The real question is, or should be: on what basis was the patent invalidated? Prior art, obviousness, what? Without that information there's not much useful discussion to be had.
Everyone seems to be reading the AI story and not the truth: PRELIMINARY.
Originally Posted by sranger
These so called patents are ridiculous....
And your so-called reasons for that would be what?
Originally Posted by NeilM
The real question is, or should be: on what basis was the patent invalidated? Prior art, obviousness, what? Without that information there's not much useful discussion to be had.
And if invalid now, why wasn't it invalid when it was granted? Because that's not how this works.
Truly pathetic. First grant a patent, then revoke it. And not just any patents, plural, actually, but the heart and soul of the way 400M devices are used around the world. I think we are all better of if a patent is granted it should remain that way. (And the stock has zilch to do with it)
BS. If a patent shouldn't have been granted (not saying this is the case with these patents) then there should be a way to have it reversed. You're knee-jerk reaction is unnecessary.
The whole point in waiting for a patent is that it was examined AT THE TIME and proven relevant. There was NOTHING LIKE IT when Jobs and co. applied.
If this is not a case of backroom deals, it could be a case of someone trying to think they know what's best "for the industry" while doing what's inherently wrong.
Never good.
Steve Jobs wasn't kidding when he said Apple had world class enemies...
Do you have proof of these claims...no? Take your meds next time.
A majority of patents that come up in lawsuits get invalidated due to prior art or not passing the threshold of a patent test.
Why do you think most patent cases get settled? Because there is as much if not more of a chance a patent gets invalidated or decided not to infringe.
A Patent by the patent office means NOTHING!!! When ever a patent gets granted I always yawn, the true test of patent validity in the U.S is not being granted a patent by the USTPO; who passes them out like candy. You know a patent is valid after someone gets sued over it and wins and then face examination.
Apple is learning, that just because you have a piece a paper from one of the most inept departments of our government doesn't mean you own multi-touch.
This really could potentially screw over Apple. I bet Samsung and others are feeling smug now.
By "and others" you must mean the kids who troll on these forums. Yup, they'll be here to proclaim how Apple never invented anything, as soon as their detention is over. Plus it's Friday and AppleInsider's gotta prime the pump to keep "site engagement" up through the slow weekend.
Again, the concept thereof, or a method for creating?
A majority of patents that come up in lawsuits get invalidated due to prior art or not passing the threshold of a patent test.
Then why where they validated in the first place?
You know a patent is valid after someone gets sued over it and wins…
Apple sued. Apple won. Sounds done, then.
…and then face examination.
Then the tens of millions spent in the lawsuit are wasted and the entire judicial system is completely and utterly worthless in every respect. All failed lawsuits are as valid as all won lawsuits.
But, see, that doesn't work. Murderers don't get off because they're found guilty and then given time to forge new evidence, overturning that.
Apple is learning, that just because you have a piece a paper from one of the most inept departments of our government doesn't mean you own multi-touch.
I guess the government decided they can make more money taxing lots of companies who use multitouch instead of just taxing the one who created/owned it. We would think the government wouldn't make a decision based on them making more tax revenue if multitouch wasn't patent protected, but when a huge industry is now dependent on it, they will.
Now read a little more closely on how Fingerworks was pretty much the first company to actually create a commercial product using multitouch technology, and how Apple purchased the company in 2005 (in the midst of developing the iPhone).
Perhaps Jobs et al don't deserve a patent in their names given all of the prior research which had occurred, but Apple did play by the rules as far as development of a commercial product using multitouch technology goes (spent money on a company which had expertise in the field plus put a lot of their own R&D into perfecting it). What did Samsung or Google ever contribute to the field other than see others put the hard work and money in to pioneer and refine the idea into a commercial success, and then copy them without any compensation?
What's the difference? Everyone's been infringing on Apple's work in one way or the other already, with total impunity.
Let em. Even after several years, nothing even comes close to the iOS + Apple hardware User Experience. Apple has ruled Consumer Satisfaction with iOS devices since their introduction.
The only concern is that others are making a massive profit (mostly Samsung) from Apple's work.
Apple policy has always been to patent as much as they can and then protect what they can, aggressively. Not everything will stick.
What's really interesting, though, is that the patent WAS ALREADY GRANTED, and the entire patent - all of it - was invalidated, which is very rare. Is the USPTO bowing (unduly or under compulsion) to some external pressure here?
Again, the concept thereof, or a method for creating?
Then why where they validated in the first place?
Apple sued. Apple won. Sounds done, then.
Then the tens of millions spent in the lawsuit are wasted and the entire judicial system is completely and utterly worthless in every respect. All failed lawsuits are as valid as all won lawsuits.
But, see, that doesn't work. Murderers don't get off because they're found guilty and then given time to forge new evidence, overturning that.
At no point was that the contention.
You don't get the point.
Patent office is under funded.
Patents come in at a rapid pace
not everyone that examines say a software related patent has a background in software related patents.
The problem remains that, a lot of patents that get granted by the USTPO are trash and should not be granted, but due to they way the filling system functions, lack of resources and time, crap patents get put through. This is not just Apple patents but many patents of other companies.
Now a recent law that was passed allows companies to challenge patents by are in the approval process, so that means if Google files a broad patent that overreaches, Apple can challenge it during the approval process; that will help in the cutting down of crap patents.
Funding, categories of patents ect.. are needed to help fix the problem that we have in the U.S today. Which is over filling and granting of too many patents. Its gotten to a point where the Patent offices job of determining validity of a patent has been pushed unto the courts.
As I understand it, it is not up to the patent office to research a patent's validity until it comes under question. They just decide if it is patent-able in the sense that it is eligible to be patented. There is no conspiracy. Apple just patented things that already existed.
That patent means nothing until amazon sues someone over it and gets reexamine.
The patent office is so dysfunctional that them granting a patent means nothing.
Samsung did not care that Apple sued it, Samsung and Google have been saying all along, we will go after Apple's patents one by one because we believe they are too broad or have prior art.
Apple is fighting through the courts
Android is fighting through reexamination.
All this headache because the Patent office has lost all respect and authority.
Comments
These so called patents are ridiculous....
The real question is, or should be: on what basis was the patent invalidated? Prior art, obviousness, what? Without that information there's not much useful discussion to be had.
Everyone seems to be reading the AI story and not the truth: PRELIMINARY.
Originally Posted by sranger
These so called patents are ridiculous....
And your so-called reasons for that would be what?
Originally Posted by NeilM
The real question is, or should be: on what basis was the patent invalidated? Prior art, obviousness, what? Without that information there's not much useful discussion to be had.
And if invalid now, why wasn't it invalid when it was granted? Because that's not how this works.
BS. If a patent shouldn't have been granted (not saying this is the case with these patents) then there should be a way to have it reversed. You're knee-jerk reaction is unnecessary.
Do you have proof of these claims...no? Take your meds next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Everyone seems to be reading the AI story and not the truth: PRELIMINARY.
And your so-called reasons for that would be what?
And if invalid now, why wasn't it invalid when it was granted? Because that's not how this works.
Obvious and plenty of prior art....
Originally Posted by sranger
Obvious and plenty of prior art....
And it was granted… why?
Because the patent office is ridiculous.
Do you know someone holds a patent on toast?
A majority of patents that come up in lawsuits get invalidated due to prior art or not passing the threshold of a patent test.
Why do you think most patent cases get settled? Because there is as much if not more of a chance a patent gets invalidated or decided not to infringe.
A Patent by the patent office means NOTHING!!! When ever a patent gets granted I always yawn, the true test of patent validity in the U.S is not being granted a patent by the USTPO; who passes them out like candy. You know a patent is valid after someone gets sued over it and wins and then face examination.
Apple is learning, that just because you have a piece a paper from one of the most inept departments of our government doesn't mean you own multi-touch.
By "and others" you must mean the kids who troll on these forums. Yup, they'll be here to proclaim how Apple never invented anything, as soon as their detention is over. Plus it's Friday and AppleInsider's gotta prime the pump to keep "site engagement" up through the slow weekend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
A majority of patents that come up in lawsuits get invalidated due to prior art or not passing the threshold of a patent test.
Interesting. What's your source for this tidbit?
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Do you know someone holds a patent on toast?
Again, the concept thereof, or a method for creating?
A majority of patents that come up in lawsuits get invalidated due to prior art or not passing the threshold of a patent test.
Then why where they validated in the first place?
You know a patent is valid after someone gets sued over it and wins…
Apple sued. Apple won. Sounds done, then.
…and then face examination.
Then the tens of millions spent in the lawsuit are wasted and the entire judicial system is completely and utterly worthless in every respect. All failed lawsuits are as valid as all won lawsuits.
But, see, that doesn't work. Murderers don't get off because they're found guilty and then given time to forge new evidence, overturning that.
Apple is learning, that just because you have a piece a paper from one of the most inept departments of our government doesn't mean you own multi-touch.
At no point was that the contention.
"You have done well my apprentice. Soon, the Jedi will fall, and the Sith will once again rule the galaxy."
I guess the government decided they can make more money taxing lots of companies who use multitouch instead of just taxing the one who created/owned it. We would think the government wouldn't make a decision based on them making more tax revenue if multitouch wasn't patent protected, but when a huge industry is now dependent on it, they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
At the same time amazon is allowed to hold "single click" buy patent and another patent troll is sueing everyone for in-app purchases.
Yeah what's with that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
Obvious and plenty of prior art....
Let me guess, you just discovered Bill Buxton's history of multitouch webpage and now you're an expert? *golf clap*
Now read a little more closely on how Fingerworks was pretty much the first company to actually create a commercial product using multitouch technology, and how Apple purchased the company in 2005 (in the midst of developing the iPhone).
Perhaps Jobs et al don't deserve a patent in their names given all of the prior research which had occurred, but Apple did play by the rules as far as development of a commercial product using multitouch technology goes (spent money on a company which had expertise in the field plus put a lot of their own R&D into perfecting it). What did Samsung or Google ever contribute to the field other than see others put the hard work and money in to pioneer and refine the idea into a commercial success, and then copy them without any compensation?
What's the difference? Everyone's been infringing on Apple's work in one way or the other already, with total impunity.
Let em. Even after several years, nothing even comes close to the iOS + Apple hardware User Experience. Apple has ruled Consumer Satisfaction with iOS devices since their introduction.
The only concern is that others are making a massive profit (mostly Samsung) from Apple's work.
Apple policy has always been to patent as much as they can and then protect what they can, aggressively. Not everything will stick.
What's really interesting, though, is that the patent WAS ALREADY GRANTED, and the entire patent - all of it - was invalidated, which is very rare. Is the USPTO bowing (unduly or under compulsion) to some external pressure here?
You don't get the point.
Patent office is under funded.
Patents come in at a rapid pace
not everyone that examines say a software related patent has a background in software related patents.
The problem remains that, a lot of patents that get granted by the USTPO are trash and should not be granted, but due to they way the filling system functions, lack of resources and time, crap patents get put through. This is not just Apple patents but many patents of other companies.
Now a recent law that was passed allows companies to challenge patents by are in the approval process, so that means if Google files a broad patent that overreaches, Apple can challenge it during the approval process; that will help in the cutting down of crap patents.
Funding, categories of patents ect.. are needed to help fix the problem that we have in the U.S today. Which is over filling and granting of too many patents. Its gotten to a point where the Patent offices job of determining validity of a patent has been pushed unto the courts.
That patent means nothing until amazon sues someone over it and gets reexamine.
The patent office is so dysfunctional that them granting a patent means nothing.
Samsung did not care that Apple sued it, Samsung and Google have been saying all along, we will go after Apple's patents one by one because we believe they are too broad or have prior art.
Apple is fighting through the courts
Android is fighting through reexamination.
All this headache because the Patent office has lost all respect and authority.
The people at the patent office must be idiots