Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 22:39 UTC
Legal "Samsung's got to be pretty happy right about now, after learning that the US Patent and Trademark Office has filed an initial ruling declaring Apple's rubber-banding patent invalid, as reported by FOSS Patents. The news was good enough that Samsung decided to share it with friends, that is, if US Federal Judge Lucy Koh can be considered a friend. According to the ruling, which Florian Mueller says isn't final, all 20 claims of Apple's patent (No. 7,469,381) are now invalid, including one that the iPhone maker had leveraged against Samsung in their recent legal showdown. The office found that Apple's invention was either anticipated by prior art (from Lira and Ording) or, in some cases, simply obvious." One down, 93485763827563856 to go.
Order by: Score:
Yes!
by piotr.dobrogost on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:06 UTC
piotr.dobrogost
Member since:
2011-10-04

Yes! Go to hell Apple!

Edited 2012-10-23 23:07 UTC

Reply Score: 18

RE: Yes!
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 24th Oct 2012 03:22 UTC in reply to "Yes!"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I second that.

Reply Score: 4

Excellent news
by crystall on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:50 UTC
crystall
Member since:
2007-02-06

I think this is excellent news and not only because of its direct implication. The good part of it is that it might be the beginning of a landslide. Apple is only one of the heavyweights that have been using ridiculous patents in legal battles, a number of other companies and patent-trolls did use them as well, and maybe this time they pushed it too far. They've pushed it so far that it seems some scrutiny is finally coming to them.

And if scrutiny comes a lot of these patents will be invalidated turning what are now menacing war-chests of patents into mountains of worthless paper. And that would do a lot of good to this industry, killing patent-trolls in the process and re-opening a number of research fields that nobody dares to approach right now because of fear of litigation from the incumbents.

Reply Score: 19

RE: Excellent news
by cdude on Wed 24th Oct 2012 00:10 UTC in reply to "Excellent news"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Yet still the patent was a win for Apple and cost Samsung already serious money. What would be needed right now is to also take actions out of this. Apple needs to pay compensation for all possible damage done by using those invalid patent(s) against competition. Only then it may have an effect otherwise companies continue to ask for patent-protection for trivial things, the overworked patent office grants them and a new weapon is born that can be used with no limits AT LEAST till invalidated and with NO consequences. Just keep on to get more obvious trivial patents granted then invalidated and keep the invalidators busy enough to have enough time left to do serious damage.

Edited 2012-10-24 00:13 UTC

Reply Score: 13

RE: Excellent news
by WereCatf on Wed 24th Oct 2012 01:35 UTC in reply to "Excellent news"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think this is excellent news and not only because of its direct implication. The good part of it is that it might be the beginning of a landslide.


Oh, you youngsters. This was either a PR-move or just a random brainfart, it won't happen again in a long, long time -- there's just too many wheels to grease and pockets to fill, you know.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Excellent news
by kwan_e on Wed 24th Oct 2012 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I think this is excellent news and not only because of its direct implication. The good part of it is that it might be the beginning of a landslide.


Oh, you youngsters. This was either a PR-move or just a random brainfart, it won't happen again in a long, long time -- there's just too many wheels to grease and pockets to fill, you know.
"

I would have thought it's because the USPTO is swamped with patent filings that they just grant them and wait for the lawsuit to require a re-evaluation.

It will happen with the next big lawsuit, which this will hopefully scare off for some time.

Reply Score: 4

USPTO
by kwan_e on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 23:51 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Yes, let's keep on encouraging the USPTO to Think Different about obvious patents.

Reply Score: 9

RE: USPTO
by JAlexoid on Wed 24th Oct 2012 03:58 UTC in reply to "USPTO"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Not gonna happen.

USPTO has to be recreated as an organization that validates inventions for novelty, not an organisation to grant patents.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: USPTO
by kwan_e on Wed 24th Oct 2012 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE: USPTO"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Not gonna happen.

USPTO has to be recreated as an organization that validates inventions for novelty, not an organisation to grant patents.


It's strange how you claim my suggestion is "not gonna happen", but propose an even more unlikely alternative. ;) As far as I can tell, encouraging the USPTO to Think Different about obvious patents is much more likely to occur than a complete overhaul, even though both you and I would agree the overhaul is a better alternative (unlikely though it may be).

As long as we're suggesting crazy alternatives as a valid logical response to likely suggestions, I propose this:

Abolish software and design patents. Abolish the transfer of patents and coyprights. Abolish non-compete employee contracts. Make reverse engineering a guaranteed constitutional right (if it isn't already; I'm not American). Any company that wants to maintain its lead must keep their inventions as trade secrets (with a buttload of cryptography for software "inventions"), and treat their employees well so that they won't sell secrets to future employers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: USPTO
by JAlexoid on Wed 24th Oct 2012 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: USPTO"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Simply because the whole organisation is structured and designed to grant patents, not validate the inventions. The way that the organisation is structured and the legal background force the examiners to grant patents even if they might not agree with them.(This is not my position, it's the position of PubPat.org. They give good reasoning for me to take that position as well.)

Apple's universal search patent was in review stage for years, because it was rejected 6(if memory serves) times by different examiners.

Reply Score: 4

User interactions ..
by acobar on Wed 24th Oct 2012 00:37 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

should never, ever, qualify to be patentable. No slide-to-unlock, one-click-buy or any gesture. I think this would be the shortest small fix possible to software related patents.

Reply Score: 12

RE: User interactions ..
by Neolander on Wed 24th Oct 2012 06:30 UTC in reply to "User interactions .."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

should never, ever, qualify to be patentable. No slide-to-unlock, one-click-buy or any gesture. I think this would be the shortest small fix possible to software related patents.

As someone else said around here earlier, perhaps no form of language at all should qualify for patent application.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: User interactions ..
by acobar on Wed 24th Oct 2012 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: User interactions .."
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?539693

And, just I did not read the entire thread, I apologised upfront had the argument already been used.

Reply Score: 2

Not so fast, fanbois
by MysterMask on Wed 24th Oct 2012 01:21 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

"The patent office decision (PDF) is not final, but it is interesting. Apple's rubber band claim is rejected because of two pieces of prior art, one a patent by AOL and the other a patent by the very same Apple employee responsible for the rubber band patent."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/apple-rubber-band-patent-inval...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not so fast, fanbois
by delta0.delta0 on Wed 24th Oct 2012 05:35 UTC in reply to "Not so fast, fanbois"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

What exactly is a fanbois ?

From your own linked article:


The patent office also cited a European patent filed in 2003 by AOL, which relates to detecting the layout of a webpage, comparing the layout to the window it's being displayed in, and reformatting the page to align with the window.


From TNW:

The office found that Appleā€™s invention was either anticipated by prior art (from Lira and Ording) or, in some cases, simply obvious.


Not only invalidated by Apple patenting the same thing twice, but also invalidated by AOL patents going back to 2003 and of course lets not forget the fact that the patents are just retarded to begin with, kind of like the word fanbois.

Reply Score: 4

Dominoes
by Lorin on Wed 24th Oct 2012 02:20 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Now comes the domino effect, every Apple patent in this space has prior art, attacking Samsung with those very deep pockets was a huge mistake as they will work to invalidate every one of them.

Reply Score: 2

Error
by pysiak on Wed 24th Oct 2012 07:41 UTC
pysiak
Member since:
2008-01-01

Don't get your hopes up.
"It can only be attributable to human error."

Or the USPTO KPI for invalidated patents shouldn't be zero and they have to invalidate *something* ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by tupp
by tupp on Wed 24th Oct 2012 20:31 UTC
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

It's funny how all of those Apple supporters who screamed "SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE!" are silent right now. Even more so in light of the additional Dutch ruling.

Furthermore, it seems that Apple is now "copying" its competitors with a smaller Ipad.

Have a nice day!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by tupp
by Windows Sucks on Thu 25th Oct 2012 02:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by tupp"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

It's funny how all of those Apple supporters who screamed "SAMSUNG COPIED APPLE!" are silent right now. Even more so in light of the additional Dutch ruling.

Furthermore, it seems that Apple is now "copying" its competitors with a smaller Ipad.

Have a nice day!


Hummmm, so I guess making 4 different size iPods is a copy, or different size Macs is a copy or different size iMacs is a copy. LOL! Ok.

Oh and then BAM!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-24/samsung-infringes-apple...

Guilty again not silent at all!

Reply Score: 1

Apple cored
by orfanum on Fri 26th Oct 2012 01:17 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Nothing too remarkable to say really but I am glad the light has been seen in legal quarters, at last.

Also, that I am jumping ship next week. Even with an iOS6 upgrade, this iPhone 4 is worth leaving on the basis of performance and lack of gui fluency as such, let alone for reasons of conscience, if I can put it that way.

Looks as though the Emperor's clothes were secondhand, after all.

Orf

Reply Score: 2