Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cferry View Post


    Check out Monec's impressive website to get an idea of the breadth of their business:

    http://www.monec.com/





    .... and their product is....... ??? I want to see the research and development

    on their software.....
  • Reply 62 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cferry View Post


    Check out Monec's impressive website to get an idea of the breadth of their business:

    http://www.monec.com/





    .... and their product is....... ??? I want to see the research and development

    on their software.....
  • Reply 63 of 84
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fast Fred 1 View Post


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

    Apple should just change their verbiage to say ... acceptial size.



    Normal is something that is average or typical. I don't think there is any valid argument to state that a 3.5" 16:9 ratio is in any way 'normal' for reading a book.
  • Reply 64 of 84
    madivanmadivan Posts: 45member
    We should follow Thomas Jefferson's philosophy and throw out all patents, period. You still have copyright and trademark protections, and the best product wins. Patents don't protect anything that deserves to be protected.
  • Reply 65 of 84
    jaspojaspo Posts: 8member
    xxxxx
  • Reply 66 of 84
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    Honestly I wish copyright was more like patent, in at least one respect anyway. Patents last 20 years. Copyright protections can last over 100.
  • Reply 67 of 84
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Guartho View Post


    Honestly I wish copyright was more like patent, in at least one respect anyway. Patents last 20 years. Copyright protections can last over 100.



    So if you were to write a book or a song, you would want to stop collecting royalties after only 20 years?
  • Reply 68 of 84
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,483member
    These absurd patent suits raise the price of products. Don't think that the cost of Apple's defense of all these mostly ridiculous lawsuits isn't factored into product prices. And when Apple (or any corporation) is sued outside of their own state, they usually have to hire outside counsel. That's very expensive.
  • Reply 69 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    These absurd patent suits raise the price of products. Don't think that the cost of Apple's defense of all these mostly ridiculous lawsuits isn't factored into product prices. And when Apple (or any corporation) is sued outside of their own state, they usually have to hire outside counsel. That's very expensive.



    Yes, at least five Macbook Pros. Baseless patent suits are not expensive to have dismissed.
  • Reply 70 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    So if you were to write a book or a song, you would want to stop collecting royalties after only 20 years?



    Perhaps 50 is more reasonable. No point in having them last 100+ years though. If you were born today and somehow wrote a book, you'd likely be dead long before the copyright expired.
  • Reply 71 of 84
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,483member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    So if you were to write a book or a song, you would want to stop collecting royalties after only 20 years?



    The original concept of copyrights was exactly that - that after collecting for a decent period, the work would fall into the public domain. It was never felt that decendents should benefit financially from a work after the author's death and that even the author should only benefit for a certain time. Why should copyrights be treated differently than patents?



    Congress has seen fit to keep extending the copyright time period so that now, for works first published in the U.S. after 2002, it's life of the author + 70 years for works created by individuals and 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first, for works that have corporate authorship. One of the reasons the last extension took place was because of lobbying by Disney because they claimed Mickey Mouse was going to fall into the public domain. Actually, that wasn't true - only the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, was going to fall into the public domain. It's questionable whether if Steamboat Willie fell into the public domain whether that meant that others could create Mickey Mouse cartoons.



    One can argue the benefits or disadvantages of this both ways. On one hand, life expectancy has increased, so the 20 years was probably too short by modern standards. Also, the original intention was to increase distribution of the work by placing it in the public domain, but sometimes the opposite happens: since anyone can then publish the work, a given publisher may choose not to publish the work because if it's popular, another publisher can come in and grab the market. As just one small example, the early works of Edgar Rice Burroughs are now in the public domain, but there's only one or two publishers who bother to publish these classics, because if any were to become popular (let's say if there was a new Tarzan movie or TV series), another publisher could jump in and publish the same title and take away the market. This happened in the 1960's when Ballantine published "authorized" versions of Burroughs' works and Ace paperbacks published competing editions of anything that had fallen into the public domain.



    It seems to me that perhaps the author (and his/her estate) deserves a long copyright term if they're exploiting the asset and doesn't if they're not. So if a book hasn't been published in X years after the initial copyright period has elapsed, perhaps that work SHOULD fall into the public domain so someone else can exploit it.
  • Reply 72 of 84
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by milkmage View Post


    ...not defending anoyone, but that license could have nothing to do with one click. it might have to do with audible content in iTMS. amazon owns audible, no?



    The license reference in iTunes specifically says 1-Click is a registered service mark of Amazon. Audible is listed as a separate license. They should sue Amazon too because they also promote the iPhone as a kindle-compatible eBook reader. I don't see any licensing listing on Amazon's site regarding the Kindle using this alleged patent.



    As I further read in the other posts....apparently the alleged big deal is their claim of a touch-screen device, which rules out the Kindle. Give me a break. If they thought of this genius idea 7 years ago, where is their product to utilize it? The price of the Kindle is way too expensive. I would rather buy the paperback and enjoy reading the way it should be. I enjoy manually turning the page.
  • Reply 73 of 84
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    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.



    Uh, no. The US patent system has always been "first to invent" and remains the only country to have such a system. The only effect the filing date has is on when your patent protection actually starts. Somebody who files later can still get your patent thrown out if he has records that prove he invented the same thing first. And the courts are not the only way to challenge a patent. You can ask USPTO for re-examination of a patent that's been granted. Nobody said anything about the presence or absence of a working prototype, so I don't know why you brought that up. That's never been required under US patent law.
  • Reply 74 of 84
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    I wonder if I can patent a fart then every time Steve Jobs breaks wind I could sue apple for intellectual property rights?
  • Reply 75 of 84
    davidwdavidw Posts: 975member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Congress has seen fit to keep extending the copyright time period so that now, for works first published in the U.S. after 2002, it's life of the author + 70 years for works created by individuals and 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first, for works that have corporate authorship. One of the reasons the last extension took place was because of lobbying by Disney because they claimed Mickey Mouse was going to fall into the public domain. Actually, that wasn't true - only the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, was going to fall into the public domain. It's questionable whether if Steamboat Willie fell into the public domain whether that meant that others could create Mickey Mouse cartoons.





    Actually, if "Steamboat Willie" became public domain, this still won't give anyone the right to use the "Mickey Mouse" character as Disney has a "Trademark" on "Mickey Mouse" (and all of it's cartoon charactors). And a trademark can last forever, if it's still being used it to market a good or service.



    The only thing that would have happen, if "Steamboat Willie" became public domain, is that anyone can use that original work without having to get a license from Disney. Even if Matt Groening wants to digitize Homer Simpson into the work. Which may not be a bad thing.
  • Reply 76 of 84
    jaspojaspo Posts: 8member
    xxxxx
  • Reply 77 of 84
    take this poll: (linkback) Fair or Foul? Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader [VOTE] - http://www.pikk.com/fb053
  • Reply 78 of 84
    Newton?



    Apple had Newton eBook Software clear back in the 90's
  • Reply 79 of 84
    axualaxual Posts: 244member
    I've decided to sue every poster on this thread for publishing my thoughts which I had before they posted their thoughts.



    That would be stupid. So is the eBook reader patent infringement case.
  • Reply 80 of 84
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,535member
    It seems like there are so many examples of prior art it is a puzzle why this even got to court. In addition to the Knowledge Navigator (my favorite) and the Newton and the Sony I have vague recollections of some little portable LCD gadget that would present books on ROM cartridges. This had to be in the late 1980s. Most of the books were dictionaries and other reference works.



    Here is an article from 1991 referencing Alan Kay talking about electronic books in 1971. It also describes other electronic books including this:



    "Bob Stein, a partner in Voyager, said the company chose Apple's new portables because with Macintosh software it is possible to design books with animated drawings, sound effects, and so-called hypertext links, which let readers jump directly to related passages. "Apple, completely unintentionally, created the first electronic book," he said.



    The first titles include "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," a science-fiction trilogy by Douglas Adams, "Jurassic Park," a technological thriller by Michael Crichton, and Martin Gardner's annotated version of "Alice in Wonderland." Priced at $19.95, each will come on a single floppy disk and will display one page of text at a time."



    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/29/we...pagewanted=all



    Another interesting link:

    http://www.fundinguniverse.com/compa...y-History.html



    Quote:

    "Franklin Electronic Publishers, Inc. created the handheld electronic book category in 1986 with the introduction of the Spelling Ace electronic spelling corrector. Electronic books instantly retrieve information for viewing on a liquid crystal display. Users can access this data anywhere--at home, at the office, or while traveling. The Company offers an extensive electronic library including dictionaries and bilingual dictionaries; Bibles; medical reference works; encyclopedias; and entertainment, educational and tutorial publications."





    So in 1986 Franklin was selling a device with an LCD display that presented books from ROM.



    I bet some of those lawyers suing Apple were still playing street baseball when this prior art was on the market.
Sign In or Register to comment.