USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    The whole problem here to me is that the USPTO grants patents, then invalidates them later after challenges. We need a better patent system that gets it right the first time. But since this is a government beauracracy that obviously can never happen, not in a million years.
    Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.
  • Reply 42 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,988member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.

    I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?
  • Reply 43 of 53
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Exactly. Get it right the first time and don't allow companies to game the system to get things overturned.


    That would cost too much. USPTO actually makes money unlike other government offices. They charge for patents and they charge even more to review them when contested as well. The more reviews the better from their perspective.

  • Reply 44 of 53
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I think it's that they game the system now to get them approved in the first place. Ever curious why a patent applied for in say 2009 or even earlier doesn't get approved until 2014?

    The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.

     

    "After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners."

     

     (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)

  • Reply 45 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,988member
    d4njvrzf wrote: »
    The Siri '604 patent was tweaked nine times before finally being approved.

    "After patent 8,086,604 was first rejected in 2007, Apple’s lawyers made small adjustments to the application, changing the word “documents” to “items of information” and inserting the phrase “heuristic modules” to refer to bits of software code. A few years later, the inclusion of the word “predetermined” further narrowed Apple’s approach....Though submitting an application repeatedly can incur large legal fees, it is often effective. About 70 percent of patent applications are eventually approved after an applicant has altered claims, tinkered with language or worn down the patent examiners.<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"</span>


     (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all)

    You got it. Gaming the system.
  • Reply 46 of 53
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

    ...

    Innovation is both a physical and abstract reality.

    Innovation happens everyday without patents.

  • Reply 47 of 53
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    You got it. Gaming the system.

     

    What's wrong with that? If the law is already a tangled mess, then the only way to navigate the law is to use the tangle against itself.

  • Reply 48 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,988member
    What's wrong with that? If the law is already a tangled mess, then the only way to navigate the law is to use the tangle against itself.
    Nothing is wrong with it. The big guys know how the game is played and the little guys eventually catch on or give up.
  • Reply 49 of 53
    rogifan wrote: »
    magman1979 wrote: »
    They likely got invalidated due to an "anonymous" claim being filed to have them thrown out. Wouldn't surprise me a single bit if the anonymous party was someone with ties to Scamsung.

    Apple will just appeal and have the decision reversed and the patent will stand, just watch.

    The USPTO usually attempts to dismiss patents as soon as an anonymous claim is filed, forcing the patent holder to begin, in some cases multiple, appeals.

    Just goes to show how broken the patent system is.

    Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

    Endorsing theft is not conducive to a good society; doing so leads to an amoral one.
  • Reply 50 of 53
    gtr wrote: »
    rogifan wrote: »
    Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

    I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

    I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.

    Possession by the devil is one possibility, but I will—as a magnaminous gesture—let her speak for herself.
  • Reply 51 of 53
    sog35 wrote: »
    Bottom line is this:  If Apple wants to win the US court they need to increase their lobbing in Washington DC.  PERIOD. 

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/05/09/google-workers-top-microsoft-facebook-peers-in.html?page=all

    <h1>Google workers top Microsoft, Facebook peers in political donations</h1>

    No need to fight evil with evil. Better to end corruption.
  • Reply 52 of 53
    These patents are dropping like flies.
Sign In or Register to comment.