I believe Apple applied for this patent prior to the launch of the original iPhone, right? The USPTO granted the patent at that time. How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior? That's like giving you a marriage license one day, but the following week saying your marriage is no longer valid even though you have a license... oh wait.
That this the purpose of the law to allow people to go back in time to challenge an already issued patent which should have never been granted in the first time, but read below, it reality it just another way for the government to make more money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Government idiocy and money?! Imagine that...
Oh looks like the government found another way to make money, it cost money to file a patent and the associated work, and not if someone want to challenge the patent since the government did not do their work in the first place you have to pay again. Another prime example of government making money for the their own mistakes. Interesting how that works.
At the moment, it just sounds like an empty-headed statement....
It means he ended up looking like a fool with his previous claim that 80% of software patents were invalidated, so now he's scaled it back to the point where he can't be wrong.
According to the USPTO, no more than 23% of patents remain intact as originally filed, with the same percentage completely invalidated after commissioner review (see Section 10):
When looking at the subset of software patents frequently asserted in court, according to an analysis by Stanford law professors Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro as much as 90% of such cases lose, often through invalidation or other means which also render them ineffectual:
So, now you are posting the same nonsense, but changed your text into weasel words that don't really say anything more than your original comment in this thread?
Seriously? Your whole article is about the fact that Apple's recent patent losses are due to this new law, but you don't explain the law (beyond simply naming it), and don't tell us what it is or why/how it affects Apple's patent litigation???
What's the f*cking point of this? Stop doing this. These aren't "articles" at all. This kind of "whoring for hits" is what places like Engadget and CultofMac do.
In fairness, if you take the time to click on the words "was passed" (in blue color) ... following the term ...(The Leahy-Smith Act was passed by) it takes you to a link that answers all your questions, at least it did for me.
Yes, that's the post where you failed to provide any citations for your claims. Did you mistakenly believe you had included a link there, or perhaps meant to link to some other post I might have missed?
Back on topic, in this thread you wrote, "So, now you are posting the same nonsense", so the question remains:
Is it the USPTO or the Stanford law professors you find less credible than your unsupported opinions?
Uhm, that wasn't my post, so, apparently, you make it quite a habit to post stuff where you have no idea what you are talking about.
Comments
Originally Posted by lightknight
Why are there incomplete sentences in that "article"... ?
HTML formatting error (a ' instead of a "), which magically hid the rest of the paragraph.
Should be fixed now.
What are the counts of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives?
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Any Act with the name "Leahy" on it should be automatically invalidated, imho.
Can't believe that guy is now third in line for the US presidency.... he's just so past his sell-by date.
Huh? Did I miss a news report?
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
What are the counts of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives?
What are the counts of the law-making parts of government controlled by the Democrats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Huh? Did I miss a news report?
Yes, apparently, I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
I believe Apple applied for this patent prior to the launch of the original iPhone, right? The USPTO granted the patent at that time. How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior? That's like giving you a marriage license one day, but the following week saying your marriage is no longer valid even though you have a license... oh wait.
That this the purpose of the law to allow people to go back in time to challenge an already issued patent which should have never been granted in the first time, but read below, it reality it just another way for the government to make more money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Government idiocy and money?! Imagine that...
Oh looks like the government found another way to make money, it cost money to file a patent and the associated work, and not if someone want to challenge the patent since the government did not do their work in the first place you have to pay again. Another prime example of government making money for the their own mistakes. Interesting how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
What are the counts of the law-making parts of government controlled by the Democrats?
I think you either a) missed the point, or b) don't understand how our government works. Or, maybe you were trying to spin it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Patents have been found invalid with some frequency.....
What the heck does that mean?
At the moment, it just sounds like an empty-headed statement....
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What the heck does that mean?
At the moment, it just sounds like an empty-headed statement....
It means he ended up looking like a fool with his previous claim that 80% of software patents were invalidated, so now he's scaled it back to the point where he can't be wrong.
deleted
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
According to the USPTO, no more than 23% of patents remain intact as originally filed, with the same percentage completely invalidated after commissioner review (see Section 10):
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/EP_quarterly_report_June_30_2012.pdf
When looking at the subset of software patents frequently asserted in court, according to an analysis by Stanford law professors Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro as much as 90% of such cases lose, often through invalidation or other means which also render them ineffectual:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/patents.pdf
That's a lengthy paper - the summary included here may be helpful:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Oracle-Google-case-shows-patent-system-flaws-3507618.php
So, now you are posting the same nonsense, but changed your text into weasel words that don't really say anything more than your original comment in this thread?
"... may be helpful."
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Is it the USPTO or the Stanford law professors you find less credible than your unsupported opinions?
"Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO" post #55
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Seriously? Your whole article is about the fact that Apple's recent patent losses are due to this new law, but you don't explain the law (beyond simply naming it), and don't tell us what it is or why/how it affects Apple's patent litigation???
What's the f*cking point of this? Stop doing this. These aren't "articles" at all. This kind of "whoring for hits" is what places like Engadget and CultofMac do.
In fairness, if you take the time to click on the words "was passed" (in blue color) ... following the term ...(The Leahy-Smith Act was passed by) it takes you to a link that answers all your questions, at least it did for me.
Apple's lawyers need to invent some sort of patent application process that sticks. And make sure they patent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Yes, that's the post where you failed to provide any citations for your claims. Did you mistakenly believe you had included a link there, or perhaps meant to link to some other post I might have missed?
Back on topic, in this thread you wrote, "So, now you are posting the same nonsense", so the question remains:
Is it the USPTO or the Stanford law professors you find less credible than your unsupported opinions?
Uhm, that wasn't my post, so, apparently, you make it quite a habit to post stuff where you have no idea what you are talking about.
Originally Posted by AnalogJack
Apple's lawyers need to invent some sort of patent application process that sticks. And make sure they patent it.
Invalidated for prior art.