“Non-Practicing Entity” is a more fair and unbiased term. Unless the author is personally involved in this lawsuit as a defendant, there’s no reason to use the “troll” slur.
Sure there is. If you’re not a product or software shop and you’re not actually producing anything, you’re just gaming and monetizing the system itself. That’s a patent troll, sitting under his bridge collecting tolls.
Does the suit in question seek to invalidate Apple's own patent for their own DNDWD feature? If not, wouldn't that be tacit admission by the NPE that their patent is not at work in Apple's DNDWD?
on the contrary, they will argue that Apple never should have received a patent because the idea wasn't actually new. but what this NPE may have forgotten is that part of the process in applying for a patent is to research any related or possibly related patents and answer how yours is unique or expands the patent to the point of deserving its own patent. so even if Apple knew about this Bovis patent, if it was just the idea, then they could have filed for a patent for their way of fulfilling the idea and gotten a patent for their advancement of the idea. and if the idea was vague enough they can argue that it wasn't actually worthy of a patent so they don't know Bovis etc anything.
patent law is weird and mind boggling and kind of fun (if you are a masochist)
I'm not sure Apple could have known about the NPE patent, since Apple's was granted in 2008:
“Non-Practicing Entity” is a more fair and unbiased term. Unless the author is personally involved in this lawsuit as a defendant, there’s no reason to use the “troll” slur.
Sure there is. If you’re not a product or software shop and you’re not actually producing anything, you’re just gaming and monetizing the system itself. That’s a patent troll, sitting under his bridge collecting tolls.
Wrong. In the US, we recognize intellectual property owners as having substantially the same legal rights as physical property owners, with the caveat for IP holders (specifically, patented or copyrighted works) of having time-limited protections.
Therefore, the holder of a patent seeking legally permissible payment for infringement of their property (and it does not matter how they came by this property, whether they invented, authored or bought it from another party) is completely in the right to do so. It has been this way since the earliest days of the US, so take it up with the founders if that is a problem. Arguments to the contrary are anti-capitalistic claptrap.
Just don’t answer the darn phone while driving, much like DUI.....dont drive while drunk, BUT some still does. Useless feature to me
I don't answer the phone while driving, but I like DNDWD's lack of notication SOUNDS. I also like that it sends the texter a message that I'm driving and not going to answer their text right away. Some people have needed to be broken of that habit, just as I have needed to be broken of the habit of looking at the phone (but not answering) when the text chime sounds. I find the feature very helpful, and I believe that it saves lives.
The disease of the patent world are these patent trolls holding onto them with the intend to get money from companies that actually make products. I certaily hope the payent system gets reformed so that these patent trolls are no more.
I am sorry Nick Bovis, you were not first to do this. My Motorola Atrix phone back in 2009 had this as built in feature, and when I stopped using my Motorola Android phones this was one of the feature I missed the most moving to a iPhone. Even today, the iPhone does not do half of what the Atrix did on setting up the phone based on location and what was connected to the phone at the time.
Good luck with your case, all apple has to do it put to the Motorola solution from many years ago as prior artwork.
That's not how patents work. It is perfectly acceptable to create an inventive way of accomplishing a task or building a product while citing and building on someone's previously patented work. If Bovis has unique and creative claims in his patent, asserting those specific claims, and can prove Apple is using those very specific protected elements in their own iteration they may be using his IP illegally despite the fact that other companies or individuals may have had features that offered similar benefits or even that Apple has their own patent. Surely you're aware of companies citing prior art in applying for and being granted a patent protecting their own unique twist on it.
I am quite familiar with the patent process and doing searches for prior artwork since I have been on a couple patent applications which were not granted due to prior artwork. Most time when patent application is submitted with prior artwork it usually to backup that new part is new and novel not to show someone else already did you the patent is applying for.
In this case, someone like Bovis claiming his solution is more novel or would not be obvious to some with similar skills to have come to same solution, would require him to show and know how Motorola implemented of the same Do Not Disturb feature. I doubt very much he had access to Motorola implementation. As I said the Motorola solution did far more than a simple Do Not Disturb while in the car, it was one feature which use location and other contextual information to set the phone up in a various modes which automatically did things. I used to have my phone turn off the ringer and send all calls to voicemail unless on my emergence contact list at 10PM if I am in my home and the phone was plugged in, this meant I no longer want to be disturb at home. I use to do something similar in my car, the Motorola feature allow me to distinguish between be being the drive or not and which car I may have been in.
I personally have not see any patent information from Apple on this solution and if they have not applied for patents I suspect it is due the fact there is too many prior artworks on this solution for Apple to even bother going after a patent. This does not mean the Patent office would not grant one, but is it defensible, notice how any time their is a patent dispute one of the first things that is done is to invalidate the patent by showing prior artwork, Apple has won a few of these cases.
Comments
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8706143B1/en
And the Bovis patent not until 2015:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8958853B1/en?oq=8958853
* IANAL
Therefore, the holder of a patent seeking legally permissible payment for infringement of their property (and it does not matter how they came by this property, whether they invented, authored or bought it from another party) is completely in the right to do so. It has been this way since the earliest days of the US, so take it up with the founders if that is a problem. Arguments to the contrary are anti-capitalistic claptrap.
I certaily hope the payent system gets reformed so that these patent trolls are no more.
I am quite familiar with the patent process and doing searches for prior artwork since I have been on a couple patent applications which were not granted due to prior artwork. Most time when patent application is submitted with prior artwork it usually to backup that new part is new and novel not to show someone else already did you the patent is applying for.
In this case, someone like Bovis claiming his solution is more novel or would not be obvious to some with similar skills to have come to same solution, would require him to show and know how Motorola implemented of the same Do Not Disturb feature. I doubt very much he had access to Motorola implementation. As I said the Motorola solution did far more than a simple Do Not Disturb while in the car, it was one feature which use location and other contextual information to set the phone up in a various modes which automatically did things. I used to have my phone turn off the ringer and send all calls to voicemail unless on my emergence contact list at 10PM if I am in my home and the phone was plugged in, this meant I no longer want to be disturb at home. I use to do something similar in my car, the Motorola feature allow me to distinguish between be being the drive or not and which car I may have been in.
I personally have not see any patent information from Apple on this solution and if they have not applied for patents I suspect it is due the fact there is too many prior artworks on this solution for Apple to even bother going after a patent. This does not mean the Patent office would not grant one, but is it defensible, notice how any time their is a patent dispute one of the first things that is done is to invalidate the patent by showing prior artwork, Apple has won a few of these cases.