Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 84
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post


    As others have said, this falls over at claim 1

    - the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen



    (which the 'inventors' think is important to the 'invention', or they wouldn't mention it in claim 1)



    The article does not mention a "book-sized screen".

    As quoted from the patent - "approximately one page of a book can be illustrated at normal size".



    What is "normal size"? Compare a paperback to its hardback version, which is maybe twice the size?

    And since an e-book may not have ever been published as a hard copy, how can the normal size be determined.



    The last line in the 1st paragraph of the patent - "and in this case has a relatively large display" - to me, would rule out the iPhone as it definitiely is not a "relatively large screen" at half the size of an A format paperback.
  • Reply 42 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    No LCD screen, they use e-paper.



    E-paper can technically be an LCD, or Liquid Crystal Display. The ones used for e-paper are referred to as Zero-power LCDs, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if the Kindle uses this category of LCD or not. Regardless, I think this patent is bogus as stated.
  • Reply 43 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    The article does not mention a "book-sized screen".

    As quoted from the patent - "approximately one page of a book can be illustrated at normal size".



    [...]



    That is a good point.
  • Reply 44 of 84
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    You know that Alexander Graham Bell bribed the patent examined to get his patent application processed before Elisha Gray patent, which was submitted the earlier the same day! There was even testimonies that Graham Bell looked at Gray's patent application before he submitted his.



    Would that help, even if it were true? The US patent system is "first to invent," not "first to file" like everywhere else in the world. Even if Bell got his application in first, if Gray could prove that his work predated Bell's, he could have had Bell's patent invalidated.
  • Reply 45 of 84
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    Would that help, even if it were true? The US patent system is "first to invent," not "first to file" like everywhere else in the world. Even if Bell got his application in first, if Gray could prove that his work predated Bell's, he could have had Bell's patent invalidated.



    Unfortunately from what we are seeing now it is about "first to file". I brought that story up to show how the patent system could be manipulated. It doesn't matter whether you have a working product or not and the only way to invalidate a patent is through the courts.
  • Reply 46 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is a good point.



    eh?

    From claim 1 of the patent:

    "said display has dimensions such that one page of a book can be displayed at a normal size"

    - this implies a book-sized screen, right?



    Anyway, as I said, the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen, so Claim 1 doesn't apply...
  • Reply 47 of 84
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Hello, McFly!!!!!! Kindle?



    Why is it that these lawsuits always target Apple and ignore all the other potential violators?



    Also, where is their ebook reader? According to patent law, you have 5 years to produce something to support your patent.
  • Reply 48 of 84
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Anyone that has seen star trek knows this doesn't pass the prior art criteria.
  • Reply 49 of 84
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    Well, even if it turns out that the patent does not affect the iPhone, because of the

    size, it might be important for Apple to resolve this, if they ever expect to produce

    a tablet or larger iPod touch device.
  • Reply 50 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Since the discussion has moved onto a debate about inventors at each other, I recommend reading up on Thomas Edison v. Nikola Tesla. I find the story very intriguing and have to side with the real inventor Tesla over the business man Edison.
    The history is very rich. As children in the US we are taught that Edison created the first light bulb, when in reality this was not true. He created the first commercially practical incandescent light bulb. But even this may not technically be his invention, only an invention of his company as he hired many inventors to invent items at break neck speeds.



    Then there is the issue with the modern light bulb, which we get from Tesla. As i remember it, Tesla was commissioned to provide electric lighting to London, but since he was using the much better long-distance option of AC over Edision's push for DC, Edision refused to license the light bulb to the city. So Telsa had to invent a different light bulb that did not step on Edison's patents. The result was a much easier to use, modern, screw in light bulb that was cheaper to produce.



    (That could all be wrong as I've found that much of the history I thought I knew was complete bullocks)
  • Reply 51 of 84
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    What's next? A lawsuit because Apple produces a portable device capable of playing music and has a logo that resembles an Apple.... oh wait, nevermind.



    Not sure if anyone ever meant to suggest that Apple Computer has never been on the other side of patent cases - including some in which they may not have had a preponderance of clear evidence in their favor. What seems odd is that Apple seems to be number one on the hit list for having such patents filed against them. Is that because they are so visible a target? is it because they are so cutting edge that they are the first to produce products which are likely to trigger such claims? Could it be the company is just a clear and easy target with deep pockets? Or could it be in part that the media is more prone to pick up on stories involving Apple because it makes good press?
  • Reply 52 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post


    eh?

    From claim 1 of the patent:

    "said display has dimensions such that one page of a book can be displayed at a normal size"

    - this implies a book-sized screen, right?



    Anyway, as I said, the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen, so Claim 1 doesn't apply...



    That is why I thought it was a good point, since the iPhone/Touch doesn't have a normal size screen and therefore cannot display a single book page in normal size.
  • Reply 53 of 84
    If they were going to sue anyone they should have sued MS years ago. MS distributed MS Reader that worked on Pocket PCs/Windows Mobile devices which is NO different than Apple and the iPhone etc.



    Or they could have sued eReader (Peanut Press) or MobiPocket, or any of a bunch of others that disctributed software that allows eBook reading on a touch-screen device.



    No matter how you slice it up, it ends up coming off as nothing but a PR stunt - if it was otherwise, they would have raised suit long before now agains a lot of different companies.
  • Reply 54 of 84
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    This is a prime example of the foolishness that has become of the once-proud american patent system. YOU CAN'T PATENT an IDEA, just a METHOD. Putting print on a small screen isn't an original idea. (By the way, yesterday I was in a waiting room and read an entire chapter of "Dreams from My Father." Dude can write.)



    I think that the Rubicon was passed when we lost our manufacturing cababilities overseas, and thus, American business has become a hollow shell. A certain engine, a certain vacuum tube, or the cotton gin, were patentable. You'd make one of your own, and license other versions. You couldn't obviously patent the idea of a vacuum tube, just the one you made that did x through a new method nobody else had. And then you could only patent that for a short while. When the finance boys take over the economy, all these common-sense practicalities become mystified.



    Oh, by the way, I invented the forum response on websites, so you guys all owe me .15 apiece.
  • Reply 55 of 84
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post


    eh?

    From claim 1 of the patent:

    "said display has dimensions such that one page of a book can be displayed at a normal size"

    - this implies a book-sized screen, right?



    Sort of.

    What size is "book-sized"?

    Is there a specification for the physical size of an e-book? Doubtful since an e-book is a bunch of electrons and not a physical product. Besides, a single page could be displayed on an iPhone or a 60" plasma.



    I have a dictionary here that is 13" x 9". I also have some books at home that are about the size of an iPhone.



    Quote:

    Anyway, as I said, the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen, so Claim 1 doesn't apply...



    Looking at the patent though, they spell it out...



    "4. An electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said housing has external dimensions of between 12.times.18 cm and 24.times.32 cm and a height of approximately 1 to 3 cm."



    The iPhone is 11.5 cm x 6.2 cm x 1.2 cm so it's a lot smaller than they describe, so you are correct, claim 1 would not apply.
  • Reply 56 of 84
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    I live in Switzerland and have NEVER heard of these patent squatters...in fact, the patent itself is stupidly absurd...another "gift" from the moronic yet selfish US patent system, which started this whole crap about software patents in the first place, not to mention the favorable consideration of more than obvious claims...go figure.
  • Reply 57 of 84
    cferrycferry Posts: 25member
    Check out Monec's impressive website to get an idea of the breadth of their business:

    http://www.monec.com/

  • Reply 58 of 84
    echosonicechosonic Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kerryn View Post


    They can't sue the Kindle as it is not a "touch screen" device, whereas the iPhone/iPod Touch is.



    Its all about money.
  • Reply 59 of 84
    echosonicechosonic Posts: 454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cubert View Post


    Hello, McFly!!!!!! Kindle?



    Why is it that these lawsuits always target Apple and ignore all the other potential violators?



    I can think of twenty-five billion reasons.
  • Reply 60 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    In US law at least, this description:

    Would seem to fail the "non obvious" clause as well as being far too generalized of a description.



    It also doesn't describe the iPhone as you cannot describe a 2x3 screen as displaying "one page of a book ... at normal size."



    Normal size..... what the hell's normal...books come in a bunch of sizes.

    Apple should just change their verbiage to say ... acceptial size.
Sign In or Register to comment.