Some guy has made it his life's work to keep repeating the meme in the hope that we're stupid enough to believe him. I'm gonna start flagging for ban whenever I see it soon because it's so unbelievably dumb.
The court has already set a precedent on the infringing patent. Devices that are not named on the original lawsuit are not covered in the original settlement. Therefore, its correct to file another lawsuit on a different set of products.
It's the same case with Apple suing Samsung over the original Galaxy S's and Tabs.
But when Samsung launches the Galaxy S II in the US, they can go after them about it using the same type of lawsuit ( assuming the original wins that is).
You people can see one way but not the other way. How sad.
You people can see one way but not the other way. How sad.
Except nobody has denied that Personal Audio almost certain to win this, plenty of people here think these are crappy patents, but some of us also think that Apple's main patent against HTC is crappy.
Really it seems like you're determined to see stuff that isn't there.
So if Ford were taken to court for faulty fuel injectors across all of their models...could they be taken to court individually for each vehicle model?
This is not what happened.
Apple was sued for only a few models. Now Personal audio is going after the other models.
I would disagree. Apple gets sued all the time over general concepts and business processes that should not be patentable (IMO). Take this lawsuit. I don't think anyone should be able to get a patent for the idea of copying a playlist from one device to another. If they had some special technical method or unique file format for copying the playlist, then that might be patentable. But what is a playlist? It's nothing but data. Why is it different than the old ability of Blackberries to exchange business cards?
Likewise, I don't think Amazon should have been able to get a patent for "one-click". Storing data in a database and retrieving it based on the entry of a username and password is a concept as old as databases. And yet Apple is licensing "one-click" from Amazon.
But on the other hand, every other smartphone has copied Apple's design and UI. No one's smartphone (if they had any) looked anything like what Apple eventually developed, but once Apple did, they all looked uncannily like the iPhone and most acted like an iPhone from a UI perspective. And yet Apple hasn't sued anyone over that (yet).
I do think that the patent system has become absurd. Patents were never supposed to be given for ideas, but for the implementation of ideas. Can I get a patent for "time travel" and "flying cars" merely because I can think of the idea? Can I get a patent for having all devices sync to each other by detecting the presence of another device when I walk into a room? It's just an idea - I have absolutely no specific technology that can accomplish this. Today, I probably could get the patent. But I shouldn't be able to. At the very least, inventors should have to show a working implementation, even if it's not in an actual commercial product.
I would disagree. Apple gets sued all the time over general concepts and business processes that should not be patentable (IMO).
Absolutely, but many of the patents that they have asserted against opponents fit the same profile, certainly most of the ones they asserted against HTC.
Quote:
But on the other hand, every other smartphone has copied Apple's design and UI. No one's smartphone (if they had any) looked anything like what Apple eventually developed, but once Apple did, they all looked uncannily like the iPhone and most acted like an iPhone from a UI perspective. And yet Apple hasn't sued anyone over that (yet).
Kinda, sorta, ish. A lot of the UI elements that Android copies from Apple weren't novel. A grid of icons for example was also present on the LG Prada, not to mention being fairly obvious. Single finger touch as metaphor for panning wasn't new, etc. Apple has some functional patents for UI elements, but they are very specific and easily avoided things like the 'rubber-banding' when you pan off the edge of an image. With the other stuff Apple is forced to rely on design patents to protect the non-functional aesthetic choices, such as the slight rounding of their icons - so far it's only asserted those against Samsung afaik.
Quote:
I do think that the patent system has become absurd. Patents were never supposed to be given for ideas, but for the implementation of ideas. Can I get a patent for "time travel" and "flying cars" merely because I can think of the idea? Can I get a patent for having all devices sync to each other by detecting the presence of another device when I walk into a room? It's just an idea - I have absolutely no specific technology that can accomplish this. Today, I probably could get the patent. But I shouldn't be able to. At the very least, inventors should have to show a working implementation, even if it's not in an actual commercial product.
Absolutely absurd, and the problem is biggest in software. Take your flying car example - you actually can't get a patent on the concept of a flying car, because people already did - for example:
No doubt if we could be bothered to go through the huge list of cited patents in there we'd find some for other surface/air vehicles - likely going back to the 50s or earlier. I remember that Richard Feynman got a patent on a nuclear airplane.
People have always been able to patent things without worrying about implementation, but for the most part it was self-correcting, because the patents had expired long before the crazy idea became feasible. So horribly broad patents didn't badly affect old-tech.
Software and Consumer Electronics though advance at such a pace that the impossible to implement today is often trivial to implement in 10 years time. Suddenly we're in a situation were simply crying 'FIRST' is worth millions - as you say - it's absurd
If all the devices violate the same patent in the same way - why would there have to be separate law suits to cover them?
Because the previous lawsuit didn't cover them. A patent doesn't come with an automatic enforcement mechanism, if you want to enforce it you have to litigate.
Everything is obvious in hindsight. What they claimed was more than just playlists and syncing.
It was all of that, in 2001. IMO that is not blatantly obvious at the time. The obvious argument is hard to judge. Look at the case behind the movie 'Flash of Genius'. The arguments made by Ford were basically obviousness give a transistor and a delay circuit and the need for intermittent wipers it was 'obvious' .
The point 1 of this patent explains SoundJam MP which was around in 1999. This patent is March of 2001. So, how is this patent allowed to exist and how could they win a case using this patent? Is there something else missing here?
The point 1 of this patent explains SoundJam MP which was around in 1999. This patent is March of 2001. So, how is this patent allowed to exist and how could they win a case using this patent? Is there something else missing here?
Soundjam was software. This is describing dedicated hardware.
Soundjam was software. This is describing dedicated hardware.
Ahh then one of two things applies, either that fails the obvious test, since a device running the software does infringe - in which case it's prior arted.
Or the iPhone/iPad/Touch do not infringe because they are general purpose mobile computers running iPod software and not dedicated hardware.
Comments
Well, it worked for Hitler. At least for a while.
And if the laws of the Internet are correct, I think I just lost that argument. Which is a shame, because he's the one who's wrong.
It currently works for Rupert Murdoch.
Some guy has made it his life's work to keep repeating the meme in the hope that we're stupid enough to believe him. I'm gonna start flagging for ban whenever I see it soon because it's so unbelievably dumb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Thanks for that Cloudgazer. I was wondering what the "=Monsanto" stuff was supposed to be implying.
The court has already set a precedent on the infringing patent. Devices that are not named on the original lawsuit are not covered in the original settlement. Therefore, its correct to file another lawsuit on a different set of products.
It's the same case with Apple suing Samsung over the original Galaxy S's and Tabs.
But when Samsung launches the Galaxy S II in the US, they can go after them about it using the same type of lawsuit ( assuming the original wins that is).
You people can see one way but not the other way. How sad.
You people can see one way but not the other way. How sad.
Except nobody has denied that Personal Audio almost certain to win this, plenty of people here think these are crappy patents, but some of us also think that Apple's main patent against HTC is crappy.
Really it seems like you're determined to see stuff that isn't there.
So if Ford were taken to court for faulty fuel injectors across all of their models...could they be taken to court individually for each vehicle model?
This is not what happened.
Apple was sued for only a few models. Now Personal audio is going after the other models.
This is not what happened.
Apple was sued for only a few models. Now Personal audio is going after the other models.
If all the devices violate the same patent in the same way - why would there have to be separate law suits to cover them?
I agree, like much of Apple's portfolio.
I would disagree. Apple gets sued all the time over general concepts and business processes that should not be patentable (IMO). Take this lawsuit. I don't think anyone should be able to get a patent for the idea of copying a playlist from one device to another. If they had some special technical method or unique file format for copying the playlist, then that might be patentable. But what is a playlist? It's nothing but data. Why is it different than the old ability of Blackberries to exchange business cards?
Likewise, I don't think Amazon should have been able to get a patent for "one-click". Storing data in a database and retrieving it based on the entry of a username and password is a concept as old as databases. And yet Apple is licensing "one-click" from Amazon.
But on the other hand, every other smartphone has copied Apple's design and UI. No one's smartphone (if they had any) looked anything like what Apple eventually developed, but once Apple did, they all looked uncannily like the iPhone and most acted like an iPhone from a UI perspective. And yet Apple hasn't sued anyone over that (yet).
I do think that the patent system has become absurd. Patents were never supposed to be given for ideas, but for the implementation of ideas. Can I get a patent for "time travel" and "flying cars" merely because I can think of the idea? Can I get a patent for having all devices sync to each other by detecting the presence of another device when I walk into a room? It's just an idea - I have absolutely no specific technology that can accomplish this. Today, I probably could get the patent. But I shouldn't be able to. At the very least, inventors should have to show a working implementation, even if it's not in an actual commercial product.
I would disagree. Apple gets sued all the time over general concepts and business processes that should not be patentable (IMO).
Absolutely, but many of the patents that they have asserted against opponents fit the same profile, certainly most of the ones they asserted against HTC.
But on the other hand, every other smartphone has copied Apple's design and UI. No one's smartphone (if they had any) looked anything like what Apple eventually developed, but once Apple did, they all looked uncannily like the iPhone and most acted like an iPhone from a UI perspective. And yet Apple hasn't sued anyone over that (yet).
Kinda, sorta, ish. A lot of the UI elements that Android copies from Apple weren't novel. A grid of icons for example was also present on the LG Prada, not to mention being fairly obvious. Single finger touch as metaphor for panning wasn't new, etc. Apple has some functional patents for UI elements, but they are very specific and easily avoided things like the 'rubber-banding' when you pan off the edge of an image. With the other stuff Apple is forced to rely on design patents to protect the non-functional aesthetic choices, such as the slight rounding of their icons - so far it's only asserted those against Samsung afaik.
I do think that the patent system has become absurd. Patents were never supposed to be given for ideas, but for the implementation of ideas. Can I get a patent for "time travel" and "flying cars" merely because I can think of the idea? Can I get a patent for having all devices sync to each other by detecting the presence of another device when I walk into a room? It's just an idea - I have absolutely no specific technology that can accomplish this. Today, I probably could get the patent. But I shouldn't be able to. At the very least, inventors should have to show a working implementation, even if it's not in an actual commercial product.
Absolutely absurd, and the problem is biggest in software. Take your flying car example - you actually can't get a patent on the concept of a flying car, because people already did - for example:
http://paleo-future.blogspot.com/200...tent-1991.html
No doubt if we could be bothered to go through the huge list of cited patents in there we'd find some for other surface/air vehicles - likely going back to the 50s or earlier. I remember that Richard Feynman got a patent on a nuclear airplane.
http://www.myspace.com/richard_feynman/blog/332428072
People have always been able to patent things without worrying about implementation, but for the most part it was self-correcting, because the patents had expired long before the crazy idea became feasible. So horribly broad patents didn't badly affect old-tech.
Software and Consumer Electronics though advance at such a pace that the impossible to implement today is often trivial to implement in 10 years time. Suddenly we're in a situation were simply crying 'FIRST' is worth millions - as you say - it's absurd
If all the devices violate the same patent in the same way - why would there have to be separate law suits to cover them?
Because the previous lawsuit didn't cover them. A patent doesn't come with an automatic enforcement mechanism, if you want to enforce it you have to litigate.
For more information
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...awarded-8.html
Everything is obvious in hindsight. What they claimed was more than just playlists and syncing.
It was all of that, in 2001. IMO that is not blatantly obvious at the time. The obvious argument is hard to judge. Look at the case behind the movie 'Flash of Genius'. The arguments made by Ford were basically obviousness give a transistor and a delay circuit and the need for intermittent wipers it was 'obvious' .
The point 1 of this patent explains SoundJam MP which was around in 1999. This patent is March of 2001. So, how is this patent allowed to exist and how could they win a case using this patent? Is there something else missing here?
The point 1 of this patent explains SoundJam MP which was around in 1999. This patent is March of 2001. So, how is this patent allowed to exist and how could they win a case using this patent? Is there something else missing here?
Soundjam was software. This is describing dedicated hardware.
Soundjam was software. This is describing dedicated hardware.
Ahh then one of two things applies, either that fails the obvious test, since a device running the software does infringe - in which case it's prior arted.
Or the iPhone/iPad/Touch do not infringe because they are general purpose mobile computers running iPod software and not dedicated hardware.