it's quite clear Apple has accounted for these potential actions.
Dig through the extensive reporting at PatentlyApple.com and you'll notice Apple is skating to where the puck will be and owning the touch patent wars.
As I mentioned, Apple isn't the only one working multi-touch. A quick search here found 126 Google multi-touch related patents filed and/or granted, most of them in the past three years. Purchased or transferred patents from others aren't included in the results. I suspect doing the same search using Motorola, Samsung or Microsoft as the assignee might show similar results.
As I mentioned, Apple isn't the only one working multi-touch. A quick search here found 126 Google multi-touch related patents filed and/or granted, most of them in the past three years. Purchased or transferred patents from others aren't included in the results. I suspect doing the same search using Motorola, Samsung or Microsoft as the assignee might show similar results.
I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.
2012 Total Patents filed: 809
2012 Total Patents granted: 1209
Since 2007 a good 4-5k granted patents to Apple and unlike IBM who dwarfs everyone filing patents, Apple has a high patent to product ratio, if not near the top in the industry.
Then you add the additional 6-8k more patents Apple has acquired of actual value [unlike the mountain of nothing from Moto Mobility] and it's quite clear with Schmidt trying to smooth and downplay the relationship being on rought times that he has been told Google better kiss and make up or get ready to be slammed by the approach of decimating your OEMs. Death by a thousand cuts is already happening and the latest patents granted to Apple most certainly won't be redacted as the industry has never seen these, in any form.
To be fair the study Mark Lemley referenced, and the statistic cited in the link you provided, involved the most asserted software patents, used for litigation at least 8 times or more. Those types of patent suits are often brought by NPE's (patent trolls) who have an inherently lower overall success rate anyway, than practicing entities. So It's certainly possible the quality of the litigants could bear some of the blame rather than the sole fact the cases involved software.
I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.
I know they do. That doesn't mean they can't be accused of infringing on someone else's multi-touch IP at some time. I sure you'd agree Apple doesn't have a lock on it. Distinctly possible they'll find themselves needing a license to someone else's multi-touch patent at some point. With any luck that IP holder will be a willing licensee.
I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.
2012 Total Patents filed: 809
2012 Total Patents granted: 1209
Since 2007 a good 4-5k granted patents to Apple and unlike IBM who dwarfs everyone filing patents, Apple has a high patent to product ratio, if not near the top in the industry.
To repeat, eventually all the big players will have to admit they need something another one has. Settlements will come, just as Apple did with HTC. IMHO all the saber-rattling is mostly jockeying for position.
This is not a final judgement so the doom and gloom is a tad premature.
That said, IF this is some vague 'idea' patent then it probably should be invalid. Just like the 'swipe to unlock' was and Apple was granted a more specific single implementation patent.
And what about other related patents. Apple might 'lose' this one but have other patents that cover the same areas and ultimately be fine.
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.
Finally... someone has posted something that's based on reality instead of emotion. Bravo.
According to a poster on MacRumors the Samsung trial did not involve this patent. If that's the case I can't see it changing the outcome of the trial. Of course it's a bad time for this to become public,
I'd be curious to know how man Samsung patents have been invalidated that we never hear about since all people seem to care about are Apple patents. When I searched USPTO's database I saw a number of "rounded rectangle" design patents awarded to Samsung. Why would you patent something if you weren't prepared to defend it?
Pathetic is US Patent and its principles. Check European. Those who lived and studied in Europe laugh of US Patent principles. I actually could smartly sneak pen and mouse definition and get USPTO patent. In Europe, engineering students (Masters) are required to take classes in patenting so no "smart-boy" lawyer could do some idiotic claims.
Guess what my friend who is from European university was writing technical reviews for such patent firm that protected large corporations in the USA. Now I hear they have firm that really works on helping people with real innovations here in the USA and not some idiotic patents used for corporate wars. I hear that competitor of Apple visits that place from to time
Although stating heuristics for base of command sounds innovative in fact it is not. It is the way we all function every day prior to Apple's "discovery". You cannot patent common science or laws of nature. Still not understandable? Go get education overseas. You may even learn how GSM networks was born that has a lot with US patenting system.
(Euro living in this mess)
Please explain how this European software based patent fits in with your rant:-
It's called "Emoticon input method for mobile terminal", it was filed by Samsung and published in 2002, when Samsung apparently invented this
I don't think there's a final ruling yet TS. That's part of what the hearing yesterday was about. That piece of Apple's win could still be tossed or modified by the court I believe. Not entirely positive but I'll do some more research.
In any event this wasn't at all unexpected. Judge Koh herself felt that particular patent would be invalidated.
EDIT: The discussion of how to handle likely patent invalidity yesterday in Judge Koh's courtroom involved Apple's asserted '381 "rubber-band" patent which was also found invalid by the USPTO back in late October. It was not the '949 touch patent discussed here and asserted against Samsung in a lawsuit begun last year in a separate tho related case.
These patent invalidations won't affect the current case finalizing before judge Koh, unless they are final invalidations. I forget the status '381 patent but the '949 won't be totally invalidated or validated until after Koh makes her final decisions. So it seems that this won't have an effect until the appeal.
It will be interesting to see if Apple and Samsung settle before an appeal, or if they appeal this and keep the second AppleVSSamsung 2013 trial on track.
Judge Koh seems sick of these companies using the courts to settle their business disputes when her same court presides over arguably more important cases.
This is the work presented by Jeff Han at the TED talks in Feb 2006. This is a full 2 years before this patent was submitted. There was a lot of work done in multi-touch and Jeff makes reference to them. This clearly show prior art. It is being presented here to a public forum and there were white papers published and Kiosks demonstrating these devises gestures at tech conferences and in lobbies of high tech firms . It shows pinch to zoom, panning, scaling and rotation. Obviously this is not a demonstration of a mobile device nor is it the same type of touch screen display. However the patents in question also don't stipulate what type of touch interface either. Many gestures that Apple has "patented" had been in the public space prior to the patent filings.
I do believe Apple has brought and continues to bring an incredible amount of innovation to the market, but have I expected these patents to fall eventually.
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.
How do you know there is nothing like it? First of all, proving a negative is hard. Second, there most assuredly was something "like" it at the time, because Apple did not invent multitouch. But claim 1 of patent '949 is so general and vague that Apple might argue that what it covers is similar to but does not overlap with prior art.
This is the work presented by Jeff Han at the TED talks in Feb 2006. This is a full 2 years before this patent was submitted. There was a lot of work done in multi-touch and Jeff makes reference to them. This clearly show prior art. It is being presented here to a public forum and there were white papers published and Kiosks demonstrating these devises gestures at tech conferences and in lobbies of high tech firms . It shows pinch to zoom, panning, scaling and rotation. Obviously this is not a demonstration of a mobile device nor is it the same type of touch screen display. However the patents in question also don't stipulate what type of touch interface either. Many gestures that Apple has "patented" had been in the public space prior to the patent filings.
I do believe Apple has brought and continues to bring an incredible amount of innovation to the market, but have I expected these patents to fall eventually.
Some kind of a deal or agreement exists between Jeff Han and Apple. But, to complicate this situation, Han sold his company to Microsoft earlier this year.
Notwithstanding this, Apple needs to distinguish their '949 patent from prior art such as Han's multitouch research.
If Apple never invented an ipad or iphone, I am sure that my iMac would still be as good as it is. Bottom line, while I'd like to see Apple protected against their ideas and implementation being ripped off by the craptastic items produced by samuel sung, it still will not stop Apple being a profitable company and making game changing quality products. I think Apple are in good hands.
In response to the guy that thinks Google is influencing the patent office.....
This is absolutely not true. The patent office is not influenced by Google. The only difference between examination of a sensitive patent for Apple is that some (not all) examiners will be more cautious because they don't want to allow something that will get overturned in court. When this happens the examiner will reject, reject, reject and the Applicant has to appeal to the board of appeals who will then overturn the examiner and allow the case. (assuming the claim is allowable)
I find it humorous to read postings by people (including AI) about IP matters. For the most part you guys get it all wrong. I guess that is why us patent lawyers can charge $300-$500/hr.
First off, this patent has not been invalidated. It has not even been "preliminarily invalidated". The patent is under reexamination. Apple has received an action on the merits. Talk to any patent attorney with significant prosecution experience and they will tell you that 90% of the time they get a first action where all the claims are rejected. This is totally expected and it means nothing in terms of whether claims will eventually be allowed.
Secondly, the patent office doesn't invalidate patents. They reject or allow patent claims. The only place to invalidate a patent is a court of law.
I haven't read the claims or the prior art that provoked the re-exam, but if this is a typical re-exam, the claims were probably issued too broadly given the newly discovered prior art. Apple will narrow the claims to overcome the prior art and the patent will reissue.
The most ridiculous comments in this thread are the ones where you all opine about whether the patent office is broken or the patent office screwed up. Unless you read and analyze the claims in light of the prior art you have no idea whether the patent is allowable. A PATENT IS NOT DEFINED BY ITS DISCLOSURE.....A PATENT IS DEFINED BY ITS CLAIMS.
One more thing.... the patent office does a pretty good job of searching the prior art. Examiners have like 10-15 hours to review the prior art, the patent application, and write up a rejection. You can't expect them to find every piece of prior art known to mankind. Besides, even if they looked for 100 hours, they might not find everything. We do not want the government spending 50 billion a year trying to find a needle in a haystack. If they miss something, the patent can be re-examed. What's wrong with that? A re-exam is not much different than the original prosecution.
The system isn't broken, its efficient. However, we would definitely have a broken system if we implemented policies based on the opinions expressed in this thread.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Because the patent office is ridiculous.
...
A Patent by the patent office means NOTHING!!! ...
Assuming we accept the premise of your argument, we can just as easily conclude that an invalidation by the patent office means nothing as well.
So much for your "argument".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple has dozens of newly granted Multi-touch patents. This won't hurt them.
With now over 1200 granted patents for 2012 [a good 30 or more for multi-touch and none from purchased corporations]; and today's submission of 87 more patents filed http://www.latestpatents.com/apple-patent-applications-published-on-06-december-2012/#more-20136
it's quite clear Apple has accounted for these potential actions.
Dig through the extensive reporting at PatentlyApple.com and you'll notice Apple is skating to where the puck will be and owning the touch patent wars.
As I mentioned, Apple isn't the only one working multi-touch. A quick search here found 126 Google multi-touch related patents filed and/or granted, most of them in the past three years. Purchased or transferred patents from others aren't included in the results. I suspect doing the same search using Motorola, Samsung or Microsoft as the assignee might show similar results.
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=multi-touch+OR+multitouch+inassignee:Google&num=10#q=multi-touch+OR+multitouch+inassignee:Google&hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=pts&psj=1&ei=0KHCUJ3gFoSK8QTviIAo&start=60&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1354675689,d.eWU&fp=cb629d3c6571b600&bpcl=39650382&biw=1280&bih=685
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As I mentioned, Apple isn't the only one working multi-touch. A quick search here found 126 Google multi-touch related patents filed and/or granted, most of them in the past three years. Purchased or transferred patents from others aren't included in the results. I suspect doing the same search using Motorola, Samsung or Microsoft as the assignee might show similar results.
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=multi-touch+OR+multitouch+inassignee:Google&num=10#q=multi-touch+OR+multitouch+inassignee:Google&hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=pts&psj=1&ei=0KHCUJ3gFoSK8QTviIAo&start=60&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1354675689,d.eWU&fp=cb629d3c6571b600&bpcl=39650382&biw=1280&bih=685
I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.
2012 Total Patents filed: 809
2012 Total Patents granted: 1209
Since 2007 a good 4-5k granted patents to Apple and unlike IBM who dwarfs everyone filing patents, Apple has a high patent to product ratio, if not near the top in the industry.
Then you add the additional 6-8k more patents Apple has acquired of actual value [unlike the mountain of nothing from Moto Mobility] and it's quite clear with Schmidt trying to smooth and downplay the relationship being on rought times that he has been told Google better kiss and make up or get ready to be slammed by the approach of decimating your OEMs. Death by a thousand cuts is already happening and the latest patents granted to Apple most certainly won't be redacted as the industry has never seen these, in any form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
With software patents it happens about 90% of the time:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Oracle-Google-case-shows-patent-system-flaws-3507618.php
To be fair the study Mark Lemley referenced, and the statistic cited in the link you provided, involved the most asserted software patents, used for litigation at least 8 times or more. Those types of patent suits are often brought by NPE's (patent trolls) who have an inherently lower overall success rate anyway, than practicing entities. So It's certainly possible the quality of the litigants could bear some of the blame rather than the sole fact the cases involved software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.
I know they do. That doesn't mean they can't be accused of infringing on someone else's multi-touch IP at some time. I sure you'd agree Apple doesn't have a lock on it. Distinctly possible they'll find themselves needing a license to someone else's multi-touch patent at some point. With any luck that IP holder will be a willing licensee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.
2012 Total Patents filed: 809
2012 Total Patents granted: 1209
Since 2007 a good 4-5k granted patents to Apple and unlike IBM who dwarfs everyone filing patents, Apple has a high patent to product ratio, if not near the top in the industry.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/google-cranks-up-its-patent-engine/
To repeat, eventually all the big players will have to admit they need something another one has. Settlements will come, just as Apple did with HTC. IMHO all the saber-rattling is mostly jockeying for position.
That said, IF this is some vague 'idea' patent then it probably should be invalid. Just like the 'swipe to unlock' was and Apple was granted a more specific single implementation patent.
And what about other related patents. Apple might 'lose' this one but have other patents that cover the same areas and ultimately be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ward
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.
Finally... someone has posted something that's based on reality instead of emotion. Bravo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
According to a poster on MacRumors the Samsung trial did not involve this patent. If that's the case I can't see it changing the outcome of the trial. Of course it's a bad time for this to become public,
I'd be curious to know how man Samsung patents have been invalidated that we never hear about since all people seem to care about are Apple patents. When I searched USPTO's database I saw a number of "rounded rectangle" design patents awarded to Samsung. Why would you patent something if you weren't prepared to defend it?
It looks like Samsung's European smiley patent is about to be invalidated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt
Pathetic is US Patent and its principles. Check European. Those who lived and studied in Europe laugh of US Patent principles. I actually could smartly sneak pen and mouse definition and get USPTO patent. In Europe, engineering students (Masters) are required to take classes in patenting so no "smart-boy" lawyer could do some idiotic claims.
Guess what my friend who is from European university was writing technical reviews for such patent firm that protected large corporations in the USA. Now I hear they have firm that really works on helping people with real innovations here in the USA and not some idiotic patents used for corporate wars. I hear that competitor of Apple visits that place from to time
Although stating heuristics for base of command sounds innovative in fact it is not. It is the way we all function every day prior to Apple's "discovery". You cannot patent common science or laws of nature. Still not understandable? Go get education overseas. You may even learn how GSM networks was born that has a lot with US patenting system.
(Euro living in this mess)
Please explain how this European software based patent fits in with your rant:-
It's called "Emoticon input method for mobile terminal", it was filed by Samsung and published in 2002, when Samsung apparently invented this
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/maximizedOriginalDocument?flavour=maximizedPlainPage&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20080924&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1
These patent invalidations won't affect the current case finalizing before judge Koh, unless they are final invalidations. I forget the status '381 patent but the '949 won't be totally invalidated or validated until after Koh makes her final decisions. So it seems that this won't have an effect until the appeal.
It will be interesting to see if Apple and Samsung settle before an appeal, or if they appeal this and keep the second AppleVSSamsung 2013 trial on track.
Judge Koh seems sick of these companies using the courts to settle their business disputes when her same court presides over arguably more important cases.
GG, always enjoy your input.
I'm new here but this is worth a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY
This is the work presented by Jeff Han at the TED talks in Feb 2006. This is a full 2 years before this patent was submitted. There was a lot of work done in multi-touch and Jeff makes reference to them. This clearly show prior art. It is being presented here to a public forum and there were white papers published and Kiosks demonstrating these devises gestures at tech conferences and in lobbies of high tech firms . It shows pinch to zoom, panning, scaling and rotation. Obviously this is not a demonstration of a mobile device nor is it the same type of touch screen display. However the patents in question also don't stipulate what type of touch interface either. Many gestures that Apple has "patented" had been in the public space prior to the patent filings.
I do believe Apple has brought and continues to bring an incredible amount of innovation to the market, but have I expected these patents to fall eventually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
There needs to be a major investigation.
There are too many shenangians going on now.
Someone is being paid off.
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.
How do you know there is nothing like it? First of all, proving a negative is hard. Second, there most assuredly was something "like" it at the time, because Apple did not invent multitouch. But claim 1 of patent '949 is so general and vague that Apple might argue that what it covers is similar to but does not overlap with prior art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reasonableGuy
I'm new here but this is worth a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY
This is the work presented by Jeff Han at the TED talks in Feb 2006. This is a full 2 years before this patent was submitted. There was a lot of work done in multi-touch and Jeff makes reference to them. This clearly show prior art. It is being presented here to a public forum and there were white papers published and Kiosks demonstrating these devises gestures at tech conferences and in lobbies of high tech firms . It shows pinch to zoom, panning, scaling and rotation. Obviously this is not a demonstration of a mobile device nor is it the same type of touch screen display. However the patents in question also don't stipulate what type of touch interface either. Many gestures that Apple has "patented" had been in the public space prior to the patent filings.
I do believe Apple has brought and continues to bring an incredible amount of innovation to the market, but have I expected these patents to fall eventually.
Some kind of a deal or agreement exists between Jeff Han and Apple. But, to complicate this situation, Han sold his company to Microsoft earlier this year.
Notwithstanding this, Apple needs to distinguish their '949 patent from prior art such as Han's multitouch research.
If Apple never invented an ipad or iphone, I am sure that my iMac would still be as good as it is. Bottom line, while I'd like to see Apple protected against their ideas and implementation being ripped off by the craptastic items produced by samuel sung, it still will not stop Apple being a profitable company and making game changing quality products. I think Apple are in good hands.
In response to the guy that thinks Google is influencing the patent office.....
This is absolutely not true. The patent office is not influenced by Google. The only difference between examination of a sensitive patent for Apple is that some (not all) examiners will be more cautious because they don't want to allow something that will get overturned in court. When this happens the examiner will reject, reject, reject and the Applicant has to appeal to the board of appeals who will then overturn the examiner and allow the case. (assuming the claim is allowable)
I find it humorous to read postings by people (including AI) about IP matters. For the most part you guys get it all wrong. I guess that is why us patent lawyers can charge $300-$500/hr.
First off, this patent has not been invalidated. It has not even been "preliminarily invalidated". The patent is under reexamination. Apple has received an action on the merits. Talk to any patent attorney with significant prosecution experience and they will tell you that 90% of the time they get a first action where all the claims are rejected. This is totally expected and it means nothing in terms of whether claims will eventually be allowed.
Secondly, the patent office doesn't invalidate patents. They reject or allow patent claims. The only place to invalidate a patent is a court of law.
I haven't read the claims or the prior art that provoked the re-exam, but if this is a typical re-exam, the claims were probably issued too broadly given the newly discovered prior art. Apple will narrow the claims to overcome the prior art and the patent will reissue.
The most ridiculous comments in this thread are the ones where you all opine about whether the patent office is broken or the patent office screwed up. Unless you read and analyze the claims in light of the prior art you have no idea whether the patent is allowable. A PATENT IS NOT DEFINED BY ITS DISCLOSURE.....A PATENT IS DEFINED BY ITS CLAIMS.
One more thing.... the patent office does a pretty good job of searching the prior art. Examiners have like 10-15 hours to review the prior art, the patent application, and write up a rejection. You can't expect them to find every piece of prior art known to mankind. Besides, even if they looked for 100 hours, they might not find everything. We do not want the government spending 50 billion a year trying to find a needle in a haystack. If they miss something, the patent can be re-examed. What's wrong with that? A re-exam is not much different than the original prosecution.
The system isn't broken, its efficient. However, we would definitely have a broken system if we implemented policies based on the opinions expressed in this thread.