Apple sued over OS X Quick Look preview feature
Non-practicing entity WhitServe on Friday filed a complaint against Apple, claiming that the Quick Look function found in a number of OS X iterations infringes on its file viewing patent from 2011.
In its claim, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, WhitServe alleges that Quick Look violates the company's U.S. Patent No. 7,921,139 for a "System for sequentially opening and displaying files in a directory," which was applied for in 2006 and granted in April of 2011.
Illustration of the '139 patent's file viewer and selector module (420). | Source: USPTO
Apple introduced Quick Look in Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard," which debuted at the Worldwide Developers Conference in October 2007. The feature allows users to view the contents of a folder or file without opening the specific application that created it, with supported formats including PDF, QuickTime, Pages, Text and others. The function remains active on all current Macs and can be accessed via the spacebar.
The '139 patent offers a similar solution, using software to open and close files in a near-full view mode, an improvement on the thumbnail-based technology of the day. Also noted in the patent's language is a system to browse said files, called the file selector module, which can move through previews in sequential order. Unlike Apple's invention, however, the '139 patent allows users to edit documents and view multiple files at once.
WhitServe claims it licenses the patent's technology to undisclosed companies, and alleges that Apple's infringement is causing irreparable harm "not fully compensable by money damages."
The Connecticut-based LLC is seeking damages and court fees from Apple, as well as a permanent injunction against Quick Look's implementation in OS X.
In its claim, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, WhitServe alleges that Quick Look violates the company's U.S. Patent No. 7,921,139 for a "System for sequentially opening and displaying files in a directory," which was applied for in 2006 and granted in April of 2011.
Illustration of the '139 patent's file viewer and selector module (420). | Source: USPTO
Apple introduced Quick Look in Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard," which debuted at the Worldwide Developers Conference in October 2007. The feature allows users to view the contents of a folder or file without opening the specific application that created it, with supported formats including PDF, QuickTime, Pages, Text and others. The function remains active on all current Macs and can be accessed via the spacebar.
The '139 patent offers a similar solution, using software to open and close files in a near-full view mode, an improvement on the thumbnail-based technology of the day. Also noted in the patent's language is a system to browse said files, called the file selector module, which can move through previews in sequential order. Unlike Apple's invention, however, the '139 patent allows users to edit documents and view multiple files at once.
WhitServe claims it licenses the patent's technology to undisclosed companies, and alleges that Apple's infringement is causing irreparable harm "not fully compensable by money damages."
The Connecticut-based LLC is seeking damages and court fees from Apple, as well as a permanent injunction against Quick Look's implementation in OS X.
Comments
I agree. The people handing out patents should be held liable for damages/costs of companies who get sued for silly patents that should never have been approved
I have to ask.
Is there a way that we, as consumers, can express our 'displeasure' with entities that engage in this kind of rubbish?
Maybe some kind of genuine DOS attack with email complaints, etc...?
Anybody got any bright ideas?
Unfortunately, the legal system has flaws to protect criminal behavior. Innocent unless proven in a court of law.
BUT, there are moral laws. It's complicated. There are civil rights of individuals and there are rights of corporations being treated as an individual.
Personally, I think this patent is kind of silly since the patent was granted in 2011, but Apple was already using since 2007, so I think this case should be dismissed and the patent should be removed.
Courts are independent, let the court decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Unfortunately, the legal system has flaws to protect criminal behavior. Innocent unless proven in a court of law.
WOW! Just unbelievable.
So you think, that being innocent until proven wrong is a flaw in the legal system?! I think you should be in jail until your "innocence" is proven!
But note that the application for the patent was made in 2006.
"Non-practicing entity WhitServe..."
Typo: Shouldn't that be "WritServe"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonobob
Unix has had this capability for at least a couple decades (the less command). This patent should be invalidated on grounds of prior art, if not for how obvious the idea is and how trivial it is to implement.
And since OSX is based on Unix it an implementation of this feature built into its foundation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky
Sounds like the patent and Quickview are very different things. One thing you have to be able to implement in Quickview is an ability to read many file formats, such as the old and new MS office formats, to provide previews at the OS-level. Not exactly trivial and not something you should be able to patent without demonstrating you can actually implement it.
This is the main problem with the patent system today, that an actual implementation of the "invention" is no longer required. Without an implementation, it's not an invention, it's just an idea, and often a vague one at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
BUT, there are moral laws. It's complicated. There are civil rights of individuals and there are rights of corporations being treated as an individual.
From Abraham Lincoln’s former law partner, William Henry Herndon :
"One morning, not long before Lincoln’s nomination — a year perhaps — I was in your office and heard the following: Mr. Lincoln, seated at the baize-covered table in the center of the office, listened attentively to a man who talked earnestly and in a low tone. After being thus engaged for some time Lincoln at length broke in, and I shall never forget his reply. ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘we can doubtless gain your case for you; we can set a whole neighborhood at loggerheads; we can distress a widowed mother and her six fatherless children and thereby get for you six hundred dollars to which you seem to have a legal claim, but which rightfully belongs, it appears to me, as much to the woman and her children as it does to you. You must remember that some things legally right are not morally right. We shall not take your case, but will give you a little advice for which we will charge you nothing. You seem to be a sprightly, energetic man; we would advise you to try your hand at making six hundred dollars in some other way.’
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Non-practicing entity
Oh. Say no more.
Looks like these bottom-feeders are just another patent-purchasing outfit, buying them up squatting on them until they can nail the next company that comes along.
http://www.whitserve.com
The very definition of Patent Trolling.
Look at the "About" tab on their website. Company founded by a Patent Attorney. Oh, and uh . . . "inventor."
LMAO
The patent guys need to start to actually learn about the tech to which they grant patents. I believe that we need to have people in the industry or at least with some background in the field itself make the determination if the art is actually original. I'm told that the PTO tries to do this. However, they clearly miss the mark far too many times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Dibbs
Apple was using a technology like this one back in 1992 called Bento...not to be confused with the application of the same name. By packaging up a file structure, another application could look into the file and access the information that it could. Viewers were obviously one of the first demos, but there were others. Take a look at the released specification (http://info.wgbh.org/upf/pdfs/BentoSpec1_0d5.pdf).
Interesting. I scanned WhitServes patent. Doesn't look at all like the same thing as QuickLook to me. I don't think they have a case either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Dibbs
The patent guys need to start to actually learn about the tech to which they grant patents. I believe that we need to have people in the industry or at least with some background in the field itself make the determination if the art is actually original. I'm told that the PTO tries to do this. However, they clearly miss the mark far too many times.
That would be nice, and 200 years ago it was probably more likely. But it's impossible vet patents properly, and it's not really their job. They make an effort to stop any ridiculous patents, but mostly they serve to record and document patent claims. They expect patent applicants to do proper research and if they haven't, other interested parties will call foul. It's really the system of adjudicating patents that has become ridiculously expensive and onerous. As an example, how stupid is it that FRAND terms for SEPs are not specified clearly in the standard? At the very least, the percentage of the standard each contributor to the standard can claim should be specified. It's like deciding to re-fight the Civil War every few months.