The simple fact is that many smaller companies find it difficult to survive litigation costs.
ARM shares have dived after spending most of their money on lawyers.
HTC profits are tiny with most of them spent on patent licensing fees they cannot afford to fight in court.
The latest Apple Google court battle judge declared that litigation is more a business strategy than invention protection. It is quite hard to disagree.
Although you have to be the inventor to apply for US patent slight draw back there for starters.
USPTO:
Who can apply for a patent?
A patent may be applied for only in the name(s) of the actual inventor(s).
An invention built on an existing invention still counts as a new invention if it is novel and non-obvious.
In just the same way, Google claims that its dynamic logo invention is a new invention even though the underlying invention - dynamic content - already existed.
Multi-touch has been around for years and pinch to zoom is a natural extension to that and a patent therefore has to be novel and non obvious.
Don't forget the arrogance of apple in that they tried to patent the term "multi touch"
It's easy to say that it's a natural extension now that it's commonplace though.
Anyway, every car had a heated rear windscreen and Ford still managed to patent a heated front windscreen. You couldn't get more of a natural extension of an existing technology than that.
An invention built on an existing invention still counts as a new invention if it is novel and non-obvious.
In just the same way, Google claims that its dynamic logo invention is a new invention even though the underlying invention - dynamic content - already existed.
Which it clearly was not, hence being kicked into touch
I would agree it seems a silly and pointless patent hence my point earlier about it being a non story certainly no a 'dangerous' patent as is being portrayed.
I would agree it seems a silly and pointless patent hence my point earlier about it being a non story certainly no a 'dangerous' patent as is being portrayed.
I wouldn't call it a non-story. It is a good example of how silly the system can be.
these software patents are slowly all becoming invalid, explains the rush of court cases before they can't patent things they shouldn't really have been able to in 1st place!
Of course no further examples other than 'pinch to zoom' are needed to show that
So your view is that pinch to zoom should not have been able to be patented by anyone (even the first person to come up with the idea) or is it just because it was apple?
Thats not my understanding of it, it has been dismissed but apple have two months to lodge an appeal.
The USPTO already gave warning of their intention to junk this last year this is now their final verdict, which apple can appeal.
I think it logical that if a patent is found to be without merit such as this it is highly unlikely it would remain active in the meantime.
Multi touch was already around at the time as I have said previously
No, US patents (and most other countries' patents) remain valid until an absolutely final, non-appealable ruling is made. Potentially having a patent flip between valid and invalid and back to valid again is an undesirable situation.
Instead, it is left to the courts to make an assessment on whether or not a pending invalidity proceeding is likely to ultimately lead to an invalidity ruling, in which case they can stay infringement cases pending the absolutely final invalidity outcome.
In this case, Judge Koh had already indicated she is unlikely to grant a stay (which Samsung has requested) based on this ruling.
And, as I previously pointed out, Apple have previously been successful in defending the key claims from another patent at issue in the current Samsung case when the patent was at the same re-examination stage as this one.
So your view is that pinch to zoom should not have been able to be patented by anyone (even the first person to come up with the idea) or is it just because it was apple?
shouldn't have got patent as when filed for by Apple their new, novel idea - an idea worked on from early 1980's wasn't new was it? and certainly not different enough to get protection
shouldn't have got patent as when filed for by Apple their new, novel idea - an idea worked on from early 1980's wasn't new was it? and certainly not different enough to get protection
It doesn't need to be new. Just novel and non-obvious. I couldn't tell you what was around at the time.
Comments
It wan't an invention was it? Because it was already in the public domain.
Pretty sure dynamic web content already existed in 2001 too.
USPTO:
Who can apply for a patent?
A patent may be applied for only in the name(s) of the actual inventor(s).
The abstract describes a dynamic company logo after a period of time. Sounds like google doodle to me.
ARM shares have dived after spending most of their money on lawyers.
HTC profits are tiny with most of them spent on patent licensing fees they cannot afford to fight in court.
The latest Apple Google court battle judge declared that litigation is more a business strategy than invention protection. It is quite hard to disagree.
Don't forget the arrogance of apple in that they tried to patent the term "multi touch"
An invention built on an existing invention still counts as a new invention if it is novel and non-obvious.
In just the same way, Google claims that its dynamic logo invention is a new invention even though the underlying invention - dynamic content - already existed.
It's easy to say that it's a natural extension now that it's commonplace though.
Anyway, every car had a heated rear windscreen and Ford still managed to patent a heated front windscreen. You couldn't get more of a natural extension of an existing technology than that.
Which it clearly was not, hence being kicked into touch
But you think it's ok for Google to get theirs granted?
So in what way is Google's novel and non-obvious then?
Except it hasn't been. It's still valid. It will only be invalidated if Apple doesn't challenge the ruling, which is extremely unlikely.
Plus, if it's so obvious and non-novel, why was it not in mainstream use already before Apple used it in the iPhone?
If the only way you can prove they are invalid is to go to court, then most companies don't stand a chance.
I wouldn't call it a non-story. It is a good example of how silly the system can be.
Thats not my understanding of it, it has been dismissed but apple have two months to lodge an appeal.
The USPTO already gave warning of their intention to junk this last year this is now their final verdict, which apple can appeal.
I think it logical that if a patent is found to be without merit such as this it is highly unlikely it would remain active in the meantime.
Multi touch was already around at the time as I have said previously
Of course no further examples other than 'pinch to zoom' are needed to show that
these software patents are slowly all becoming invalid, explains the rush of court cases before they can't patent things they shouldn't really have been able to in 1st place!
So your view is that pinch to zoom should not have been able to be patented by anyone (even the first person to come up with the idea) or is it just because it was apple?
I know. It seems some didn't understand the patent.
No, US patents (and most other countries' patents) remain valid until an absolutely final, non-appealable ruling is made. Potentially having a patent flip between valid and invalid and back to valid again is an undesirable situation.
Instead, it is left to the courts to make an assessment on whether or not a pending invalidity proceeding is likely to ultimately lead to an invalidity ruling, in which case they can stay infringement cases pending the absolutely final invalidity outcome.
In this case, Judge Koh had already indicated she is unlikely to grant a stay (which Samsung has requested) based on this ruling.
And, as I previously pointed out, Apple have previously been successful in defending the key claims from another patent at issue in the current Samsung case when the patent was at the same re-examination stage as this one.
The bounce back (I assume) was slightly different.
In any event this patent will be lost to apple whether it is now or not.
It doesn't need to be new. Just novel and non-obvious. I couldn't tell you what was around at the time.