The law was changed a couple of years back, so that it was easier to get a patent (you didn't have to prove no prior art etc anymore) but if it was challenged you THEN had to prove it was a valid patent.
I think McDonalds patented a ham and cheese sandwich at the time, from memory. Seriously.
"An edible item containing slices of bread on the outside and a filling such as ham and cheese within"
... it was actually much more detailed and legal sounding...
Ahh... some more sandwich patent info, not QUITE as bad as I thought:
I forgot all about that. I think I did that trick once. Suing Apple, Microsoft and Google really takes some 'nads. I hope they drive this troll company to the poor house.
The 4-page complaint filed this month by Arizon-based Cygnus Systems, Inc charges all three companies with infringing on its March 2008 US patent No. 7,346,850, titled "System and Method for Iconic Software Environment Management."
Cygnus, which bills itself as a provider of "unique computing, networking and application needs of small to midsized businesses" in the state of Michigan, is seeking a damages in addition to an injunction prohibiting the three companies from further infringement.
"The [patent] generally relates to methods of and systems for accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, wherein the graphical icon includes an image of a selected portion or portions of the one or more computer files," the suit says.
This has been around for decades. Every single icon on every single GUI-based computer going back to the very first icon pulls an "image" from "one or more computer files." Every single GUI interface used icons going back to the original GUIs developed by Xerox PARC done in the early 1970's. That is over 35 years of icons that do exactly what the quote indicates they patented (I have not looked at the actual patent).
From that description, there is absolutely no basis for this patent to stand on.
OK, if the patent wasn't approved until this past March, then in the meantime how could anyone have infringed upon a patent that didn't exist until now. It is not officially patented until it is approved right?
That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.
Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?
If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?
Unlike a lot of times on this site, I don't think this is just a case of the Apple Defense Force coming in to protect Apple at any cost.
There are two huge issues with this patent:
1) As numerous people have stated, there seems to be a large amount of prior art to invalidate this patent. When I went off to college in 1994, the Macs on campus could generate thumbnail icons of image files. That's 4 years before this patent was applied for.
2) The concept seems completely obvious. What is the point of an icon? To give the user an indication of what is in the file. What better way to let the user know what is in the file than to actually show them what is in the file.
I have to agree that I don't think GUI patents should be allowed. How screwed would the computer industry be if someone had a patent for the text box GUI element?
That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.
Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?
Then why wait so damn long. Microsoft and Apple have done it for years. Hell even Linux does it with both Gnome and KDE. Why not sue the maker of Ubuntu and Fedora. I have serious doubts as to the validity of the case.
These are patent trolls and deserve to be countersued into oblivion.
I'm not sure these people can even be classified as patent trolls. I see a patent troll as someone who has a legitmate new idea, but then does nothing with it, they just wait for someone else to make a working viable product before crying foul and wanting lots of money. These people patented something that already existed.
I'm not sure these people can even be classified as patent trolls. I see a patent troll as someone who has a legitmate new idea, but then does nothing with it, they just wait for someone else to make a working viable product before crying foul and wanting lots of money. These people patented something that already existed.
I don't know if there is an easy way to describe that.
What is called patent trolling don't necessarily encompass ideas that are legitimately patentable either.
That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.
Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
(...)
However, there is prior art of a published software product that had at least partially implemented this capability, going back at least as far as August 1995 (Windows 95) for certain, possibly 1988 or 1982, see posts above. This prior art predates the patent's filing, which might severely limit the patent's scope or validity.
Comments
I just did this with the word "The", "the", "THE", "tHe", "thE", and "tHE".
I'm going to sue all of you who are using it in any sentence which is publicly displayed in any shape or form.
Your patent is worthless without "teh".
I think McDonalds patented a ham and cheese sandwich at the time, from memory. Seriously.
"An edible item containing slices of bread on the outside and a filling such as ham and cheese within"
... it was actually much more detailed and legal sounding...
Ahh... some more sandwich patent info, not QUITE as bad as I thought:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34
Exactly. The patent should have never been awarded.
Check it out.
I forgot all about that. I think I did that trick once. Suing Apple, Microsoft and Google really takes some 'nads. I hope they drive this troll company to the poor house.
The 4-page complaint filed this month by Arizon-based Cygnus Systems, Inc charges all three companies with infringing on its March 2008 US patent No. 7,346,850, titled "System and Method for Iconic Software Environment Management."
Cygnus, which bills itself as a provider of "unique computing, networking and application needs of small to midsized businesses" in the state of Michigan, is seeking a damages in addition to an injunction prohibiting the three companies from further infringement.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I don't get why they're Arizona based and then seeming to do their primary business in Michigan.
"The [patent] generally relates to methods of and systems for accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, wherein the graphical icon includes an image of a selected portion or portions of the one or more computer files," the suit says.
This has been around for decades. Every single icon on every single GUI-based computer going back to the very first icon pulls an "image" from "one or more computer files." Every single GUI interface used icons going back to the original GUIs developed by Xerox PARC done in the early 1970's. That is over 35 years of icons that do exactly what the quote indicates they patented (I have not looked at the actual patent).
From that description, there is absolutely no basis for this patent to stand on.
Stupid, silly in the extreme.
OK, if the patent wasn't approved until this past March, then in the meantime how could anyone have infringed upon a patent that didn't exist until now. It is not officially patented until it is approved right?
That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.
Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?
i patented ":-)" last week
im now going to sue you all
where's my lawyer
mwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa, im going to be rich!
Actually a Russian guy has already patented most popular smileys not so long ago - I think news was published a few weeks ago.
You are to slow, and think again next time you want to put smiley in your post
If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?
Unlike a lot of times on this site, I don't think this is just a case of the Apple Defense Force coming in to protect Apple at any cost.
There are two huge issues with this patent:
1) As numerous people have stated, there seems to be a large amount of prior art to invalidate this patent. When I went off to college in 1994, the Macs on campus could generate thumbnail icons of image files. That's 4 years before this patent was applied for.
2) The concept seems completely obvious. What is the point of an icon? To give the user an indication of what is in the file. What better way to let the user know what is in the file than to actually show them what is in the file.
I have to agree that I don't think GUI patents should be allowed. How screwed would the computer industry be if someone had a patent for the text box GUI element?
Actually a Russian guy has already patented most popular smileys not so long ago - I think news was published a few weeks ago.
You are to slow, and think again next time you want to put smiley in your post
bugger!
That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.
Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?
Then why wait so damn long. Microsoft and Apple have done it for years. Hell even Linux does it with both Gnome and KDE. Why not sue the maker of Ubuntu and Fedora. I have serious doubts as to the validity of the case.
The patent was approved in March 2008.
However, it was filed on 8 June 2001 and is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/097,283, filed Jun. 12, 1998 now abandoned.
The Wang Freestyle had a GUI with icons that depicted file contents back in 1988.
I am not sure, but I think the Xerox Star family had that in 1982.
These are patent trolls and deserve to be countersued into oblivion.
These are patent trolls and deserve to be countersued into oblivion.
I'm not sure these people can even be classified as patent trolls. I see a patent troll as someone who has a legitmate new idea, but then does nothing with it, they just wait for someone else to make a working viable product before crying foul and wanting lots of money. These people patented something that already existed.
I'm not sure these people can even be classified as patent trolls. I see a patent troll as someone who has a legitmate new idea, but then does nothing with it, they just wait for someone else to make a working viable product before crying foul and wanting lots of money. These people patented something that already existed.
I don't know if there is an easy way to describe that.
What is called patent trolling don't necessarily encompass ideas that are legitimately patentable either.
That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.
Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
(...)
However, there is prior art of a published software product that had at least partially implemented this capability, going back at least as far as August 1995 (Windows 95) for certain, possibly 1988 or 1982, see posts above. This prior art predates the patent's filing, which might severely limit the patent's scope or validity.
I mean just because I think about something that's been patented, does that mean I'm violating the patent?
Poo poo patents.