Antenna design = put a piece of metal in a field of radio waves.
.
If that was all there was to it, then Marconi's work would still be SOTA. I think that the engineers can tune them somehow or something like that. And the shape?
Put a piece of metal in a radio field, measure the electrical energy it generates, decipher that electrical energy.
If someone stole my car aerial, is there a patent on replacing it with a wire coat hanger, especially if I bend and reshape it?
Prior art, back to Marconi any physics textbook can tell you how to design an antenna.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI
If that was all there was to it, then Marconi's work would still be SOTA. I think that the engineers can tune them somehow or something like that. And the shape?
Apple has amended its lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more patents, bringing the total count of patents that[ Apple accuses Motorola of violating to 24,
Is Apple using all 24 of these technologies as of now?
Some people think Apple should lose the patents for things which they have not yet implemented. I'm not sure that I agree with that.
Motorola is highly likely to be making 7" and 10" tablets soon showing just how desperate Motorola has become, grasping at anything to stay relevant.
How's that desperate? That's just a reaction to the current market, if tablets are becoming popular then make tablets. Apple made a phone when there business was computers and mp3 players, does that make them desperate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
I suppose you haven't noticed the several thousand hardware patents awarded to Apple since 2005, right? They are massive and cover every area of a smartphone.
There's several awarded to all the companies taking each other to court. I think it would be a bit silly to suggest that there is one clear winner. I think we're just going to have a few years of this until everyone works out who actually owns what. Then everything will be licensed between them as the alternative would be that nobody could actually make a smartphone.
Motorola was once the number one handset maker, selling more handsets than Nokia, Apple is now selling more handsets than Motorola.
The last few years have not been good for Motorola they were slipping into irrelevance, the Droid partnership with Verizon and Google threw them a lifeline, using handsets very similar to the iPhone with a lot of the same functionality.
Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.
After Apple recreated the tablet market with the iPad all of a sudden Motorola wants to get involved, no doubt using some of Apple's patented IP which are the subject of Motorola's invalidation claims.
Desperate moves from a desperate company who had ten years to innovate a tablet device with their previous partners in smartphones i.e. Microsoft.
The fact that they didn't shows just how lacking in innovation Motorola is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
How's that desperate? That's just a reaction to the current market, if tablets are becoming popular then make tablets. Apple made a phone when there business was computers and mp3 players, does that make them desperate.
Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.
That's certainly not unprecedented - and is, in fact, very, very common in patent cases.
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
Or
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
Assuming you don't want to settle, you have to convince the court that you don't infringe or the patent is invalid. If you clearly infringe, then challenging the validity of a patent is your only real option. Even if you don't think you infringe, you still typically challenge the validity of a patent because you only have to win #2 OR #3, so you might as well try both.
That's certainly not unprecedented - and is, in fact, very, very common in patent cases.
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
Or
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
Assuming you don't want to settle, you have to convince the court that you don't infringe or the patent is invalid. If you clearly infringe, then challenging the validity of a patent is your only real option. Even if you don't think you infringe, you still typically challenge the validity of a patent because you only have to win #2 OR #3, so you might as well try both.
That clearly shows the desperation involved. Thanks.
Good. More power to Apple. It's about time. The trade dress infringements alone must be in the hundreds by now.
I'm almost ready to say everyone should simply hand their patents over to Apple, because Apple will actually *do* something with them that's actually worth a damn. Of course, I jest, but you get the idea.
Motorola was once the number one handset maker, selling more handsets than Nokia, Apple is now selling more handsets than Motorola.
The last few years have not been good for Motorola they were slipping into irrelevance, the Droid partnership with Verizon and Google threw them a lifeline, using handsets very similar to the iPhone with a lot of the same functionality.
Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.
After Apple recreated the tablet market with the iPad all of a sudden Motorola wants to get involved, no doubt using some of Apple's patented IP which are the subject of Motorola's invalidation claims.
Desperate moves from a desperate company who had ten years to innovate a tablet device with their previous partners in smartphones i.e. Microsoft.
The fact that they didn't shows just how lacking in innovation Motorola is.
That's still nothing more than regular business though, nothing about it makes them desperate. Calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated is a regular thing to do, particularly when you read the list of them some of them are questionable as to if they are actually valid or not. Plus basically everyone in the phone business is suing everyone else (except for Microsoft, oddly nobody appear to be suing them).
And I still don't get how creating a tablet is desperate? If they made a rubbish tablet and sold it for $50 just to get in the market, that would be desperate. Creating a rival product is just common sense.
That clearly shows the desperation involved. Thanks.
Amazing how you can reach a conclusion like that without knowing the facts involved.
I laid out the potential defenses:
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?
The court will determine who is right based on:
- The content of the patents themselves. They're not going to reach a conclusion without knowing what the battle is about (unlike many of the posters here)
- The specifics of the law. What constitutes a patent violation (it's not as clear cut as you might think)
- The defenses on each side
- The prior art (if it is introduced into evidence)
Ultimately, both sides have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to present their case to the best of their ability and the judge will then decide who wins (or, far more likely, which issues are won by each side).
Just how is it desperation to want to follow the processes allowed by law?
Amazing how you can reach a conclusion like that without knowing the facts involved.
I laid out the potential defenses:
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?
The court will determine who is right based on:
- The content of the patents themselves. They're not going to reach a conclusion without knowing what the battle is about (unlike many of the posters here)
- The specifics of the law. What constitutes a patent violation (it's not as clear cut as you might think)
- The defenses on each side
- The prior art (if it is introduced into evidence)
Ultimately, both sides have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to present their case to the best of their ability and the judge will then decide who wins (or, far more likely, which issues are won by each side).
Just how is it desperation to want to follow the processes allowed by law?
Regardless of my biases, I have to agree with this.
No. The legal department at Apple must just be doing this because they've got nothing better to do......
Some people think that if a company beats the patent holder to market, the patent holder should lose their right to sue for infringement.
The question is not whether Apple holds the patents. The question is whether Apple has implemented the patents and is currently using them. They think that if a company is first to market, the patent holder should lose out.
Some people think that if Apple is not actually producing products that use each of the patents in question, the patent should be declared void. I'm not sure I agree.
I think that their viewpoint may be based upon certain misunderstandings of public policy.
Some people think that if a company beats the patent holder to market, the patent holder should lose their right to sue for infringement.
The question is not whether Apple holds the patents. The question is whether Apple has implemented the patents and is currently using them. They think that if a company is first to market, the patent holder should lose out.
Some people think that if Apple is not actually producing products that use each of the patents in question, the patent should be declared void. I'm not sure I agree.
I think that their viewpoint may be based upon certain misunderstandings of public policy.
Some people are idiots. Should we listen to them, too?
Public policy, as codified by the patent system, is that the person who holds a patent has the right to enforce their patent and prevent others from infringing - whether they actually introduce a product or not.
There is a very good reason for this policy. If you required that someone must implement a technology to enforce their patent, small inventors would be out of the game - and large companies would be free to infringe at will. Let's say I invent a new process that would improve microprocessor manufacturing by 100%. There's no way I could actually implement that process or produce a commercial product - since I don't have $1,000,000,000 to start a microprocessor fab facility. The policy you're suggesting would make it impossible for me to ever be rewarded for my invention. Intel could steal it and use it in their fabs, secure in the knowledge that I can't do it - and therefore would be unable to enforce the patent.
There are plenty of problems with the patent system, but that is not one of them. They got that one exactly right.
Some people are idiots. Should we listen to them, too?
Public policy, as codified by the patent system, is that the person who holds a patent has the right to enforce their patent and prevent others from infringing - whether they actually introduce a product or not.
There is a very good reason for this policy. If you required that someone must implement a technology to enforce their patent, small inventors would be out of the game - and large companies would be free to infringe at will. Let's say I invent a new process that would improve microprocessor manufacturing by 100%. There's no way I could actually implement that process or produce a commercial product - since I don't have $1,000,000,000 to start a microprocessor fab facility. The policy you're suggesting would make it impossible for me to ever be rewarded for my invention. Intel could steal it and use it in their fabs, secure in the knowledge that I can't do it - and therefore would be unable to enforce the patent.
There are plenty of problems with the patent system, but that is not one of them. They got that one exactly right.
These sound like well thought out arguments.
So would it follow that you don't agree with the folks who call some patent holders "patent whores"? I never thought that those people's reasoning was very convincing, and you have presented a good POV to counter their stuff.
So would it follow that you don't agree with the folks who call some patent holders "patent whores"? I never thought that those people's reasoning was very convincing, and you have presented a good POV to counter their stuff.
I never said there was no such thing as a patent whore. Clearly, some people abuse the system.
For example, there are people pushing through patents that they know aren't valid. Or they're suing people for patents when there is no evidence of infringement. Or they're playing forum shopping games to get to a forum which overwhelmingly favors plaintiffs against large corporations in patent cases - without regard to the actual evidence. The system is cumbersome and difficult to manage and it is clearly being abused by some people.
However, if someone legitimately obtains a patent (either by inventing something or purchasing a valid patent from someone else), they have the right to defend that patent.
But I'll bet Motorola knows how to spell 'defensively'.
Bottom line is that Motorola has patents. They are entitled to project them. Apple has patents. Apple is entitled to protect them.
The facts will come out during the court case.
Personally, I suspect that Motorola is in the wrong here because they appear not to have offered Apple the same fair and non-discriminatory terms as everyone else (see above for the logic), but they have the absolute right to defend their patents.
But I'll bet Motorola knows how to spell 'defensively'.
Bottom line is that Motorola has patents. They are entitled to project them. Apple has patents. Apple is entitled to protect them.
The facts will come out during the court case.
Personally, I suspect that Motorola is in the wrong here because they appear not to have offered Apple the same fair and non-discriminatory terms as everyone else (see above for the logic), but they have the absolute right to defend their patents.
Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.
Comments
Antenna design = put a piece of metal in a field of radio waves.
.
If that was all there was to it, then Marconi's work would still be SOTA. I think that the engineers can tune them somehow or something like that. And the shape?
Maybe I'm wrong.
If someone stole my car aerial, is there a patent on replacing it with a wire coat hanger, especially if I bend and reshape it?
Prior art, back to Marconi any physics textbook can tell you how to design an antenna.
If that was all there was to it, then Marconi's work would still be SOTA. I think that the engineers can tune them somehow or something like that. And the shape?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Apple has amended its lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more patents, bringing the total count of patents that[ Apple accuses Motorola of violating to 24,
Is Apple using all 24 of these technologies as of now?
Some people think Apple should lose the patents for things which they have not yet implemented. I'm not sure that I agree with that.
Motorola is highly likely to be making 7" and 10" tablets soon showing just how desperate Motorola has become, grasping at anything to stay relevant.
How's that desperate? That's just a reaction to the current market, if tablets are becoming popular then make tablets. Apple made a phone when there business was computers and mp3 players, does that make them desperate?
I suppose you haven't noticed the several thousand hardware patents awarded to Apple since 2005, right? They are massive and cover every area of a smartphone.
There's several awarded to all the companies taking each other to court. I think it would be a bit silly to suggest that there is one clear winner. I think we're just going to have a few years of this until everyone works out who actually owns what. Then everything will be licensed between them as the alternative would be that nobody could actually make a smartphone.
The last few years have not been good for Motorola they were slipping into irrelevance, the Droid partnership with Verizon and Google threw them a lifeline, using handsets very similar to the iPhone with a lot of the same functionality.
Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.
After Apple recreated the tablet market with the iPad all of a sudden Motorola wants to get involved, no doubt using some of Apple's patented IP which are the subject of Motorola's invalidation claims.
Desperate moves from a desperate company who had ten years to innovate a tablet device with their previous partners in smartphones i.e. Microsoft.
The fact that they didn't shows just how lacking in innovation Motorola is.
How's that desperate? That's just a reaction to the current market, if tablets are becoming popular then make tablets. Apple made a phone when there business was computers and mp3 players, does that make them desperate.
Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.
That's certainly not unprecedented - and is, in fact, very, very common in patent cases.
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
Or
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
Assuming you don't want to settle, you have to convince the court that you don't infringe or the patent is invalid. If you clearly infringe, then challenging the validity of a patent is your only real option. Even if you don't think you infringe, you still typically challenge the validity of a patent because you only have to win #2 OR #3, so you might as well try both.
That's certainly not unprecedented - and is, in fact, very, very common in patent cases.
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
Or
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
Assuming you don't want to settle, you have to convince the court that you don't infringe or the patent is invalid. If you clearly infringe, then challenging the validity of a patent is your only real option. Even if you don't think you infringe, you still typically challenge the validity of a patent because you only have to win #2 OR #3, so you might as well try both.
That clearly shows the desperation involved. Thanks.
I'm almost ready to say everyone should simply hand their patents over to Apple, because Apple will actually *do* something with them that's actually worth a damn. Of course, I jest, but you get the idea.
Motorola was once the number one handset maker, selling more handsets than Nokia, Apple is now selling more handsets than Motorola.
The last few years have not been good for Motorola they were slipping into irrelevance, the Droid partnership with Verizon and Google threw them a lifeline, using handsets very similar to the iPhone with a lot of the same functionality.
Motorola not only sued Apple for patent infringement they also took the unprecedented step of calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated.
After Apple recreated the tablet market with the iPad all of a sudden Motorola wants to get involved, no doubt using some of Apple's patented IP which are the subject of Motorola's invalidation claims.
Desperate moves from a desperate company who had ten years to innovate a tablet device with their previous partners in smartphones i.e. Microsoft.
The fact that they didn't shows just how lacking in innovation Motorola is.
That's still nothing more than regular business though, nothing about it makes them desperate. Calling for some of Apples patents to be invalidated is a regular thing to do, particularly when you read the list of them some of them are questionable as to if they are actually valid or not. Plus basically everyone in the phone business is suing everyone else (except for Microsoft, oddly nobody appear to be suing them).
And I still don't get how creating a tablet is desperate? If they made a rubbish tablet and sold it for $50 just to get in the market, that would be desperate. Creating a rival product is just common sense.
Is Apple using all 24 of these technologies as of now?
Some people think Apple should lose the patents for things which they have not yet implemented. I'm not sure that I agree with that.
No. The legal department at Apple must just be doing this because they've got nothing better to do......
That clearly shows the desperation involved. Thanks.
Amazing how you can reach a conclusion like that without knowing the facts involved.
I laid out the potential defenses:
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?
The court will determine who is right based on:
- The content of the patents themselves. They're not going to reach a conclusion without knowing what the battle is about (unlike many of the posters here)
- The specifics of the law. What constitutes a patent violation (it's not as clear cut as you might think)
- The defenses on each side
- The prior art (if it is introduced into evidence)
Ultimately, both sides have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to present their case to the best of their ability and the judge will then decide who wins (or, far more likely, which issues are won by each side).
Just how is it desperation to want to follow the processes allowed by law?
Amazing how you can reach a conclusion like that without knowing the facts involved.
I laid out the potential defenses:
If you are sued for patent infringement, you have a number of options:
1. settle with the patent holder
2. convince the court that your product doesn't infringe
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?
The court will determine who is right based on:
- The content of the patents themselves. They're not going to reach a conclusion without knowing what the battle is about (unlike many of the posters here)
- The specifics of the law. What constitutes a patent violation (it's not as clear cut as you might think)
- The defenses on each side
- The prior art (if it is introduced into evidence)
Ultimately, both sides have the right (and obligation to their shareholders) to present their case to the best of their ability and the judge will then decide who wins (or, far more likely, which issues are won by each side).
Just how is it desperation to want to follow the processes allowed by law?
Regardless of my biases, I have to agree with this.
No. The legal department at Apple must just be doing this because they've got nothing better to do......
Some people think that if a company beats the patent holder to market, the patent holder should lose their right to sue for infringement.
The question is not whether Apple holds the patents. The question is whether Apple has implemented the patents and is currently using them. They think that if a company is first to market, the patent holder should lose out.
Some people think that if Apple is not actually producing products that use each of the patents in question, the patent should be declared void. I'm not sure I agree.
I think that their viewpoint may be based upon certain misunderstandings of public policy.
Some people think that if a company beats the patent holder to market, the patent holder should lose their right to sue for infringement.
The question is not whether Apple holds the patents. The question is whether Apple has implemented the patents and is currently using them. They think that if a company is first to market, the patent holder should lose out.
Some people think that if Apple is not actually producing products that use each of the patents in question, the patent should be declared void. I'm not sure I agree.
I think that their viewpoint may be based upon certain misunderstandings of public policy.
Some people are idiots. Should we listen to them, too?
Public policy, as codified by the patent system, is that the person who holds a patent has the right to enforce their patent and prevent others from infringing - whether they actually introduce a product or not.
There is a very good reason for this policy. If you required that someone must implement a technology to enforce their patent, small inventors would be out of the game - and large companies would be free to infringe at will. Let's say I invent a new process that would improve microprocessor manufacturing by 100%. There's no way I could actually implement that process or produce a commercial product - since I don't have $1,000,000,000 to start a microprocessor fab facility. The policy you're suggesting would make it impossible for me to ever be rewarded for my invention. Intel could steal it and use it in their fabs, secure in the knowledge that I can't do it - and therefore would be unable to enforce the patent.
There are plenty of problems with the patent system, but that is not one of them. They got that one exactly right.
Some people are idiots. Should we listen to them, too?
Public policy, as codified by the patent system, is that the person who holds a patent has the right to enforce their patent and prevent others from infringing - whether they actually introduce a product or not.
There is a very good reason for this policy. If you required that someone must implement a technology to enforce their patent, small inventors would be out of the game - and large companies would be free to infringe at will. Let's say I invent a new process that would improve microprocessor manufacturing by 100%. There's no way I could actually implement that process or produce a commercial product - since I don't have $1,000,000,000 to start a microprocessor fab facility. The policy you're suggesting would make it impossible for me to ever be rewarded for my invention. Intel could steal it and use it in their fabs, secure in the knowledge that I can't do it - and therefore would be unable to enforce the patent.
There are plenty of problems with the patent system, but that is not one of them. They got that one exactly right.
These sound like well thought out arguments.
So would it follow that you don't agree with the folks who call some patent holders "patent whores"? I never thought that those people's reasoning was very convincing, and you have presented a good POV to counter their stuff.
These sound like well thought out arguments.
So would it follow that you don't agree with the folks who call some patent holders "patent whores"? I never thought that those people's reasoning was very convincing, and you have presented a good POV to counter their stuff.
I never said there was no such thing as a patent whore. Clearly, some people abuse the system.
For example, there are people pushing through patents that they know aren't valid. Or they're suing people for patents when there is no evidence of infringement. Or they're playing forum shopping games to get to a forum which overwhelmingly favors plaintiffs against large corporations in patent cases - without regard to the actual evidence. The system is cumbersome and difficult to manage and it is clearly being abused by some people.
However, if someone legitimately obtains a patent (either by inventing something or purchasing a valid patent from someone else), they have the right to defend that patent.
3. convince the court that the patent is invalid.
How is it desperation for Motorola to use the defenses that the law allows (or for Apple to fight them)?
Motorola did this offensively, not defencively.
But I'll bet Motorola knows how to spell 'defensively'.
Bottom line is that Motorola has patents. They are entitled to project them. Apple has patents. Apple is entitled to protect them.
The facts will come out during the court case.
Personally, I suspect that Motorola is in the wrong here because they appear not to have offered Apple the same fair and non-discriminatory terms as everyone else (see above for the logic), but they have the absolute right to defend their patents.
But I'll bet Motorola knows how to spell 'defensively'.
Bottom line is that Motorola has patents. They are entitled to project them. Apple has patents. Apple is entitled to protect them.
The facts will come out during the court case.
Personally, I suspect that Motorola is in the wrong here because they appear not to have offered Apple the same fair and non-discriminatory terms as everyone else (see above for the logic), but they have the absolute right to defend their patents.
Isn't part of the problem the timing? I believe some of the Motorola patents have to do with wifi, and if true they should have sued when Apple implemented wifi earlier in the century.
Nor is there any evidence that it doesn't.
Feel free to study the patents in enough detail to understand them and then look up what FAND licensing covers to form an educated opinion.
Feel free to be a dumbass troll.