I'll go against the trend here and say, it seems like this guy deserves to win. If this guy got these patents, then the USA say he deserves them. If these patents are infringed by Apple, then Apple must not win only because, like Microsoft a few years back, it has the finances to shut people up (and be a gangster? or was that a Korean company?).
As to whether the patent system should allow patenting software or DNA (that's coming, we all know it)... that's another issue. For now, it does, Apple is a HUGE owner of patents and uses them against smaller companies. You can't have the benefits without the costs.
Also, the concept of DNA printer where you code stuff in a standard programming language is an obvious idea I've had since I know about DNA. I'm betting whatever you want that the first firm to market a solution for this will try to patent the idea, and sue whoever brings an equivalent solution to market.
What he deserves is his day in court, as Apple deserves its right to appeal.
As to whomever invents the first DNA printer, they can certainly patent inventions associated with specific methods used to accomplish DNA printing, but such patents, like all patents, must necessarily be very specific in order to adequately describe what is novel, valuable, and non-obvious. And that invites others who would like to make their own DNS printer to work around, sometimes in quite subtle ways, the specific methodology described in each invention. Patent don't allow you to just patent the idea of a DNA printer or any other new invention; they must specify in great detail each aspect of how it actually works. Otherwise you would patent your idea right now.
Glass that tapers into the edge profile is not something Apple came up with. Nokia did it earlier.
Those speaker grille holes look rank. Samsung really should get an Italian design house to do their flagship designs.
Oh, don't be so fucking obtuse. Look at those side shots and tell me that isn't a dead ringer for an iPhone 6. No, Apple did not invent metal. They did not invent speaker grills. They did not invent rounded corners. But you're really being intellectually dishonest if you can see those pics and not admit that Samsung copies as many unique elements as possible in order to duplicate the general look. It has nothing to do with just the glass. It's the rounded shape of the bezels, the color of the metal, the shape and size of the buttons, the grey band, the arrangement of the speaker holes, shape of the usb connector, simcard slot, etc.
You REALLY think the S6 would look like this if the iPhone 6 did not exist? REALLY? That would be one giant fucking coincidence.
If I was a big company, I'd set up an agreement with other big companies (in a perfectly legal fashion) to "invest in the future" so that young startups with great ideas, but, sadly, no infrastructure, might not suffer the fate of losing their patents.
Which can also be seen as "I'd strong arm smaller companies into surrendering their ability to innovate". Good job, you destroyed the US economy by making invention non viable as a business. Not to mention you destroyed all patents relative to non-directly usable technology, whether it's due to the fact the patent is too technical, or because the usability of the patent depends on another invention.
If in need of an example: the steam machine was actually invented by Heron of Alexandria, 3BC. Not James Watt, like you'd learn in school. However, James Watt's is "usable", which none of its predecessor's (pain's, Savery's, Newcomen's...) was. One of the major inventions needed to make use of the steam machine is a joint that doesn't waste most of the energy, for the record.
If patents were a simple case, we'd have found a solution after the centuries of search for a better system. The fathers of the US revolution were heavily divided on the system, and they went for the current system based on the conclusion giving exclusivity to the inventor who filed also meant that the technique became free to use for all after only a few decades. Do we really want to destroy this efficient system just to get a few less years of wait?
It's a complicated problem.
Funny, plenty of other places don't patent utter crud though. So, I'm guessing there is much space for better things in the US.
Just one day after Smartflash won a $533 million jury decision against Apple, the intellectual property holder filed yet another patent case against the company seeking even more damages for alleged infringement.
Smartflash Technologies' new complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, alleges that Apple's iTunes Store, App Store and iAds advertising network infringe on a number of patents it owns, all of which are entitled "Data Storage and Access Systems." They are:
Unsurprisingly, the complaint was filed in the same district as the previous, successful suit, in Tyler, Tex. Patent infringement suits are frequently filed in the Eastern District of Texas because of their historically favorable outcomes toward intellectual property holders, who are frequently derided as "patent trolls" for seeking money from patent infringement suits.
Smartflash had its latest complaint ready to go immediately, as the new suit already cites the Feb. 24 decision, in which Apple was ordered to pay $533 million for infringing on gaming patents. Apple has already said it will appeal that decision, and in a statement toBloomberg the company indicated it plans to push back hard.
"Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented," a spokeswoman said. "We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take up this fight through the court system."
Smartflash was founded by inventor Patrick Racz in the early 2000s as a way to market and commoditize his patents, some of which date back to 1999. As a non-practicing entity, the firm operates solely through patent licensing and litigation. Using its clutch of seven patents, all attributed to co-inventor Racz, the firm sued game makers Game Circus and KingsIsle Entertainment in 2014. Both companies settled out of court.
Court documents, both in the previous suit and this week's new complaint, allege that around the time of Smartflash's founding, Racz met with executives from what is now Gemalto SA to market technology relating to the patents-in-suit. Among those who gained knowledge of the patented tech was Augustin Farrugia, who left Gemalto in 2002 and subsequently took a position as Apple's senior director of Internet service security and DRM technologies.
What will happen here is that Apple, Google and the like will decide to say "**** it" and spent 2B into lobbying to completely overhaul the way patents are done now. That seems the only solution to such nonsense. Even in Washington, 2B in lobbying is not small stuff.
Saying this is pretending that the concept of a pure research lab is worthless. it's essentially limiting the right to enterprise to people who have enough capital to operate an Industry Model, e.g. "products, employees, jobs, US presence".
Pure research labs are clearly a leech. They take take take and don't give back.
What's the point of doing research if no one stands to benefit from that research?
I do take the leech comment back actually. Leeches give us many health benefits.
I disagree with Apple's statement. At some point the patent was purchased from someone who either didn't have the funds or stamina to release a product. Just because they purchased a patent does not mean it's OK to use the idea without payment. They can just give them a IOU from Samsung.
There needs to be a new law that invalidates any patent that is not acted upon or applied after 10 years. It's straight bs that this company can pull a patent out of their ass from more than a decade ago and call it theirs when they havn't even tried to make the product. It's like me going ahead and patenting a wireless, mind reading computer now and wait 20 years just to sue the company that actually makes it.
Spring 1968, Idea for Song: A mid-tempo rock ballad in which the singer, back by a spare piano arrangement, urges a young man to make it better. The arrangement gets more complex as other instruments are gradually added. Finally, in an extended repeated coda, there is the addition of a chorus and small orchestra.
What if you "use" it for licensing? Would that be enough?
Not everyone who comes up with an idea has the desire, or the ability, to make a shipping product. They might just want to licence it to others.
(I'm not talking about this case in particular... just in general.)
No because some other person or persons would probably invent the same thing and put it to use. They shouldn't be sued into oblivion by some entity who was just waiting for someone to violate the patent.
If I was a big company, I'd set up an agreement with other big companies (in a perfectly legal fashion) to "invest in the future" so that young startups with great ideas, but, sadly, no infrastructure, might not suffer the fate of losing their patents.
Which can also be seen as "I'd strong arm smaller companies into surrendering their ability to innovate". Good job, you destroyed the US economy by making invention non viable as a business. Not to mention you destroyed all patents relative to non-directly usable technology, whether it's due to the fact the patent is too technical, or because the usability of the patent depends on another invention.
...
It's a complicated problem.
Hogwash. Nothing is destroyed. Odds are likely someone else is inventing the same thing but instead of waiting for violators, he/she would put it to use.
I think it's time these people started paying legal costs if they lose. The reason the UK doesn't have such a massive industry in lawsuits is because you'd better be damn sure you have a strong case before going to court.
This company knows it will lose eventually; the trick is to wear your victim down until he agrees to pay just to make it go away.
Pity they picked a 'victim' with really deep pockets and an unwavering belief that they're always right.
"Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented,"
Pretty much sums it up. Can't fucking understand how these asswipes can claim damages when they sell zero products. The iPhone, etc. did not sway a single dollar away from them, cause they sell jack shit. Apple should countersue, since the negative PR of this trial had an effect on the stock and therefore billions in marketcap. Cockroaches.
Why should they have to sell something? Would you tell a sales clerk at the Apple Store that they don't deserve to be paid because they didn't have anything to do with the inventing or manufacturing?
All technologies require three things, they need to be invented, manufactured, and sold. Those three things can be done in the same or different companies. Inventors deserve to get paid just like sales people, even though neither of them make anything.
Sales people protect their market by maintaining customer relationships. Inventors protect their market by maintaining patents. It's what makes America a great place to invent new stuff. If you don't like it, move to Russia or Saudi Arabia, there's no market for inventing there. Interestingly China is probably more pro-patent than most of you in this forum.
I think it's time these people started paying legal costs if they lose. The reason the UK doesn't have such a massive industry in lawsuits is because you'd better be damn sure you have a strong case before going to court.
This company knows it will lose eventually; the trick is to wear your victim down until he agrees to pay just to make it go away.
Pity they picked a 'victim' with really deep pockets and an unwavering belief that they're always right.
I think it's time these people started paying legal costs if they lose. The reason the UK doesn't have such a massive industry in lawsuits is because you'd better be damn sure you have a strong case before going to court.
This company knows it will lose eventually; the trick is to wear your victim down until he agrees to pay just to make it go away.
Pity they picked a 'victim' with really deep pockets and an unwavering belief that they're always right.
What makes you think they should lose? Has it occurred to you that Apple may be infringing a valid patent?
The reason the cost of litigation is so high is because big companies spend millions of dollars on lawyers who play games and try and spend the patent holders into the ground. It's a game they play all the time and every now and then they lose.
Show me a product. Show me where his patented ideas were actually used. How generalized are his patents? Apple should go after the USPTO directly and challenge them to justify giving this guy patents just for ideas that he never tried translating into a product.
What makes you think the patent office did something wrong? Has it not occured to that Apple is infringing? You must be the kind of guy whose kid punches someone in the face and when you hear about it, you instantly respond by saying, "oh my child would never do that, you must be mistaken".
Apple has and should defend itself in patent infringement lawsuits, but just because you like Apple doesn't mean they aren't infringing or that the Patent office must have screwed up.
Oh, don't be so fucking obtuse. Look at those side shots and tell me that isn't a dead ringer for an iPhone 6. No, Apple did not invent metal. They did not invent speaker grills. They did not invent rounded corners. But you're really being intellectually dishonest if you can see those pics and not admit that Samsung copies as many unique elements as possible in order to duplicate the general look. It has nothing to do with just the glass. It's the rounded shape of the bezels, the color of the metal, the shape and size of the buttons, the grey band, the arrangement of the speaker holes, shape of the usb connector, simcard slot, etc.
You REALLY think the S6 would look like this if the iPhone 6 did not exist? REALLY? That would be one giant fucking coincidence.
They are similar to the iPhone 6, yes, but they are also similar the top phone which is their own Alpha that predates the IP6:
It's a bit of a mashup really. As for the rounded edge profile, that seems a near necessity dictated by the edge version, which given the likely difficulty and time necessitated in creating such a display, was quite possibly designed prior to the IP6 announcement. If you discount the different materials, the IP6's rounded edge profile with a display glass with an edge blended to match, is very reminiscent of the Nokia 1020:
The grey band was on the Alpha - which pre-dates the iPhone 6. The colour of the metal? - you can't be serious! Same goes for the shape of the USB connector - the IP6 doesn't have one, it has a lightning connector. The shape of the USB port on the S6 is like just about every other one on every phone that has one. The buttons don't look remotely like those on an IP6 as that uses a rocker - which looks just like the one on my 5 year old Samsung Wave, whereas the purported S6 image shows separate volume buttons.. There is more than enough justification to claim Ive was channeling the Nokia 1020 when he designed the 6.
"As to whether the patent system should allow patenting software ... that's another issue"
Yes, might mountain climbers one day be able to patent a route?
No the USPTO would never allow a claim to a climbing route. It isn't patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because a climbing route is naturally occurring. Software IS NOT naturally occuring.
Comments
What he deserves is his day in court, as Apple deserves its right to appeal.
As to whomever invents the first DNA printer, they can certainly patent inventions associated with specific methods used to accomplish DNA printing, but such patents, like all patents, must necessarily be very specific in order to adequately describe what is novel, valuable, and non-obvious. And that invites others who would like to make their own DNS printer to work around, sometimes in quite subtle ways, the specific methodology described in each invention. Patent don't allow you to just patent the idea of a DNA printer or any other new invention; they must specify in great detail each aspect of how it actually works. Otherwise you would patent your idea right now.
The edge version isn't similar though:
Glass that tapers into the edge profile is not something Apple came up with. Nokia did it earlier.
Those speaker grille holes look rank. Samsung really should get an Italian design house to do their flagship designs.
Oh, don't be so fucking obtuse. Look at those side shots and tell me that isn't a dead ringer for an iPhone 6. No, Apple did not invent metal. They did not invent speaker grills. They did not invent rounded corners. But you're really being intellectually dishonest if you can see those pics and not admit that Samsung copies as many unique elements as possible in order to duplicate the general look. It has nothing to do with just the glass. It's the rounded shape of the bezels, the color of the metal, the shape and size of the buttons, the grey band, the arrangement of the speaker holes, shape of the usb connector, simcard slot, etc.
You REALLY think the S6 would look like this if the iPhone 6 did not exist? REALLY? That would be one giant fucking coincidence.
If I was a big company, I'd set up an agreement with other big companies (in a perfectly legal fashion) to "invest in the future" so that young startups with great ideas, but, sadly, no infrastructure, might not suffer the fate of losing their patents.
Which can also be seen as "I'd strong arm smaller companies into surrendering their ability to innovate". Good job, you destroyed the US economy by making invention non viable as a business. Not to mention you destroyed all patents relative to non-directly usable technology, whether it's due to the fact the patent is too technical, or because the usability of the patent depends on another invention.
If in need of an example: the steam machine was actually invented by Heron of Alexandria, 3BC. Not James Watt, like you'd learn in school. However, James Watt's is "usable", which none of its predecessor's (pain's, Savery's, Newcomen's...) was. One of the major inventions needed to make use of the steam machine is a joint that doesn't waste most of the energy, for the record.
If patents were a simple case, we'd have found a solution after the centuries of search for a better system. The fathers of the US revolution were heavily divided on the system, and they went for the current system based on the conclusion giving exclusivity to the inventor who filed also meant that the technique became free to use for all after only a few decades. Do we really want to destroy this efficient system just to get a few less years of wait?
It's a complicated problem.
Funny, plenty of other places don't patent utter crud though. So, I'm guessing there is much space for better things in the US.
Just one day after Smartflash won a $533 million jury decision against Apple, the intellectual property holder filed yet another patent case against the company seeking even more damages for alleged infringement.
Smartflash Technologies' new complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, alleges that Apple's iTunes Store, App Store and iAds advertising network infringe on a number of patents it owns, all of which are entitled "Data Storage and Access Systems." They are:
Unsurprisingly, the complaint was filed in the same district as the previous, successful suit, in Tyler, Tex. Patent infringement suits are frequently filed in the Eastern District of Texas because of their historically favorable outcomes toward intellectual property holders, who are frequently derided as "patent trolls" for seeking money from patent infringement suits.
Smartflash had its latest complaint ready to go immediately, as the new suit already cites the Feb. 24 decision, in which Apple was ordered to pay $533 million for infringing on gaming patents. Apple has already said it will appeal that decision, and in a statement to Bloomberg the company indicated it plans to push back hard.
"Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented," a spokeswoman said. "We refused to pay off this company for the ideas our employees spent years innovating and unfortunately we have been left with no choice but to take up this fight through the court system."
Smartflash was founded by inventor Patrick Racz in the early 2000s as a way to market and commoditize his patents, some of which date back to 1999. As a non-practicing entity, the firm operates solely through patent licensing and litigation. Using its clutch of seven patents, all attributed to co-inventor Racz, the firm sued game makers Game Circus and KingsIsle Entertainment in 2014. Both companies settled out of court.
Court documents, both in the previous suit and this week's new complaint, allege that around the time of Smartflash's founding, Racz met with executives from what is now Gemalto SA to market technology relating to the patents-in-suit. Among those who gained knowledge of the patented tech was Augustin Farrugia, who left Gemalto in 2002 and subsequently took a position as Apple's senior director of Internet service security and DRM technologies.
What will happen here is that Apple, Google and the like will decide to say "**** it" and spent 2B into lobbying to completely overhaul the way patents are done now. That seems the only solution to such nonsense. Even in Washington, 2B in lobbying is not small stuff.
Saying this is pretending that the concept of a pure research lab is worthless. it's essentially limiting the right to enterprise to people who have enough capital to operate an Industry Model, e.g. "products, employees, jobs, US presence".
Pure research labs are clearly a leech. They take take take and don't give back.
What's the point of doing research if no one stands to benefit from that research?
I do take the leech comment back actually. Leeches give us many health benefits.
There needs to be a new law that invalidates any patent that is not acted upon or applied after 10 years. It's straight bs that this company can pull a patent out of their ass from more than a decade ago and call it theirs when they havn't even tried to make the product. It's like me going ahead and patenting a wireless, mind reading computer now and wait 20 years just to sue the company that actually makes it.
Spring 1968, Idea for Song: A mid-tempo rock ballad in which the singer, back by a spare piano arrangement, urges a young man to make it better. The arrangement gets more complex as other instruments are gradually added. Finally, in an extended repeated coda, there is the addition of a chorus and small orchestra.
If only I'd copyrighted this I'd be rich.
No because some other person or persons would probably invent the same thing and put it to use. They shouldn't be sued into oblivion by some entity who was just waiting for someone to violate the patent.
Hogwash. Nothing is destroyed. Odds are likely someone else is inventing the same thing but instead of waiting for violators, he/she would put it to use.
I think it's time these people started paying legal costs if they lose. The reason the UK doesn't have such a massive industry in lawsuits is because you'd better be damn sure you have a strong case before going to court.
This company knows it will lose eventually; the trick is to wear your victim down until he agrees to pay just to make it go away.
Pity they picked a 'victim' with really deep pockets and an unwavering belief that they're always right.
All technologies require three things, they need to be invented, manufactured, and sold. Those three things can be done in the same or different companies. Inventors deserve to get paid just like sales people, even though neither of them make anything.
Sales people protect their market by maintaining customer relationships. Inventors protect their market by maintaining patents. It's what makes America a great place to invent new stuff. If you don't like it, move to Russia or Saudi Arabia, there's no market for inventing there. Interestingly China is probably more pro-patent than most of you in this forum.
The reason the cost of litigation is so high is because big companies spend millions of dollars on lawyers who play games and try and spend the patent holders into the ground. It's a game they play all the time and every now and then they lose.
Apple has and should defend itself in patent infringement lawsuits, but just because you like Apple doesn't mean they aren't infringing or that the Patent office must have screwed up.
Oh, don't be so fucking obtuse. Look at those side shots and tell me that isn't a dead ringer for an iPhone 6. No, Apple did not invent metal. They did not invent speaker grills. They did not invent rounded corners. But you're really being intellectually dishonest if you can see those pics and not admit that Samsung copies as many unique elements as possible in order to duplicate the general look. It has nothing to do with just the glass. It's the rounded shape of the bezels, the color of the metal, the shape and size of the buttons, the grey band, the arrangement of the speaker holes, shape of the usb connector, simcard slot, etc.
You REALLY think the S6 would look like this if the iPhone 6 did not exist? REALLY? That would be one giant fucking coincidence.
They are similar to the iPhone 6, yes, but they are also similar the top phone which is their own Alpha that predates the IP6:
It's a bit of a mashup really. As for the rounded edge profile, that seems a near necessity dictated by the edge version, which given the likely difficulty and time necessitated in creating such a display, was quite possibly designed prior to the IP6 announcement. If you discount the different materials, the IP6's rounded edge profile with a display glass with an edge blended to match, is very reminiscent of the Nokia 1020:
The grey band was on the Alpha - which pre-dates the iPhone 6. The colour of the metal? - you can't be serious! Same goes for the shape of the USB connector - the IP6 doesn't have one, it has a lightning connector. The shape of the USB port on the S6 is like just about every other one on every phone that has one. The buttons don't look remotely like those on an IP6 as that uses a rocker - which looks just like the one on my 5 year old Samsung Wave, whereas the purported S6 image shows separate volume buttons.. There is more than enough justification to claim Ive was channeling the Nokia 1020 when he designed the 6.
Interesting post.
"As to whether the patent system should allow patenting software ... that's another issue"
Yes, might mountain climbers one day be able to patent a route?
Yep.