Detkin is the man who coined the term "patent troll." He came up with it back in in 1999, when he was working for Intel."

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

    The term is loaded and expresses the point of view of people defending against lawsuits which MAY or MAY NOT be valid, a judgment which does not belong to litigants or third parties, including the president... whom I consider a complete failure as a constitutional law professor.

    I agree it can certainly be selectively used as a loaded term. You only have to look as far as FossPatents to see that. PAE's become trolls when it's useful to him.

    At the same time companies that operate only to assert patents, laying low until a particular feature becomes commercially successful before making anyone aware they're claiming exclusive rights to it does sound much like the Mother Goose story of the bridge trolls doesn't it?
  • Reply 28 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I agree it can certainly be selectively used as a loaded term. You only have to look as far as FossPatents to see that. PAE's become trolls when it's useful to him.

    At the same time companies that operate only to assert patents, laying low until a particular feature becomes commercially successful before making anyone aware they're claiming exclusive rights to it does sound much like the Mother Goose story of the bridge trolls doesn't it?

    That's the thing about these lawsuits...it wouldn't make sense to sue if there was no possibility of material gain. Lawsuits can be very costly and very time consuming. Only an idiot would sue to serve their own ego.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    Interesting stuff today concerning PAE"s, sometimes affectionately referred to as patent trolls. The FTC may be working on legal strategies to deal with them, perhaps including anti-trust action.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/ftc-is-said-to-plan-inquiry-of-frivolous-patent-lawsuits.html?pagewanted=all
  • Reply 30 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Interesting stuff today concerning PAE"s, sometimes affectionately referred to as patent trolls. The FTC may be working on legal strategies to deal with them, perhaps including anti-trust action.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/ftc-is-said-to-plan-inquiry-of-frivolous-patent-lawsuits.html?pagewanted=all


     


    That actually came out yesterday. Also, before there are any changes to patent law I expect many, many lawsuits from competing business interests, in addition to individual patent owners filing class-action suits.

  • Reply 31 of 36
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    There is no such thing as a patent troll. There are property rights and there are entities that may or may not be violating those rights. The courts decide. The use of inflammatory language by people without an understanding of the issues (and I include the prez in this criticism) does not change facts.



     


    Anyone who is using patents solely for purposes other than that for which they are issued,


     


    Quote:


    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts



     


    is a patent troll. So-called "intellectual property" companies are gaming the system for profit with no intention of promoting progress and their actions actually hinder it. Patents are an artificial right, a privilege, granted for a specific purpose. Those who abuse this privilege should have it revoked.


     


    As well, anyone attempting to "double dip" is a patent troll. This includes companies like Lodsys, and sadly, Samsung.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    No one is patenting a concept, you should know better than that.


     


    No one is supposed to be able to patent a concept, but, unfortunately, due to a lack of understanding of technology and the sheer number of patents filed for, lots of people have and are patenting concepts. Concept patents are the bread and butter of the patent troll industry. The patent discussed in this article is a concept patent.


     


    Reality denial doesn't change the facts, and denying the existence of patent trolls doesn't make them go away.

  • Reply 32 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Anyone who is using patents solely for purposes other than that for which they are issued,


    is a patent troll. So-called "intellectual property" companies are gaming the system for profit with no intention of promoting progress and their actions actually hinder it. Patents are an artificial right, a privilege, granted for a specific purpose. Those who abuse this privilege should have it revoked.

    As well, anyone attempting to "double dip" is a patent troll. This includes companies like Lodsys, and sadly, Samsung.


    No one is supposed to be able to patent a concept, but, unfortunately, due to a lack of understanding of technology and the sheer number of patents filed for, lots of people have and are patenting concepts. Concept patents are the bread and butter of the patent troll industry. The patent discussed in this article is a concept patent.

    Reality denial doesn't change the facts, and denying the existence of patent trolls doesn't make them go away.

    You are demonstrating a very loose understanding of facts.

    Number one, here is the full quote you partially cited: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

    That quote is from the Constitution and it does not contain the details or distinctions between copyrights, trademarks and patents.
  • Reply 33 of 36
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    You are demonstrating a very loose understanding of facts.



    Number one, here is the full quote you partially cited: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"



    That quote is from the Constitution and it does not contain the details or distinctions between copyrights, trademarks and patents.


     


    Your understanding of the English language and thought process appears to be rather loose, leading me to believe you don't have a clue about "the facts". You do get a point for recognizing that the quoted text is part of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. But, you lose 10 points for not realizing that I quoted the relevant part of it, since I was speaking to its purpose. You lose another 10 points for the wholly irrelevant statement in your last sentence. Lastly you lose the rest of your points for your entire post not addressing any points made in the post you replied to. 

  • Reply 34 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

     


     



    Quote:



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    There is no such thing as a patent troll. There are property rights and there are entities that may or may not be violating those rights. The courts decide. The use of inflammatory language by people without an understanding of the issues (and I include the prez in this criticism) does not change facts.



     


    Anyone who is using patents solely for purposes other than that for which they are issued,


     


    Quote:


    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts



     


    is a patent troll. So-called "intellectual property" companies are gaming the system for profit with no intention of promoting progress and their actions actually hinder it. Patents are an artificial right, a privilege, granted for a specific purpose. Those who abuse this privilege should have it revoked.


     


    As well, anyone attempting to "double dip" is a patent troll. This includes companies like Lodsys, and sadly, Samsung.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    No one is patenting a concept, you should know better than that.


     


    No one is supposed to be able to patent a concept, but, unfortunately, due to a lack of understanding of technology and the sheer number of patents filed for, lots of people have and are patenting concepts. Concept patents are the bread and butter of the patent troll industry. The patent discussed in this article is a concept patent.


     


    Reality denial doesn't change the facts, and denying the existence of patent trolls doesn't make them go away.


     




     


    Just for fun, let's review just one of your comments:


     


    COMMENT:  "Anyone who is using patents for purposes other than that for which they are issued, 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'"


     


    RESPONSE:  Patents are property (commonly referred to as "intellectual property") and property rights are well established in the US, as enumerated in the Constitution. Property may be bought, sold, traded or the owner may simply to do nothing with it. "Progress" is a relative term, quite open to interpretation. There is plenty of precedent and property law applies.




  • Reply 35 of 36
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    Just for fun, let's review just one of your comments:


     


    COMMENT:  "Anyone who is using patents for purposes other than that for which they are issued, 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'"



     


    Just for fun, here's the complete comment:


     


     


    Quote:


    Anyone who is using patents solely for purposes other than that for which they are issued,


     


    Quote:


    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts



     


    is a patent troll. So-called "intellectual property" companies are gaming the system for profit with no intention of promoting progress and their actions actually hinder it. Patents are an artificial right, a privilege, granted for a specific purpose. Those who abuse this privilege should have it revoked.




     


    You've gone into negative point territory now.


     


    As for your "response", intellectual property is not the same as other recognized "property", as is clear from its different basis in law. Conflating them doesn't make an argument.

  • Reply 36 of 36
    mudman2mudman2 Posts: 54member
    I really do have a patent covering the collection of patient data in a physicians location for the improvement of healthcare using a mobile device

    I am just sitting here waiting for enough of the giants to use it then I am moving to Texas

    that last bit was a joke
Sign In or Register to comment.