Not good news for android

[OneTenderRebel]

Read the patent it's not for smartphones or portable devices . The patent is for a data handling method on a "A computer-based system" , that can range from your laptop or smartphone to a car dashboard or ATM .

I read it, I was wrong but the patent does clearly state who it is assigned to, I don't know how much that actually means in court though.

 

[OneTenderRebel]

That's why I think there is far more to these lawsuits than any of us, minus patent lawyers if we have some among us, will understand. Why does Apple own these patents? Why were the companies before hand giant dummy's for not patenting their inventions? Most of these patents go back to well before Apple became the financial giant it is now, so I don't get it?

 

[jseah]

Fair enough but if Apple didn't invent it, and I don't know that they did, why were they awarded the Patent? They certainly weren't the powerhouse they are now, so there's no conspiracy as some would suggest.

One possible outcome, when this finally goes to trial, is that the court/judge can decide that Apple shouldn't have been awarded the patent in the first place because it's too broad, or it had already existed before, etc. and invalidate the patent.

This is why the judge in the Apple/Samsung case ruled against issuing an injunction to bar Samsung from selling Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the US. In her ruling, she stated that while Samsung may have possibly violated Apple's patents, Samsung was also able to raise substantial questions as to the validity of the patents (they provided evidence of a similar Japanese design-related right registered by Sharp that predated Apple's patent). Then the crux of her decision was based on the fact that Apple could not prove that allowing the products to continue to be sold would result in irreparable harm to Apple.

 

[OneTenderRebel]

One possible outcome, when this finally goes to trial, is that the court/judge can decide that Apple shouldn't have been awarded the patent in the first place because it's too broad, or it had already existed before, etc. and invalidate the patent.

This is why the judge in the Apple/Samsung case ruled against issuing an injunction to bar Samsung from selling Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the US. In her ruling, she stated that while Samsung may have possibly violated Apple's patents, Samsung was also able to raise substantial questions as to the validity of the patents (they provided evidence of a similar Japanese design-related right registered by Sharp that predated Apple's patent). Then the crux of her decision was based on the fact that Apple could not prove that allowing the products to continue to be sold would result in irreparable harm to Apple.

true and honestly that probably should be the outcome! I am ok with Apple filing as many lawsuits as they want, that doesn't bother me at all, but the patent system does bother me greatly. I think if the judges are smart they will do exactly as you stated here.

 

[jseah]

true and honestly that probably should be the outcome! I am ok with Apple filing as many lawsuits as they want, that doesn't bother me at all, but the patent system does bother me greatly. I think if the judges are smart they will do exactly as you stated here.

FOSS Patents: Denial of US preliminary injunction against Samsung shows low strategic value of Apple's design patents
This is a good read regarding the US preliminary injunction denial. Regarding the design of the iPad, the judge agrees that the Galaxy Tab looks almost identical to the iPad and could cause confusion if looking at the two side by side, so in that sense it seems that Samsung did in fact infringe. However, Apple's patent on the iPad that is in question also is virtually identical to the Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet from 1994. The sole differences in design is that the borders around the screen on the Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet is not entirely symmetrical on all four sides and there are four exposed screws on the back. Those differences weren't considered significant enough to sway the judge.

 

[OneTenderRebel]

What are the chances they would let me just take the bar and go right to work for Apple or one of the Android OEM's right now as a Patent lawyer? Those guys are making bank right now!

 

[ambrown]

My PC back in 1994 received data. My PC highlighted it, and then in response to the user's (me) interaction with the highlighted text, offered me the choice of what I wanted to do with that information (including copy and paste lol).

This should not have been patentable, as it is a basic function of most electronics with a CPU and an I/O system.

This is pretty true. I totally get the need for patents and how they protect the inventor just like copywrite, trademarks etc....

Only problem is it doesn't protect the actual inventor. The process to secure a patent is so expensive that inventors will often sell the rights to big companies in exchange for the company fronting the fees. Here's an example from this article; http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/ on just how much it costs to obtain a patent:

"Patent search with detailed patentability assessment = $2,400

Provisional patent application prepared and filed = $3,000

Filing fee to the USPTO = $110

Nonprovisional patent application based off provisional filing = $11,000

Filing fee to the USPTO for nonprovisional patent application = $1,200

Professional illustrations for nonprovisional patent application = $400

TOTAL COST through filing nonprovisional patent application = $18,110.00 (if provisional patent application is skipped the cost would be $110 less)"

So the ridiculous and ineffective patent system not only fails to take note when something as broad as software functions are patented, they don't even really protect individual inventors so much as the big corporations that hold these patents in reserve as a "weapons stockpile" in the event they want to really mess up the smaller company's day.

Oh don't you just love our bloated, inefficient and self serving government? They are the real enablers in this whole thing. Apple is just exploiting a system set up to work this way.

Sent from my Droid Incredible on 2.3.4 using the DroidForums app

 

[mikeyd08]

Those who can't do, sue.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using DroidForums