'Double-click' patent lawsuit attacks Apple's iPhone, iPad
A new patent lawsuit takes aim at a number of major technology companies, including Apple, HTC and Nokia, over a patent related to selecting interactive content with a double-click or double-tap.
Hopewell Culture and Design this month sued the companies claiming violation of U.S. Patent No. 7,171,625, entitled "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element." The patent was first filed for ownership in 2002 by assignee Actify, Inc., based in San Francisco, Calif.
The patents notes that double-clicking has been a feature of computers for some time, but it "has not been used to effect user input to a Web browser that uniquely corresponds to the double-click input."
With regard to Apple, Hopewell believes the company's mobile devices are in violation of the '625 patent. Specifically named in the suit are the iPhone and iPad, which it says have software that allows a user to "double click or double tap a visual element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content."
Aside from naming the iPhone and iPad, the lawsuit makes no mention of what about iOS in particular it believes is in violation of its patent.
Also named in the suit is Adobe, as Hopewell hopes to prove to a court that its Adobe Reader software is in violation of the '625 patent. From HTC, the Droid Eris, Droid Incredible, Hero and EVO smartphones are specifically listed.
Also a target of the lawsuit is Finnish handset maker Nokia, as Hopewell believes its mobile devices, including the N900 and N97 are in violation of the cited patent. The remaining defendants in the suit are LG Electronics, Motorola, browser maker Opera, Palm, Quickoffice, and Samsung.
Hopewell aims to receive "adequate" damages from the numerous technology companies it is targeting. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, a region known for favorable outcomes in patent lawsuits.
Hopewell Culture and Design this month sued the companies claiming violation of U.S. Patent No. 7,171,625, entitled "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element." The patent was first filed for ownership in 2002 by assignee Actify, Inc., based in San Francisco, Calif.
The patents notes that double-clicking has been a feature of computers for some time, but it "has not been used to effect user input to a Web browser that uniquely corresponds to the double-click input."
With regard to Apple, Hopewell believes the company's mobile devices are in violation of the '625 patent. Specifically named in the suit are the iPhone and iPad, which it says have software that allows a user to "double click or double tap a visual element representing interactive content and interact with a second version of the interactive content."
Aside from naming the iPhone and iPad, the lawsuit makes no mention of what about iOS in particular it believes is in violation of its patent.
Also named in the suit is Adobe, as Hopewell hopes to prove to a court that its Adobe Reader software is in violation of the '625 patent. From HTC, the Droid Eris, Droid Incredible, Hero and EVO smartphones are specifically listed.
Also a target of the lawsuit is Finnish handset maker Nokia, as Hopewell believes its mobile devices, including the N900 and N97 are in violation of the cited patent. The remaining defendants in the suit are LG Electronics, Motorola, browser maker Opera, Palm, Quickoffice, and Samsung.
Hopewell aims to receive "adequate" damages from the numerous technology companies it is targeting. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, a region known for favorable outcomes in patent lawsuits.
Comments
A new patent lawsuit takes aim at a number of major technology companies, including Apple, HTC and Nokia, over a patent related to selecting interactive content with a double-click or double-tap....
This sounds like the "inventor" of the double-click is trying to extend it to the double-tap, so he can get paid all over again. Shameless.
It clearly doesn't apply. The title alone: "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element."Implies an "apparatus" (mouse) with which you "click." Tapping with your finger instead of a mouse is entirely different.
Only this particular court (Texas
"Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element."
So... trying to patent the CONCEPT of double-clicking.
Yeah. This will get laughed out of the courtroom. I just wish I was the judge to do the laughing.
Not again...
Not to be rude, but are you a throwaway account designed to make fun of solipsism?
Hopewell Culture and Design this month sued the companies claiming violation of U.S. Patent No. 7,171,625, entitled "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element." The patent was first filed for ownership in 2002 by assignee Actify, Inc., based in San Francisco, Calif.
Hopewell aims to receive "adequate" damages from the numerous technology companies it is targeting. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, a region known for favorable outcomes in patent lawsuits.
Not again...
Agreed. Both companies are based in California, and the suit is filed in Texas? That's a signature mark of a patent troll right there. Another: If you don't have one of the top three hits pointing to their site on a search engine for the organization. Any organization that can afford to pursue in court should have web site. The top ten hits I found were concerning this and other lawsuits.
Someone needs to get a patent for patent trolling so they can sue all these bastards. They are immune to the reasons big companies don't usually sue each other because they don't make anything so they can't be counter sued. Most of these companies acquire the patents from another company, go to a court that doesn't care about the validity of patents (they just blindly enforce them with enormous payouts), sue everyone they can, then pocket the money and close up shop. They normally buy overly generic patents that should never have been granted in the first place so they can sue the largest number of companies.
According to an article linked on the Wikipedia Marshall Court House page, most of the lawyers involved in these patent trolling cases are former ambulance chasers that needed a new line of work after Texas put limits on medical malpractice payouts.
...
Not to be rude, but are you [Solipcyst] a throwaway account designed to make fun of solipsism?
It's the serial troll recently known as iLuv (probably tekstud).
btw..."Jury Trial Demanded". Demanded? Really? REALLY?
It's not just that double click has been around since the Mac, or that the iOs devices are touch, not click, devices but that I can't think of any double touch actions on iOs either.
Dual touch, or multi touch, yes but not the same action twice in rapid succession with one finger.
It's the serial troll recently known as iLuv (probably tekstud).
Yeah, groan. We'll see what his new ID will be when he pops back out of the cesspool.
Read the patent, and it will become clear that it should have never been issued in the first place. That is, if you can get past the massive amounts of rudimentary UI gobbledygook they used to obfuscate the fact that they didn't invent anything new.
Agreed. The patent office should hire people who know to throw this stuff out.
It's not just that double click has been around since the Mac, or that the iOs devices are touch, not click, devices but that I can't think of any double touch actions on iOs either.
Dual touch, or multi touch, yes but not the same action twice in rapid succession with one finger.
Copy and Paste are double taps, but I don't know where a second copy of the content comes in.
This sounds like the "inventor" of the double-click is trying to extend it to the double-tap, so he can get paid all over again. Shameless.
It clearly doesn't apply. The title alone: "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element."Implies an "apparatus" (mouse) with which you "click." Tapping with your finger instead of a mouse is entirely different.
Only this particular court (Texas
Another troll happy company looking for an easy payday, off the sweat of a real company.
But I believe they may not be looking at the double tap, but rather the use of double clicking the home button to get to active applications?
This sounds like the "inventor" of the double-click is trying to extend it to the double-tap, so he can get paid all over again. Shameless.
It clearly doesn't apply. The title alone: "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element."Implies an "apparatus" (mouse) with which you "click." Tapping with your finger instead of a mouse is entirely different.
Only this particular court (Texas
Time for Sol to change back to is previous footer
This sounds like the "inventor" of the double-click is trying to extend it to the double-tap, so he can get paid all over again. Shameless.
It clearly doesn't apply. The title alone: "Double-Clicking a Point-and-Click User Interface Apparatus to Enable a New Interaction with Content represented by an Active Visual Display Element."Implies an "apparatus" (mouse) with which you "click." Tapping with your finger instead of a mouse is entirely different.
Only this particular court (Texas
He's also got a patent on the human finger.
We're all going to be paying a license for our fingers now.
These patents are getting ridiculous. May be Apple will just make us blow into the iPhone instead and patent that too.
That's no doubt already patented up to the hilt by the manufacturers of equipment for quadriplegic patients.