Not true at all. If someone can show use of the innovation prior to the patentee applying for a patent (prior art) the law has long allowed for it to serve as a possible basis for invalidating at least business method patents (software).. It's even more significant for all types of patents issued after September 16th, 2011. Whether a business method patent of not, those accused of patent infringement can now challenge validity by "establishing it commercially used, in good faith, a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter that is asserted to infringe the patent at least 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public (whichever is earlier)."
In this case even if Google cannot prove they were using the patented methods at least a year before Apple applied for a patent, possibly invalidating it it may be enough to show the jury they were at least actively developing it before the patent application was known, helping limit any damage finding.
The first iPhone came to market in 2007. They started working on it in 2003-2004? If Google's claims are relevant why not put Rubin on the stand? Why not bring this up in earlier proceedings? Sounds & smells like BS. A Hail Mary pass. Also, the patent does matter. Does the name Alexander Graham Bell sound familiar?
The '889 patent you've linked is not the same as the '286 we were discussing. If they were then one ot the other would be invalid. I've no problem with Apple protecting a novel design in any event. Not sure why I'm bothering to ask you again as I suspect the same non-answer.but here 'ya go anyway: What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?
Sorry, the first link in the article you linked to is bad,
goes to a Vizio patent.
How about this.
The first iPhone came to market in 2007. They started working on it in 2003-2004? If Google's claims are relevant why not put Rubin on the stand? Why not bring this up in earlier proceedings? Sounds & smells like BS. A Hail Mary pass. Also, the patent does matter. Does the name Alexander Graham Bell sound familiar?
Certainly possible it's all being brought up to confuse the jury and there's not much at all to support the claims. I'm sure things will be clearer after this next week's testimony where at least a few more Google folk have been ordered to appear.
Certainly possible it's all being brought up to confuse the jury and there's not much at all to support the claims. I'm sure things will be clearer after this next week's testimony where at least a few more Google folk have been ordered to appear.
Should get interesting. The problem with Rubin may be that he was working at Apple , in the same dept (I think) when they were working on data detectors.
Should get interesting. The problem with Rubin may be that he was working at Apple , in the same dept (I think) when they were working on data detectors.
Apple had commented about Rubin's past employment during an ITC hearing a couple years back. The claim is that he worked as a low-level engineer during the time his bosses invented the methods in the '263 patent, commonly called the Real Time API patent. Apple doesn't go so far as to say he helped in creating it or even that he would have been aware of their work on it. But the hi-level folks he answered to at that time were listed as the inventors. I've never seen a claim he was involved in any way with developing data detectors or answered to that engineering team.
i used samsung s4 black edition i ll used it in my phone. But after last update i hv some problems. When come back i calling my phone sometime is screen turn black and dont open.. thanks your help
If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why....
This is the correct strategy for Apple. Patents gain their strength by being upheld in court. Every court victory is another tightening of the noose around Google's neck. Apple has to go after the manufacturers first, then, when there are enough wins there, google will either settle, or will go into a court battle that it will lose quite spectacularly.
This isn't Apple's fault, it's the way the system is set up.
And it's unfair. Google should already have been bankrupted for their crimes.
What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?
You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them. Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice. "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent.
You're debating a design patent. A design patent is quite different. It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent.
Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple attempted to patent the rounded rect.
Especially given the fact that if you'd bothered to read the patent application you'd find pages of references to prior design patents going back years.
You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them. Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice. "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent.
You're debating a design patent. A design patent is quite different. It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent.
Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple attempted to patent the rounded rect.
Especially given the fact that if you'd bothered to read the patent application you'd find pages of references to prior design patents going back years.
I find it "profoundly troubling" that you'd jump in to denigrate another member on a subject you apparently aren't as familiar with as you imagine you are. Ignorance or dishonesty?
Jessi, what unique ornamental element(s) does the '286 patent offer protection for? Yes, design patent applications require that the protected design be unique, as the USPTO words it " new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."
That's both logical and required. All the cites of prior art and multiple renderings of items with broken lines don't describe what Apple would like to receive patent protection for. Apple specifically stated in the application that items with broken lines were not submitted for consideration. They just added more confusion than clarity to this particular application as evidenced by the examiners references to elements that Apple is not even attempting to claim.
So do you see any requested protection for anything ornamental described by Apple's application other than a simple rectangle? Hint: Look for the only ornamental element in the drawings denoted by a solid line. If you're gonna talk the talk. . . http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/pdf/brochure_05.pdf
EDIT: Why am I not surprised you declined to answer. :rolleyes:
A few more Google folk called to testify today. Bringert,who worked on search at Google says they worked with Samsung to make sure they weren't infringing on Apple patent claims. Went into some detail too on how Google developed text prompt recognition several years ago without any Apple assistance. On cross Apple didn't challenge the claims, but did note that Google is not the one being accused in this trial.
Dianne Hackborn was next up discussing Android development and how they came up with "intents" and the clipboard feature that allows sharing between apps, even 3rd party ones. Again no challenge to her claims on Apple cross-exam, but attorney again pointed out that Google is not being accused of anything. Same with Westbrook and GMail sync, developed in-house by Google without any use of Apple patented methods. Between the three Hackborn was probably the most effective noting when questioned by Apple attorneys that some of the supposedly infringed features are "very core to Android and you can't change the way they work." Doesn't sound as tho she's too afraid of those words coming back to bite Google. As noted by a courtroom reporter she's "a smart person".
At the end of the day the only thing important is whether the jury cares.
BTW, I had no idea that Samsung's chief marketing exec (testifying a few minutes ago) is a 15-year veteran of Nike. Apple said his testimony didn't matter either and deserved no consideration by the jury. Strange day. . . Looks as tho anything not speaking directly to Samsung's inclusion of supposedly infringing features should have no bearing according to Apple counsel. Good plan really, keep the focus solely on Samsung and their devices and keep the jury distraction to a minimum.
If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why....
Back in 2007, Apple and Google were close allies. Google's maps data and search were big deals for the iPhone then. Imagine if Google had never invented Android. I bet Apple would have forged a much closer alliance with Google over the years and that Google's profits would have been substantially higher as a result. So maybe Apple doesn't want to burn its bridges completely. I think it should, though. Despite Job's advice to Cook to do his own thing, I think Cook should honour the greatest injustice to befall Jobs, and go thermonuclear.
A few more Google folk called to testify today. Bringert,who worked on search at Google says they worked with Samsung to make sure they weren't infringing on Apple patent claims. Went into some detail too on how Google developed text prompt recognition several years ago without any Apple assistance. On cross Apple didn't challenge the claims, but did note that Google is not the one being accused in this trial.
Dianne Hackborn was next up discussing Android development and how they came up with "intents" and the clipboard feature that allows sharing between apps, even 3rd party ones. Again no challenge to her claims on Apple cross-exam, but attorney again pointed out that Google is not being accused of anything. Same with Westbrook and GMail sync, developed in-house by Google without any use of Apple patented methods. Between the three Hackborn was probably the most effective noting when questioned by Apple attorneys that some of the supposedly infringed features are "very core to Android and you can't change the way they work." Doesn't sound as tho she's too afraid of those words coming back to bite Google. As noted by a courtroom reporter she's "a smart person".
At the end of the day the only thing important is whether the jury cares.
BTW, I had no idea that Samsung's chief marketing exec (testifying a few minutes ago) is a 15-year veteran of Nike. Apple said his testimony didn't matter either and deserved no consideration by the jury. Strange day. . . Looks as tho anything not speaking directly to Samsung's inclusion of supposedly infringing features should have no bearing according to Apple counsel. Good plan really, keep the focus solely on Samsung and their devices and keep the jury distraction to a minimum.
From the paltry and incomplete reporting I've read on the current case, I notice Samsung is making a grand attempt to throw jurors off by larding up with loads of testimony that seems to have nothing to do with the trial. Why Apple's lawyers are not constantly objecting is odd.
From the paltry and incomplete reporting I've read on the current case, I notice Samsung is making a grand attempt to throw jurors off by larding up with loads of testimony that seems to have nothing to do with the trial. Why Apple's lawyers are not constantly objecting is odd.
Maybe they just want Samsung to use up their allotted time so they can come in and attack, leaving Samsung with little recourse.
Comments
Not true at all. If someone can show use of the innovation prior to the patentee applying for a patent (prior art) the law has long allowed for it to serve as a possible basis for invalidating at least business method patents (software).. It's even more significant for all types of patents issued after September 16th, 2011. Whether a business method patent of not, those accused of patent infringement can now challenge validity by "establishing it commercially used, in good faith, a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter that is asserted to infringe the patent at least 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public (whichever is earlier)."
In this case even if Google cannot prove they were using the patented methods at least a year before Apple applied for a patent, possibly invalidating it it may be enough to show the jury they were at least actively developing it before the patent application was known, helping limit any damage finding.
The first iPhone came to market in 2007. They started working on it in 2003-2004? If Google's claims are relevant why not put Rubin on the stand? Why not bring this up in earlier proceedings? Sounds & smells like BS. A Hail Mary pass. Also, the patent does matter. Does the name Alexander Graham Bell sound familiar?
Sorry, the first link in the article you linked to is bad,
goes to a Vizio patent.
How about this.
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=D0670286&IDKey=A07377D7535C%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3DD670%2C286.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD670%2C286%2526RS%3DPN%2FD670%2C286
Right patent, same story.
And I think you are right.
I had a handheld display device just like this in the 60's.
That and my phaser ; )
Certainly possible it's all being brought up to confuse the jury and there's not much at all to support the claims. I'm sure things will be clearer after this next week's testimony where at least a few more Google folk have been ordered to appear.
Certainly possible it's all being brought up to confuse the jury and there's not much at all to support the claims. I'm sure things will be clearer after this next week's testimony where at least a few more Google folk have been ordered to appear.
Should get interesting. The problem with Rubin may be that he was working at Apple , in the same dept (I think) when they were working on data detectors.
Apple had commented about Rubin's past employment during an ITC hearing a couple years back. The claim is that he worked as a low-level engineer during the time his bosses invented the methods in the '263 patent, commonly called the Real Time API patent. Apple doesn't go so far as to say he helped in creating it or even that he would have been aware of their work on it. But the hi-level folks he answered to at that time were listed as the inventors. I've never seen a claim he was involved in any way with developing data detectors or answered to that engineering team.
There's a pretty good article on his background here if you or anyone else is interested. It dates back to before the first Android phone and offers a nice view of the landscape at the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/technology/04google.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
i used samsung s4 black edition i ll used it in my phone. But after last update i hv some problems. When come back i calling my phone sometime is screen turn black and dont open.. thanks your help
If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why....
This is the correct strategy for Apple. Patents gain their strength by being upheld in court. Every court victory is another tightening of the noose around Google's neck. Apple has to go after the manufacturers first, then, when there are enough wins there, google will either settle, or will go into a court battle that it will lose quite spectacularly.
This isn't Apple's fault, it's the way the system is set up.
And it's unfair. Google should already have been bankrupted for their crimes.
What do you see as novel in th4 described design protected by the '286 patent? Any unique feature at all?
You really shouldn't try to debate patents when you don't understand the basics about them. Utility patents require that they describe inventions that are novel and reduced to practice. "Unique features" would be required for a utility patent.
You're debating a design patent. A design patent is quite different. It's closer to a trademark than a utility patent.
Whether out of ignorance or dishonesty, it is profoundly troubling that you would pretend like apple attempted to patent the rounded rect.
Especially given the fact that if you'd bothered to read the patent application you'd find pages of references to prior design patents going back years.
I find it "profoundly troubling" that you'd jump in to denigrate another member on a subject you apparently aren't as familiar with as you imagine you are. Ignorance or dishonesty?
Jessi, what unique ornamental element(s) does the '286 patent offer protection for? Yes, design patent applications require that the protected design be unique, as the USPTO words it " new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."
That's both logical and required. All the cites of prior art and multiple renderings of items with broken lines don't describe what Apple would like to receive patent protection for. Apple specifically stated in the application that items with broken lines were not submitted for consideration. They just added more confusion than clarity to this particular application as evidenced by the examiners references to elements that Apple is not even attempting to claim.
So do you see any requested protection for anything ornamental described by Apple's application other than a simple rectangle? Hint: Look for the only ornamental element in the drawings denoted by a solid line. If you're gonna talk the talk. . .
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/pdf/brochure_05.pdf
EDIT: Why am I not surprised you declined to answer. :rolleyes:
Dianne Hackborn was next up discussing Android development and how they came up with "intents" and the clipboard feature that allows sharing between apps, even 3rd party ones. Again no challenge to her claims on Apple cross-exam, but attorney again pointed out that Google is not being accused of anything. Same with Westbrook and GMail sync, developed in-house by Google without any use of Apple patented methods. Between the three Hackborn was probably the most effective noting when questioned by Apple attorneys that some of the supposedly infringed features are "very core to Android and you can't change the way they work." Doesn't sound as tho she's too afraid of those words coming back to bite Google. As noted by a courtroom reporter she's "a smart person".
At the end of the day the only thing important is whether the jury cares.
BTW, I had no idea that Samsung's chief marketing exec (testifying a few minutes ago) is a 15-year veteran of Nike. Apple said his testimony didn't matter either and deserved no consideration by the jury. Strange day. . . Looks as tho anything not speaking directly to Samsung's inclusion of supposedly infringing features should have no bearing according to Apple counsel. Good plan really, keep the focus solely on Samsung and their devices and keep the jury distraction to a minimum.
Back in 2007, Apple and Google were close allies. Google's maps data and search were big deals for the iPhone then. Imagine if Google had never invented Android. I bet Apple would have forged a much closer alliance with Google over the years and that Google's profits would have been substantially higher as a result. So maybe Apple doesn't want to burn its bridges completely. I think it should, though. Despite Job's advice to Cook to do his own thing, I think Cook should honour the greatest injustice to befall Jobs, and go thermonuclear.
From the paltry and incomplete reporting I've read on the current case, I notice Samsung is making a grand attempt to throw jurors off by larding up with loads of testimony that seems to have nothing to do with the trial. Why Apple's lawyers are not constantly objecting is odd.
From the paltry and incomplete reporting I've read on the current case, I notice Samsung is making a grand attempt to throw jurors off by larding up with loads of testimony that seems to have nothing to do with the trial. Why Apple's lawyers are not constantly objecting is odd.
Maybe they just want Samsung to use up their allotted time so they can come in and attack, leaving Samsung with little recourse.
Its always nice to have informational post on discussion boards which helps individuals to get all the relevant info which he/she may be looking for.
Very good point.