Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 17:19 UTC
Legal In a statement released today, Apple announced it is suing HTC, claiming the Taiwanese phone maker infringed upon 20 of Cupertino's patents related to the iPhone. After Nokia and Apple suing one another a number of times over the past couple of months, this is the next high-profile patent lawsuit in the mobile phones business. Engadget has the filings, and it seems that Apple wants to avoid angering Microsoft, but has no qualms about taking on Google. Update: Engadget analyses every single patent in the claim.
Thread beginning with comment 411817
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Haha
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:09 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Haha look at this one:

"The '599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I."

Ha, Apple patented the object-oriented graphical operating system.

Or this one:

"The '721 patent relates generally to a means of allowing computer programs running one process to access objects that are located within a different process."

*blinks*.

What the fcuk, that's like one step away from just flat-out patenting the operating system. I'm sorry my American friends, but your patent office is fcuked up.

Reply Score: 13

RE: Haha
by Laurence on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:19 in reply to "Haha"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

*deleted*
wrong thread. sorry

Edited 2010-03-02 18:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Haha
by griffbrad on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:34 in reply to "Haha"
griffbrad Member since:
2006-04-27

While I generally agree with you, it is important to remember that the meat of a patent is its claims, not its title. The title is almost always as broad and as vague as they can get away with, but then as you read through the claims one by one, the scope should get progressively more narrow.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Haha
by Ikshaar on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 19:39 in reply to "RE: Haha"
Ikshaar Member since:
2005-07-14

I have not read those ones in particular, but I read some other in IT field and some are as empty as their title.

The patent office has become the absolute opposite of what it was supposed to be, allowing patent of "possibility" (and not real invention) to kill the emergence of any possible competitor.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Haha
by Praxis on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:35 in reply to "Haha"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17


What the fcuk, that's like one step away from just flat-out patenting the operating system. I'm sorry my American friends, but your patent office is fcuked up.


At this point I think they just approve everything by default and let the courts sort every thing out.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Haha
by dylansmrjones on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:36 in reply to "Haha"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hmm... makes me wonder about OS/2 and WPS in particular.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Haha
by phoudoin on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:42 in reply to "Haha"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

I wonder who patent the idea of a pattent office...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Haha
by Cody Evans on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 00:40 in reply to "RE: Haha"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

I wonder if anyone has patented the Reality Distortion Field...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Haha
by Caveman2 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 05:50 in reply to "RE: Haha"
Caveman2 Member since:
2010-01-06

I wonder who patent the idea of a pattent office...


Probably Apple,lol Seriously,Apple is nothing but a joke,but sadly a joke people buy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Haha
by clhodapp on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 18:42 in reply to "Haha"
clhodapp Member since:
2009-12-04

These are prime examples of the problem with software patents: the concepts being patented are always too obvious or too broad (or, though it's not applicable here, too mathematical i.e. algorithms). Also, as you point out, our patent office has significant trouble figuring out that the idea being patented has already existed and is commonplace (admittedly, sometimes it isn't at the time the patent is filed for, but grows to the point of being such before the long patent approval process is complete). What ends up happening is that people just ignore the especially dumb ones, I guess. Then this (i.e. a several-years-late lawsuit) happens.

Separately, how the HECK can you patent multitouch? It is pretty much the most obvious incremental improvement over single touch. Maybe a particular method for doing capacitive multitouch?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Haha
by cb_osn on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 19:23 in reply to "Haha"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

I'm sorry my American friends, but your patent office is fcuked up.

No, Thom. Fcuked up would be an improvement. There isn't a foul enough series of words that is sufficient to describe the USPTO. Because of this, I find that I almost always tend to side with the defendant/respondent in patent cases, particularly those involving software.

So while I support Apple in the Nokia/Apple case (since Nokia initiated the action there), in this case, I'm fully behind HTC.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Haha
by Dubhthach on Tue 2nd Mar 2010 20:42 in reply to "Haha"
Dubhthach Member since:
2006-01-12

Haha look at this one:

"The '599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the '599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I."

Ha, Apple patented the object-oriented graphical operating system.


Surely the Xerox Star using smalltalk had an object-oriented graphical OS back in the late 70's? What's even funnier in a way is that you could argue that Nextstep is prior art against that patent (patent was lodged by Apple while Next still existed)

Reply Parent Score: 2