'Ironic' is not the right word to describe this twist. It's bizarre. It will affect a lot of EU companies too, so I am guessing it'll be thrown out on appeal to a court at the EU level.
Why would it be thrown out when it's how patent law works in that country? The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time. While I don't imagine it was ever Apple's intention to do something like that, the point still stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.
The laws of the U.S do not apply throughout the entire world and override all other laws, despite what some people seem to think. A U.S. patent is only valid in the U.S. To protect your inventions around the world you need to file for patents in the appropriate regions - and for obvious reasons those patents are subject to the regional laws. The lack of a twelve-month grace period is one of the differences between EU and US patent law.
This decision doesn't even involve the U.S. patent: that patent has no validity in the European jurisdiction, just as the EU's decision has no significance in the U.S. This decision can't be "used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents" because it has nothing to do with them. EU patents, sure, but that isn't a problem - if an EU patent is invalid under EU law, that's the way it is. It certainly isn't a case for the ~U.S. government~.
The boss of the company that owns the patent demoing what they say is the same patent invalidates the patent because it shows that someone else had already thought of it???
I must be missing something here...
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
Patent law is fairly straightforward. It is very well known among people who deal with the matter that you can not publicly display a technology in most countries before filing for a patent. (The US is a little different, but you still have to apply for the patent within 1 year of public disclosure). This is a simple, bush league mistake. Basically, Apple screwed up and the court ruled correctly.
'Ironic' is not the right word to describe this twist. It's bizarre. It will affect a lot of EU companies too, so I am guessing it'll be thrown out on appeal to a court at the EU level.
Not at all. It won't affect that many EU companies because it's well known and most companies follow the rules. Most people dealing with European patents understand the rules and follow them. There's absolutely nothing new here nor any grounds for it to be appealed. It's simple Patent 101.
Even in my earlier days developing new water treatment products, it was always made clear to me that I could not talk about something that we planned to patent at ANY time before the patent was filed in Europe.
I don't know if Apple messed up due to arrogance, incompetence, or simple negligence, but Apple simply messed up. It's not the fault of the patent system.
[QUOTE name="jragosta" url="/t/159807/steve-jobs-original-iphone-keynote-video-used-to-invalidate-apple-patent-in-germany/40#post_2406881"] Not at all. It won't affect that many EU companies because it's well known and most companies follow the rules. Most people dealing with European patents understand the rules and follow them. There's absolutely nothing new here nor any grounds for it to be appealed. It's simple Patent 101.[/QUOTE] How do you then interpret this last para of the article: "[LEFT][COLOR=000000][I]Apple could use Thursday's outcome, specifically the finding that "Lira" and "LaunchTile" [U]don't invalidate the European photo bounce-back patent[/U], to its advantage in the utility model proceedings. The company can ultimately request the Mannheim court to restart the claim against Samsung and even possibly use that property against other companies until it expires in 2017[/I]."[/COLOR][/LEFT]
[LEFT][COLOR=000000]What is it about the "European" patent that is different from the German? If there is a conflict between the two, how does it get resolved?[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Add: Since [B]MyopiaRocks[/B] +1-ed [B]jragosta's[/B] post, he could perhaps answer this as well (in case [B]jragosta[/B] does not see my question)?
Jobs should have known better. Every IP attorney would vehemently counsel against making a public disclosure until the patent is filed for. In our company, we have a thorough check-off process to help insure a mistake like this never happens (even though the US has a grace period, we wouldn't do it anyway).
edit: regarding the prior art comments, that's not really the concept at play here. Because Jobs made a public presentation of the technology, the technology is then considered public information with the caveat the US extends a grace period (probably to protect people who mess this up). As we all know, you can't patent public information.
Basically they're saying you should have considered filing in Europe as important as filing in the US? Following their logic... if Apple's patent filing in the US can't be considered a valid effort to assert ownership in Europe or at least extend the grace period for a European filing, then a demo presented in the US for a product initially launched in the US exclusively, shouldn't invalidate a European filing.
Attention outraged Apple fans! Your enemy for today is: Germany / The Germans.
...GO!!
Every country has stupid laws that should be scrapped as they make no sense. To pick 1 country, or its people, out is wrong.
This is 1 more reason I think IP laws etc should be controlled by 1 court / organisation worldwide, & not by individual countries.
So do many people. The problem is that americans want their law and their screwed up values to be exported to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't so happy about that idea. Ever wonder why ??
Here's one way to think about it: Does it seem fair for a company to show you some cool ideas and then, retro-actively, go back and tell you that some of them are patented and need to be licensed? I don't think that's very fair.
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.
Get used to the Idea that America does NOT rule the world bro ! May be hard to get your head around it but you will be a better person if you manage .
Get used to the Idea that America does NOT rule the world bro ! May be hard to get your head around it but you will be a better person if you manage .
As a somewhat neutral observer, I've got news for you: America clearly does.
It has been quite laughable watching countries like UK, France, Germany, Japan, NZ, etc. just bend over for the NSA. And countries like Sweden over Assange. And countries in Latin America over the 'drug war.' And countries like Australia over Kim Dotcom, surveillance, military bases etc.
There may be a couple of countries -- e.g., China, Brazil -- that still try and assert themselves, but it sure does seem like most of them, esp. those in the EU, are a bunch of -- I hate to say this -- US lapdogs.
This is what comes of using Europe's "first to file" approach as opposed to the U.S.'s old "first to invent" approach. First to file is a horrible approach that allows someone to literally invalidate years of effort by purposefully or inadvertently disclosing. And yet - our stupid congress has gone along with this stupid approach. Thanks for dragging U.S, down to your level, Europe.
The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time.
Except that didn’t happen here, at all, in any respect. No, the point does not stand.
Originally Posted by jragosta
This is a simple, bush league mistake. Basically, Apple screwed up and the court ruled correctly.
Comments
'Ironic' is not the right word to describe this twist. It's bizarre. It will affect a lot of EU companies too, so I am guessing it'll be thrown out on appeal to a court at the EU level.
Why would it be thrown out when it's how patent law works in that country? The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time. While I don't imagine it was ever Apple's intention to do something like that, the point still stands.
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.
The laws of the U.S do not apply throughout the entire world and override all other laws, despite what some people seem to think. A U.S. patent is only valid in the U.S. To protect your inventions around the world you need to file for patents in the appropriate regions - and for obvious reasons those patents are subject to the regional laws. The lack of a twelve-month grace period is one of the differences between EU and US patent law.
This decision doesn't even involve the U.S. patent: that patent has no validity in the European jurisdiction, just as the EU's decision has no significance in the U.S. This decision can't be "used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents" because it has nothing to do with them. EU patents, sure, but that isn't a problem - if an EU patent is invalid under EU law, that's the way it is. It certainly isn't a case for the ~U.S. government~.
If the presentation is prior art => Fire the patent prosecutors.
Surely nobody would argue with that...?
Edit: ...and if the lawyers knew about the presentation far enough in advance, sue them for malpractice!
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
Patent law is fairly straightforward. It is very well known among people who deal with the matter that you can not publicly display a technology in most countries before filing for a patent. (The US is a little different, but you still have to apply for the patent within 1 year of public disclosure). This is a simple, bush league mistake. Basically, Apple screwed up and the court ruled correctly.
Unless it involves the rape of a 14 year old.
Not at all. It won't affect that many EU companies because it's well known and most companies follow the rules. Most people dealing with European patents understand the rules and follow them. There's absolutely nothing new here nor any grounds for it to be appealed. It's simple Patent 101.
Even in my earlier days developing new water treatment products, it was always made clear to me that I could not talk about something that we planned to patent at ANY time before the patent was filed in Europe.
I don't know if Apple messed up due to arrogance, incompetence, or simple negligence, but Apple simply messed up. It's not the fault of the patent system.
Not at all. It won't affect that many EU companies because it's well known and most companies follow the rules. Most people dealing with European patents understand the rules and follow them. There's absolutely nothing new here nor any grounds for it to be appealed. It's simple Patent 101.[/QUOTE]
How do you then interpret this last para of the article: "[LEFT][COLOR=000000][I]Apple could use Thursday's outcome, specifically the finding that "Lira" and "LaunchTile" [U]don't invalidate the European photo bounce-back patent[/U], to its advantage in the utility model proceedings. The company can ultimately request the Mannheim court to restart the claim against Samsung and even possibly use that property against other companies until it expires in 2017[/I]."[/COLOR][/LEFT]
[LEFT][COLOR=000000]What is it about the "European" patent that is different from the German? If there is a conflict between the two, how does it get resolved?[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Add: Since [B]MyopiaRocks[/B] +1-ed [B]jragosta's[/B] post, he could perhaps answer this as well (in case [B]jragosta[/B] does not see my question)?
I hope Steve doesn't get fired over this, pretty big mistake.
/s
edit: regarding the prior art comments, that's not really the concept at play here. Because Jobs made a public presentation of the technology, the technology is then considered public information with the caveat the US extends a grace period (probably to protect people who mess this up). As we all know, you can't patent public information.
Following their logic... if Apple's patent filing in the US can't be considered a valid effort to assert ownership in Europe or at least extend the grace period for a European filing, then a demo presented in the US for a product initially launched in the US exclusively, shouldn't invalidate a European filing.
Attention outraged Apple fans! Your enemy for today is: Germany / The Germans.
...GO!!
This is 1 more reason I think IP laws etc should be controlled by 1 court / organisation worldwide, & not by individual countries.
So do many people. The problem is that americans want their law and their screwed up values to be exported to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world isn't so happy about that idea. Ever wonder why ??
Here's one way to think about it: Does it seem fair for a company to show you some cool ideas and then, retro-actively, go back and tell you that some of them are patented and need to be licensed? I don't think that's very fair.
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.
Get used to the Idea that America does NOT rule the world bro ! May be hard to get your head around it but you will be a better person if you manage .
Get used to the Idea that America does NOT rule the world bro ! May be hard to get your head around it but you will be a better person if you manage .
As a somewhat neutral observer, I've got news for you: America clearly does.
It has been quite laughable watching countries like UK, France, Germany, Japan, NZ, etc. just bend over for the NSA. And countries like Sweden over Assange. And countries in Latin America over the 'drug war.' And countries like Australia over Kim Dotcom, surveillance, military bases etc.
There may be a couple of countries -- e.g., China, Brazil -- that still try and assert themselves, but it sure does seem like most of them, esp. those in the EU, are a bunch of -- I hate to say this -- US lapdogs.
The law is intended to prevent situations where you demonstrate a feature that isn't protected by a patent, wait for other companies to copy it (as they're perfectly entitled to do), and then patent it and retrospectively sue them for doing something that was entirely legal at the time.
Except that didn’t happen here, at all, in any respect. No, the point does not stand.
Like fun.
Samsung latest invention Samsung Gear shows that it cannot design good product on its own.
Now, now....
Let's not hate on the Germans too much...
after all, pro-software-patent-industry, pro-Oracle, anti-Google, anti-Samsung paid shill, Florian Müller is German.
and... Germans hate Koreans even more than the Japanese do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Korean_sentiment
Steve Jobs must be screaming in his grave right about now, I know I would be...
They don't have prior art against themselves. They have released the art to the public - which means that it's no longer patentable.
Instead of stupid, smart-ass remarks, why don't you tell me what you think is wrong with my statement?
How many European patents have you been involved with, btw?