To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
As I said in a previous comment, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the patent office doesn't have a responsibility here. The patent office does cursory checks, but having a patent granted isn't intended to imply legitimacy, since this is just too hard to figure out (there's no way the patent office can know the sum total of all things that have been previously invented, since many of them won't have been patented).
That's why these things often go to court, and might also be why so many patents are granted (since the really deep checks don't happen when a patent is granted, but rather when someone challenges it).
I would do exactly the opposite: the aggressor should be immediately punished/fined (as he's the initiator of the action that troubled the market).
Then, on a separate level, he can try to open a case against the patent office that has not been diligent enough in analyzing the original case.
I'm not sure why I can't mod you up, but in any case: excellent post.
Regarding the main topic of discussion, I find it highly amusing yet also predictable that the usual suspects are melting-down over the fact that Apple didn't invent this "technology."
(If you can call it that - in reality just a little bit of fun coding for someone a long long time ago. I'm not sure how or why this could be considered something up for patent protection.)
Why not just accept the reality of the situation? Especially when you have a link to YouTube showing the device in action twenty odd years ago?!
I'm not a Psychologist, but I were one, this blatent fanboy-ism would surely make an interesting subject matter to research.




Member since:
2005-11-16
In my opinion; the patent office that granted the patent is responsible for checking for prior art, and if prior art is found in a patent infringement case then the patent office should invalidate the patent, should have to pay all court costs for both the patent owner and the defendant, and should have to reimburse both the patent owner and the defendant a fair amount (not a deliberately exaggerated amount) for anything and everything (cost of lawyers, time, effect on reputation, effect on market position, personal stress, whatever).
Then, after that has happened; if the patent office that granted the patent can show that the patent holder knew about the prior art when they applied for the patent (not after); the patent office should be able to sue the patent holder for all of the above costs.
I have no idea what actually does happen though..
- Brendan