Patent lawsuit targets Apple's Dock Connector in iPod nano, touch

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 24
    *yawn* Nothing to see here, move along.
  • Reply 22 of 24
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't see how it's a fine patent. If it is, then it really lowers the bar on the "non-obvious" standard. The text of the patent doesn't appear to do describe anything that's novel. Just applying one idea they didn't invent to another idea they didn't invent, or substituting one idea they didn't invent for another idea they didn't invent isn't enough to meet the mandates for patentability. It looks to me that I could patent for putting a clock in a door handle without specifying any new technologies necessary to do it that prevented it from happening before. It's about that kind of quality.



    As far as I know, nobody else has invented interchangable plug ends for data cables. I'd call that novel and not "applying one idea they didn't invent." Can you point out exactly who's idea you think they are applying?



    Sure, connecting a flash drive is obvious, prior art, etc, etc. The "unique" aspect of their patent is that they use a single, 6-conductor wire with interchangeable plug ends. So rather than have to carry a Firewire cable and a USB cable around, you carry one wire with different plugs you can attach to the end.



    Sure, it's a stupid idea because you can probably just buy a set of adaptors. And I doubt it's very marketable. But stupid and not economically viable doesn't make it any less patentable. So unless you can point out another product or patent that shows prior art for this concept, I'd say it's a valid patent.



    However, Apple in no way infringes on it. Connecting a flash drive we all agree is obvious prior art. So if they are suing on those grounds they are totally misapplying their own patent. And if they try to sue on the interchangable connectors aspect of their patent they will also lose because the dock connector is not interchangeable.



    The only thing I can imagine is that they are suing because the dock connector "adapts" a cable to act as a USB cable. However, that is not the basis of their patent. Apple is merely combining multiple functions into a single connector, which is a tried-and-true technique and a generic enough concept so as to not be patentable.



    This company is claiming that their patent applies to all future variants of USB and Firewire plug ends that someone may come up with. That is not a legit application of their patent. So while their patent is valid (in my opinion), their lawsuit is not.
  • Reply 23 of 24
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,818member
    Yawn.... I used to get upset by this lawsuit stuff but apparently it's just part of doing business in the U.S. Some loser type is always looking for a quick buck and some shyster lawyer is always willing to file the papers for him. Why? Because there are no consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits in this country. For a few bucks and a willing lawyer you can sue anybody for any reason and not have to worry about getting called out for it. It's just like buying a lottery ticket. Why NOT sue Apple! You might get a few million out of them to make you go away even of your suit is bogus and without merit. And if your case gets the boot, no big deal, you're only out the filing fee. Try a different angle and sue again. Eventually your gamble might pay out just like the slot machine at the casino.
  • Reply 24 of 24
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Sure, connecting a flash drive is obvious, prior art, etc, etc. The "unique" aspect of their patent is that they use a single, 6-conductor wire with interchangeable plug ends. So rather than have to carry a Firewire cable and a USB cable around, you carry one wire with different plugs you can attach to the end.



    Sure, it's a stupid idea because you can probably just buy a set of adaptors. And I doubt it's very marketable. But stupid and not economically viable doesn't make it any less patentable. So unless you can point out another product or patent that shows prior art for this concept, I'd say it's a valid patent



    OK, that makes sense, but it seems like there has to be prior art for that kind of concept too, the problem being is that it's probably pretty obscure prior art given the usefulness of the idea.
Sign In or Register to comment.