Apple's interface held to the fire in dubious suit

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 80
    beowulfbeowulf Posts: 15member
    I'm pretty clueless on patent stuff. But the article said that that patent was updated in 1991 by Xerox. Would that change anything? Or is it still 20 years from date of filing/approval?
  • Reply 42 of 80
    dmberdmber Posts: 204member
    i hope we don't lose the tabs in finder windows......
  • Reply 43 of 80
    dcqdcq Posts: 349member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post


    Whew. Thank God.



    Nearly ten minutes had gone by without a pack of lawyers trying to make a wad of cash off the success of others. I was beginning to worry the whole world had gone crazy!



    But that ten minutes is over. I can relax now. Musta just been a fluke.



    If you counted 10 minutes, then you probably weren't paying attention. I'm sure someone was sued somewhere for violating some patent on..oh, I don't know..."a method for keeping warm by igniting a fuel source to release thermal energy stored in the chemical bonds of organic compounds."



    Just a little nit-pick. This lawsuit isn't brought by lawyers per-se. It's is brought by a new breed of American parasite: the intellectual property patent holding company.



    Of source, my guess is that these things would be most effective if they were staffed entirely by lawyers...not anyone who actually creates anything. So this is probably just a semantic difference...



    I agree. We should ban software patents. Now.



    But our current crop of money-grubbing politicians--from both parties--wouldn't dream of doing anything so common-sensical and principled. In fact, they are leading the charge to extend patents around the world, through things like the World Trade Organization, even if they cost people their lives (c.f., drug patents).
  • Reply 44 of 80
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajprice View Post


    Have to agree with people here, where have they been for the last 2 years?



    In other news, I am getting fingers patented, so that anyone who uses fingers has to pay me to do so :P .



    Longer than 2 years. There were "interface switching controls" as early as some of the System 7 and System 8 control panels, probably even before. May very well turn out to be an abandoned patent or even prior existing art superseding it on this one.
  • Reply 45 of 80
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    What's worse is that these companies don't come up with these ideas and patent them, they usually buy them from someone and sit on them. These people just go around buying ancient patents that they realize someone is sort of using so they can sue them. Complete BS.
  • Reply 46 of 80
    pomopomo Posts: 51member
    Is that how you spell when you want to sue someone...oh well.



    Come monday, I'm suing apple for the command key .
  • Reply 47 of 80
    philipmphilipm Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr. X View Post


    Here is the link to the patent:



    User interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects



    If that's the correct patent the link with tabs is tenuous. Xerox Workspaces allows you to have a user interface element that links you to another set of windows -- kind of a merger of the idea of a tab and Apple's new Spaces feature -- but in a more sophisticated way. I don't think anyone has actually implemented this exact feature. It's a pity Xerox chose to patent it because that quite likely put a specific brake on its adoption.



    If I understand the feature right, you could have a user interface element which switched to a different logical mix of windows (which could include some of the windows currently on the screen), a much more elegant feature than Spaces or the equivalent multiple workspaces features on X windowing systems, which are really just a mechanism for increasing your screen real estate with virtual screens.



    For example, if you are using Photoshop in conjunction with a web editor, and are moving between the 2 sets of windows, you could make them into a logical group. You may also be using those same Photoshop pictures to add stills into a movie, and make them into a logical group with your movie editor. You could then have a user interface element which allowed you to toggle between the two groups of windows: Photoshop + web editor, or Photoshop + movie editor.



    The user interface element is illustrated as a door in the pictures in the patent (a later version of the idea was called "Rooms" by the PARC researchers who invented it).



    The only value in this lawsuit is in reminding us of the idea now that the patent has expired, so we can contemplate implementing it -- I have seen no evidence that anyone has actually implemented anything close to the actual Xerox PARC innovation. (A patent for Rooms was filed on 27 February 1995, so maybe we will have to wait until 2015 before we can actually see this implemented anywhere ...)



    A classic example of why software patents are idiotic even when they do protect a valid innovation. In this case, the patents have protected the idea from being used. Nice one, Xerox. Not only have you not been able to make anything of this (as usual) but you've sold it to a lawsuit factory. I see no chance that this lawsuit will succeed if Apple has halfway decent lawyers (a nice change for them to have to defend a meritless attack rather than taking on bloggers).
  • Reply 48 of 80
    macinthe408macinthe408 Posts: 1,050member
    When your business plan sucks, sue.
  • Reply 49 of 80
    wtf...they decided to do this now? lol what the hell took so long
  • Reply 50 of 80
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    if i read this patent right....



    They need to sue a lot of people, because it sounds like even having a link on a webpage that you click and loads another webpage in the same window... is violating... I think they should just turn off the internet!
  • Reply 51 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shadow Slayer 26 View Post


    Ummm...doesn't Windows use tabs? Firefox? Almost every new piece of software coming out? Give me a break here, why does everyone come after Apple in these crazy stupid patent infringments?



    They "come after" Apple because they are jealous, and think that people are stupid enough to enforce these. Ha!. These upstart ass**les havent got a leg to stand on!!



    And another point: software patents are a load of crap. All they do is:

    1. create monopolys.

    2. and stiffle innovation!
  • Reply 52 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    The only thing more predictable than these frivolous law suits are the knee-jerk reactions from AppleInsider's "legal experts".



    In other news, I am getting fingers patented, so that anyone who uses fingers has to pay me to do so :P .





    That is so funny! And original!



    Are you a tax man by any chance?
  • Reply 53 of 80
    inkswampinkswamp Posts: 337member
    No worry about this one. If past lawsuits are any indication, Apple will end up paying the patent owner a pittance but in the process will gain partial ownership of the idea and will force the patent owner to go after others who have unlawfully used the idea (i.e., MS) and if they fail to do that then the patent owner will have to come over to Apple corporate campus every Friday to polish Steve's shoes and clean the employee cafeteria with a toothbrush.



    After Creative and Apple Corp, I'm not sure why anyone would want to be on the "winning" end of a lawsuit against Apple.
  • Reply 54 of 80
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    The Patent System should be revised that when one is filing a specific piece of IP it has to explicitly demonstrate all forseen applications of this IP, at the time of filing.



    Any future applications not forseen should have to explicitly demonstrate their domain of applications as well. The first filer would only be capable of declaring infringement if those that follow explicitly utilize this IP within their domain of applications. The same goes for the second, third, so on and so forth.



    The idea may expand with the ingenuity of its applicable domains and not hold any absolute power over all future potential applicable areas of business and advancement.
  • Reply 55 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shadow Slayer 26 View Post


    Ummm...doesn't Windows use tabs? Firefox? Almost every new piece of software coming out? Give me a break here, why does everyone come after Apple in these crazy stupid patent infringments?



    Agreed, and I think I know what's going on.



    Bill Gates dresses up in a brown trench coat with a matching hat. He then walks in the dark allies in the rain to drop of an anonymous paper package tied with tweed. Inside, paperwork pointing fingers at Apple with SUE THEM stamped in red on every sheet.
  • Reply 56 of 80
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    What's this? Xerox PARC traveling back in time to cash in on the ideas Steve Jobs borrowed from the Star on his visit back in the 1970's?
  • Reply 57 of 80
    objra10objra10 Posts: 679member
    The problem isn't with companies that invent ideas, patent them, but never produce a product. The problem is with companies whose whole business model is based on buying other companes patents and enforcing them. It's literally a litigation business model. It's really no better than opening shop as a personal injury lawyer.



    Patent law is a very good thing. It DOES increase innovation because it gives the assurance that if you invent an idea, someone else can't just come along and profit off it without licensing it from you. That's a pretty big deal really.



    That says nothing of the countless "trolls." I agree that these companies should be prohibited from collecting patents and litigating for a profit. I'm not sure the answer - or the best way to prevent it, but it is certainly disgusting.
  • Reply 58 of 80
    fenevadfenevad Posts: 15member
    I'm going to agree that this lawsuit sound pretty frivolous, but I would point out that how obvious a development is now is irrelevant to the case at hand under patent law. Tabs are obvious now because that's the way we've done things and they seem natural. When they were first created they were not so obvious. (And no, tabbed physical folders are not a good analogue at all, despite what some folks here think. Any patent lawyer worth his beans would gut that one in, oh, about thirty seconds.)



    Given ten years or so of practice, we lose the ability to see what was an innovation at the time. It should be obvious to folks that patents are not granted with foreknowledge of where technology will head, but these discussions inevitably turn into people blasting patents from the past for being so obvious now. If they really were so obvious then, why wasn't everyone already doing whatever was being patented? Give it ten years and a lot of what apple has done for the iPhone's interface will seem obvious and there will be people who will rant about how stupid it was to grant patent for some of its features, even though now we're blown away by the innovation...



    There are real problems with IP law in the U.S. (the excessive term, the lack of competence in the Patent Office to evaluate innovation, a cumbersome process to assert prior art, the cottage industry of patent squatters who ram through patents that are excessively broad by the standards of the time and then wait for someone to infringe). This case points some of these problems out (such as selling patents to holding companies that exist for no reason other than law suits and provide no apparent service to the patent creators), but the argument that it was an "obvious" patent doesn't fly in court since the standard is whether it was an innovation at the time.



    -Fenevad
  • Reply 59 of 80
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fenevad View Post


    I'm going to agree that this lawsuit sound pretty frivolous, but I would point out that how obvious a development is now is irrelevant to the case at hand under patent law. Tabs are obvious now because that's the way we've done things and they seem natural. When they were first created they were not so obvious. (And no, tabbed physical folders are not a good analogue at all, despite what some folks here think. Any patent lawyer worth his beans would gut that one in, oh, about thirty seconds.)



    If you think that the analogy doesn't fit, please state your case. The only difference I see is added interactivity, but the basic concept is the same, store lots of information in a smaller area.
  • Reply 60 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Give it a rest, Wilco.



    Is there a "statute of limitations" or comparable thing in patent cases? Don't they have to show that they have used the same patent within a certain period?



    Nope. The patent holder is free to pick and choose which alleged infringements they want to go after.



    Quote:

    (What was that stuff about the iPhone?)



    That was a trademark on the combination of letters which come together to spell the word "iPhone", not a patent on the concept of a particular breed of wireless phone device.



    There are different rules regarding the defence of trademarks as opposed to patents.



    Quote:

    What does this tiny company do, anyway?



    Apparently, it buys the rights to certain technologies, then sits around until it finds a lucrative opportunity to make some money off it, by waiting for others to commercialize the idea (and even waiting until it's so tightly integrated into the product that it would be crippling to remove it midstream) and then demanding compensation.



    NTP recently did this with RIM's Blackberry. Despite the fact that all of the patents in question have been provisionally rejected (and two have been finally rejected) by the USPTO, RIM still decided it would be better business in the long run to just pay a licensing fee and be done with it. RIM is still actively litigating to have those patent rejections upheld on appeal, even though their settlement has protected them from further attacks by NTP.



    Sometimes a patent is truly protecting a novel invention. If so, then the patent holder is fully within its rights to expect compensation for the use of their ideas.



    Sometimes, as the USPTO has decided is the case in the NTP vs RIM case, the patent is later found to be invalid -- that is to say, if all the facts had been available to the examiner at the time the patent was originally being reviewed for acceptance, it probably wouldn't have been allowed in the first place. Even in that case, there's still no guarantee that the patent holder won't still get compensated.
Sign In or Register to comment.