Why did this company TAKE SO LONG???.. That alone is suspect. They don't deserve a dime. I hope Apple comes out with guns blazin!
The USPTO is quite slow too. Law moves slowly. If five years passed, then sure, they waited too long, but it's only a year since Apple introduced the item and it looks like the patent was reviewed in November.
Totally agreed. I also went to read the patent and the claim was obvious, even in 2003. This company is not real and the patent is there only to exploit a loophole in patent law. The patent itself should never have been awarded.
Actually, I don't agree (although I think this patent is nonsense).
A patent is supposed to be a way of teaching - a average engineer in the field, reading the patent, is supposed to be able to make the product.
Their patent is so vague that nobody would be able to make the product in 2003. At most, it is an "idea", not an invention.
The USPTO is quite slow too. Law moves slowly. If five years passed, then sure, they waited too long, but it's only a year since Apple introduced the item and it looks like the patent was reviewed in November.
as a former patent examiner, i remember hearing the story of the uncrustables patent where a reexam was launched and the examiner was basically told "this is not patentable." because lets be honest. a patent on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich? ummm, no.
Reading some of the base claims, I have to sit here and think ... you must be joking. Obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seems like the understatement of the century. Then, the length of these claims really seems to be indicative of a problem with the original application. Claims shouldn't be this specific. Then, the ORs I've really just never seen as an examiner. lol.
But knowing how the PTO works, I must say the number of claims in this app is quite daunting to what amounts to a white collar factory worker. More than likely, this was done piecemeal overtime.
Actually, I don't agree (although I think this patent is nonsense).
A patent is supposed to be a way of teaching - a average engineer in the field, reading the patent, is supposed to be able to make the product.
Their patent is so vague that nobody would be able to make the product in 2003. At most, it is an "idea", not an invention.
Patents are intentionally made as vague as possible. Even the diagrams are made to include as little detail as possible, If they made them precise then any variation could be construed as a new product/invention/idea.
Should we go back to requiring a working product be submitted with the patent app? Besides not having the resources for such a feat it would then give control to those with deep pockets and shun anyone with a vision but no financial support. Our patent system was setup to protect the little guy but it's not working, at least not anymore. I hate pointing out a problem without having a potential solution in mind, but even the remotest possibility to fix our system escapes me. Maybe our legal system is what needs the most fixing. Perhaps we should charge the plaintiff all the defendants legal fees if they loss. That seems to work in the UK.
Not only obvious, but not original. Just like the geosynchronous satellite was unpatentable because it was first described in a science fiction book by Arthur C. Clarke and thus in the public domain, this patent brings about as much (less!) to the table as your typical science fiction story. Seriously-- why can't any simple combination of technologies as described by countless science fiction novels be considered public domain? The handheld video phone... give me a break! That's been in books for decades!
I'm going to put in an application for flying plug-in electric cars. That way when someone gets around to actually building the device I can sue their ass off.
Why flying? The way things work these days, you can still get a patent on regular electric cars.
Quote:
The Lawyers have got to go...
It has nothing to do with lawyers, the patent system itself has become badly flawed. You no longer have to implement anything. The descriptions themselves are vague enough that they could mean anything. I could probably patent the idea of a "mobile" record player (assuming nobody else has done it yet), just by saying well it's like a record player but it's portable. Brilliant! You get a patent.
Yes, there is a small problem with the patenting system...however, the patent trolls (like this company) aren't innocent. Even if the system allows exploitation, those who exploit it are culpable, even if 'only' morally...
Yeah, this is one of those patent speculator companies, I think, that technology companies want to get put out of business in the States - as most people have already said, all they do is buy patents and sue companies. The tech compannies were trying to get some patent reform done, but companies in other areas wer worried about the reform legislation.
Patents are intentionally made as vague as possible. Even the diagrams are made to include as little detail as possible, If they made them precise then any variation could be construed as a new product/invention/idea.
.
That's not true.
The CLAIMS are as vague as possible. The description must be specific enough for an average person in trade to reproduce.
as a former patent examiner, i remember hearing the story of the uncrustables patent where a reexam was launched and the examiner was basically told "this is not patentable." because lets be honest. a patent on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich? ummm, no.
Reading some of the base claims, I have to sit here and think ... you must be joking. Obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seems like the understatement of the century. Then, the length of these claims really seems to be indicative of a problem with the original application. Claims shouldn't be this specific. Then, the ORs I've really just never seen as an examiner. lol.
But knowing how the PTO works, I must say the number of claims in this app is quite daunting to what amounts to a white collar factory worker. More than likely, this was done piecemeal overtime.
Either way. Wow.
We'll be seeking more of your professional opinions since someone sues Apple every other week with a suspect infringement claim.
Yeah, this is one of those patent speculator companies, I think, that technology companies want to get put out of business in the States - as most people have already said, all they do is buy patents and sue companies. The tech compannies were trying to get some patent reform done, but companies in other areas wer worried about the reform legislation.
Soon not only all manufacturing but all engineering will go to China where no one really seems to care about patents or copying things as they see fit.
Soon not only all manufacturing but all engineering will go to China were no one really seems to care about patents or copying things as they see fit.
If the pattern of history continues, China will probably care once they're a considerable power in research and creativity. Then patents and copyrights will become a concern. On the whole, it's not in their interests right now to bother with it.
Continued legal foolishness such as this only continues to prove to the world that Americans are the single most dull-witted people on the face of the earth. For a people to willingly allow this to continue without any active measures in place to improve the system is certainly not evidence of wisdom, nor an expression of freedom, nor protection of the weak. America willingly allows lawyers and the courts to be its taskmasters, empowering deceivers and thieves and the slothful to gain the upper hand. Can any such nation expect true prosperity in the long term? This is not simply a problem for Apple. It's a national problem that speaks of the intelligence and moral fiber of every American.
So this patent basically covers almost every cell phone sold in that past five years...a communications device with a memory card slot that can display photos and videos. My three year old moto e815 can do all that. And my 5 year old moto v551 has it all except the memory card slot (also absent from the iPhone). That predates their patent application. Sure, the iPhone does it prettier with better web browsing and email functionality, etc. But it's all the same functions when it comes right down to it.
Additionally, any patent infringement lawsuit filed in "the Eastern District of Texas" should automatically be dismissed as frivolous. The only reason for a California company to file a lawsuit against another California company in a court in Texas is because they know their case doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell without the well known bias of that particular court. Apple should open a branch legal office there. It would save them thousands of dollars in travel expenses every year not having to send their lawyers to defend against all the stupid lawsuits that get filed there.
Patents are a joke. Anyone can file patent about anything and they can be so general. They should establish a rule that you should have an actual product line for your patented device/whatever or your patent will be taken away. They should also stop software patents.
Continued legal foolishness such as this only continues to prove to the world that Americans are the single most dull-witted people on the face of the earth. For a people to willingly allow this to continue without any active measures in place to improve the system is certainly not evidence of wisdom, nor an expression of freedom, nor protection of the weak. America willingly allows lawyers and the courts to be its taskmasters, empowering deceivers and thieves and the slothful to gain the upper hand. Can any such nation expect true prosperity in the long term? This is not simply a problem for Apple. It's a national problem that speaks of the intelligence and moral fiber of every American.
Actually, the reason we don;t have any restrictions is that Patent hawks like these people won't elect people to office who can get this done.
It really irritates me that these so-called technology companies can go out, get a patient on something, and never do anything with it. Take for instance, this company. When you go under their products section, it shows what looks like the new workings for a Sony Ericcson phone. If that is the case, do they hold all the patients on the design concept of the phone? I find this hard to beleive.
I think what really is happening here is that this company sees where it can make it's money. By suing the pants of larger companies like Apple, Sony, Sprint, AT&T and so forth because it see that they have the corner market in a technology that they have invested time and money in, yet are to chicken to put that patient to use.
The idea of technology is to advance how we communicate. If people here in the good old U.S.A keep suing eachother for no reason, so much for the 21 centry technology boom. We might as well go back to the 19th century and live like they did.
Soon not only all manufacturing but all engineering will go to China where no one really seems to care about patents or copying things as they see fit.
What? Like all those cars & consumer technology they "engineer"? They had to buy IBMs notebook business outright. Lets hope their inflation rises before they learn how to actually design anything like Japan's did (something to do with factory workers and engineers having different quality of life expectations).
It's irrelevant anyhow, there's no engineering in this patent - it's high level fluff that any imaginative school-child could come up with & thousands probably did. What's tragic is why the US patent system is still in the 19th century where having ideas about technology was a past-time of the idly wealthy as opposed to having 6 billion people on the planet with aligned perceptions of technology where concurrent ideas in their thousands are inevitable. It now represents the death-knell of technological innovation as having to scour the plethora of and skirting around others daydreaming won't help it but I'm sure the Vatican (and convenient variations) will be pleased.
Comments
Why did this company TAKE SO LONG???.. That alone is suspect. They don't deserve a dime. I hope Apple comes out with guns blazin!
The USPTO is quite slow too. Law moves slowly. If five years passed, then sure, they waited too long, but it's only a year since Apple introduced the item and it looks like the patent was reviewed in November.
Totally agreed. I also went to read the patent and the claim was obvious, even in 2003. This company is not real and the patent is there only to exploit a loophole in patent law. The patent itself should never have been awarded.
Actually, I don't agree (although I think this patent is nonsense).
A patent is supposed to be a way of teaching - a average engineer in the field, reading the patent, is supposed to be able to make the product.
Their patent is so vague that nobody would be able to make the product in 2003. At most, it is an "idea", not an invention.
The USPTO is quite slow too. Law moves slowly. If five years passed, then sure, they waited too long, but it's only a year since Apple introduced the item and it looks like the patent was reviewed in November.
as a former patent examiner, i remember hearing the story of the uncrustables patent where a reexam was launched and the examiner was basically told "this is not patentable." because lets be honest. a patent on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich? ummm, no.
Reading some of the base claims, I have to sit here and think ... you must be joking. Obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seems like the understatement of the century. Then, the length of these claims really seems to be indicative of a problem with the original application. Claims shouldn't be this specific. Then, the ORs I've really just never seen as an examiner. lol.
But knowing how the PTO works, I must say the number of claims in this app is quite daunting to what amounts to a white collar factory worker. More than likely, this was done piecemeal overtime.
Either way. Wow.
Actually, I don't agree (although I think this patent is nonsense).
A patent is supposed to be a way of teaching - a average engineer in the field, reading the patent, is supposed to be able to make the product.
Their patent is so vague that nobody would be able to make the product in 2003. At most, it is an "idea", not an invention.
Patents are intentionally made as vague as possible. Even the diagrams are made to include as little detail as possible, If they made them precise then any variation could be construed as a new product/invention/idea.
Should we go back to requiring a working product be submitted with the patent app? Besides not having the resources for such a feat it would then give control to those with deep pockets and shun anyone with a vision but no financial support. Our patent system was setup to protect the little guy but it's not working, at least not anymore. I hate pointing out a problem without having a potential solution in mind, but even the remotest possibility to fix our system escapes me. Maybe our legal system is what needs the most fixing. Perhaps we should charge the plaintiff all the defendants legal fees if they loss. That seems to work in the UK.
I'm going to put in an application for flying plug-in electric cars. That way when someone gets around to actually building the device I can sue their ass off.
Why flying? The way things work these days, you can still get a patent on regular electric cars.
The Lawyers have got to go...
It has nothing to do with lawyers, the patent system itself has become badly flawed. You no longer have to implement anything. The descriptions themselves are vague enough that they could mean anything. I could probably patent the idea of a "mobile" record player (assuming nobody else has done it yet), just by saying well it's like a record player but it's portable. Brilliant! You get a patent.
Patents are intentionally made as vague as possible. Even the diagrams are made to include as little detail as possible, If they made them precise then any variation could be construed as a new product/invention/idea.
.
That's not true.
The CLAIMS are as vague as possible. The description must be specific enough for an average person in trade to reproduce.
as a former patent examiner, i remember hearing the story of the uncrustables patent where a reexam was launched and the examiner was basically told "this is not patentable." because lets be honest. a patent on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich? ummm, no.
Reading some of the base claims, I have to sit here and think ... you must be joking. Obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seems like the understatement of the century. Then, the length of these claims really seems to be indicative of a problem with the original application. Claims shouldn't be this specific. Then, the ORs I've really just never seen as an examiner. lol.
But knowing how the PTO works, I must say the number of claims in this app is quite daunting to what amounts to a white collar factory worker. More than likely, this was done piecemeal overtime.
Either way. Wow.
We'll be seeking more of your professional opinions since someone sues Apple every other week with a suspect infringement claim.
Yeah, this is one of those patent speculator companies, I think, that technology companies want to get put out of business in the States - as most people have already said, all they do is buy patents and sue companies. The tech compannies were trying to get some patent reform done, but companies in other areas wer worried about the reform legislation.
Soon not only all manufacturing but all engineering will go to China where no one really seems to care about patents or copying things as they see fit.
Soon not only all manufacturing but all engineering will go to China were no one really seems to care about patents or copying things as they see fit.
If the pattern of history continues, China will probably care once they're a considerable power in research and creativity. Then patents and copyrights will become a concern. On the whole, it's not in their interests right now to bother with it.
"It is my hope to declare the year 2006 with you as the year of great harvest...."
You are visitor number 25057 since 8/29/2001.
How many of those visits were from people linking to them from Apple related websites?! My personal home page gets more hits than them!
Bunch of parasites.
Additionally, any patent infringement lawsuit filed in "the Eastern District of Texas" should automatically be dismissed as frivolous. The only reason for a California company to file a lawsuit against another California company in a court in Texas is because they know their case doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell without the well known bias of that particular court. Apple should open a branch legal office there. It would save them thousands of dollars in travel expenses every year not having to send their lawyers to defend against all the stupid lawsuits that get filed there.
Continued legal foolishness such as this only continues to prove to the world that Americans are the single most dull-witted people on the face of the earth. For a people to willingly allow this to continue without any active measures in place to improve the system is certainly not evidence of wisdom, nor an expression of freedom, nor protection of the weak. America willingly allows lawyers and the courts to be its taskmasters, empowering deceivers and thieves and the slothful to gain the upper hand. Can any such nation expect true prosperity in the long term? This is not simply a problem for Apple. It's a national problem that speaks of the intelligence and moral fiber of every American.
Actually, the reason we don;t have any restrictions is that Patent hawks like these people won't elect people to office who can get this done.
I think what really is happening here is that this company sees where it can make it's money. By suing the pants of larger companies like Apple, Sony, Sprint, AT&T and so forth because it see that they have the corner market in a technology that they have invested time and money in, yet are to chicken to put that patient to use.
The idea of technology is to advance how we communicate. If people here in the good old U.S.A keep suing eachother for no reason, so much for the 21 centry technology boom. We might as well go back to the 19th century and live like they did.
Soon not only all manufacturing but all engineering will go to China where no one really seems to care about patents or copying things as they see fit.
What? Like all those cars & consumer technology they "engineer"? They had to buy IBMs notebook business outright. Lets hope their inflation rises before they learn how to actually design anything like Japan's did (something to do with factory workers and engineers having different quality of life expectations).
It's irrelevant anyhow, there's no engineering in this patent - it's high level fluff that any imaginative school-child could come up with & thousands probably did. What's tragic is why the US patent system is still in the 19th century where having ideas about technology was a past-time of the idly wealthy as opposed to having 6 billion people on the planet with aligned perceptions of technology where concurrent ideas in their thousands are inevitable. It now represents the death-knell of technological innovation as having to scour the plethora of and skirting around others daydreaming won't help it but I'm sure the Vatican (and convenient variations) will be pleased.
McD