11 Patents that have Appl/Goog/Msft etc suing each other

[pittsoccer33]

http://www.tmonews.com/2012/07/there-ar ... -partners/


*Patent EP2059868 on a “portable electronic device for photo management.” Foss Patents calls this the “photo gallery page-flipping patent.”

*U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 on “list scrolling and document translation, scaling and rotation on a touch-screen display.” This patent covers “over scroll bounce or “rubber-banding patent.” In other words, when checking your email and you pull down to refresh, the list bounces back up. Apple owns a patent on that and Samsung has copied it.

*U.S. Design Patent No. D 618,677 on an “electronic device.” A general patent related to the iPhone’s industrial design.

*U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a “system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.” When you tap on a phone number or email and it brings up the option to dial or email, Apple owns a patent on this.

*EP1964022 on “unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image.” This is the slide-to-unlock patent that is now embroiled in the Galaxy Nexus injunction suit.

*U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 on “generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device.” This is a Microsoft-based patent. This is when you send a mobile calendar invitation and it generates a meeting request.

*EP1304891 on “communicating multi-part messages between cellular devices using a standardized interface.” This is when you send a text message more than 160 characters and the phone breaks it up into multiple messages. Microsoft owns a patent that combines the multiple texts into one long message. Apple pays Microsoft a patent fee to license the technology.

*U.S. Design Patent No. D 504,889 on an “electronic device.” This general patent covers the iPad’s design. This is the patent that created an injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

*U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 on a “universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system.” Apple owns the right to Siri and this is a patent on Siri-style unified search. This ruling is why the Galaxy Nexus is now under injunction align with the slide-to-unlock.

*U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 on “unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image.” This is a second slide-to-unlock patent.

*U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 on a “method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations.” This is an autocorrect patent.

[TheHammer24]

It's entirely too easy to patent mundane and inevitably discoverable "inventions." The fact that there is a huge suit on whether you can "slide-to-unlock" is simply insane. Add to this, that there are firms that buy patents just so sue---so called "patent trolls," and I think the patent system needs reworked.

[tifosi77]

Ugh...... in our department we have an entire table full of materials from patent trolls. In my line of work, they are the broad equivalent of ambulance chasers.

[TheHammer24]

This one is ridiculous:

n a “system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.” When you tap on a phone number or email and it brings up the option to dial or email, Apple owns a patent on this.

You mean like the way a computer has been working for decades?

Lol again, what did they "invent" here:

“generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device.” This is a Microsoft-based patent. This is when you send a mobile calendar invitation and it generates a meeting request.

[ulf]

Patents are dumb. For the most part, at least.

[thepittman]

Patents are dumb. For the most part, at least.

Except if you spend millions in developing a product and would like to see a return on it before someone just copies it as soon or before you bring it to market.


Explain how patents are stupid please?

[ulf]

Patents are dumb. For the most part, at least.

Except if you spend millions in developing a product and would like to see a return on it before someone just copies it as soon or before you bring it to market.


Explain how patents are stupid please?

I said for the most part, not all are dumb. They discourage a lot of competition and innovation. Here's an article by mark cuban, he's a pretty successful guy.

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/04/18/the- ... r-patents/

Not sure how to link that via phone.

[ulf]

Looks like it does it automatically, nice.

[TheHammer24]

Patents aren't stupid, but they're are too easy to get.

[MWB]

Patents are dumb. For the most part, at least.

Except if you spend millions in developing a product and would like to see a return on it before someone just copies it as soon or before you bring it to market.


Explain how patents are stupid please?

Yeah, I don't really get why you wouldn't want to patent your ideas. I know Jobs got a lot of patents ( including things like the slide to unlock). Why should others be able to take bits and pieces of the ideas he came up with?

[tifosi77]

I know Jobs got a lot of patents ( including things like the slide to unlock). Why should others be able to take bits and pieces of the ideas he came up with?

Steve Jobs is the Thomas Edison of our day. At least in the I've-never-had-an-original-idea-in-my-life-but-I'm-patent-savy sense.

[MWB]

You think Jobs never had an original idea?

[pittsoccer33]

Several of Apple's best known ideas were stolen/borrowed/lifted.

The first major one being the Mac GUI, which they attempted to patent. The had stolen the mouse concept from Xerox. What would computer innovation have been like if only Apple were allowed to develop point and click pc software?

IBM had the first touchscreen phone in the 90s. You could "click" on numbers to dial them. If Gordon Gecko had dodged a prison sentence he would have certainly owned one of these http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 77,00.html

[MWB]

No doubt Apple started off with other's ideas... it's what they did with those ideas that matters. GUI was actually a deal with Xerox where Jobs let them invest with Apple if Xerox would show them everything about their research center. Stupid deal for Xerox. Apple then took that info to new levels, including the mouse. They developed a mouse that would move easily, had a single button, and "drag and drop." Some of those original ideas were starting points which Apple then added so much to that made them successful, like the iPod. Certainly not the first digital music player, but the first one to be user friendly and could store plenty of music. All those improvements to an initial concept are original ideas.

[tifosi77]

The iPod was invented by a British man in the late 70s, early 80s. His company built several working prototypes and was accepting advance orders through the mid 80s. But there was an executive squabble within his company that ultimately led to the patent not being renewed. The 'innovation' of the iPod was in getting the music industry on board with the idea of selling individual songs in a digital format...... an arrangement that nets artists about $.03-$.05 per download. Apple created a closed-loop marketplace. That's it.

Search for "Jeff Han TED talk" to see someone not from Apple demonstrating multi-touch screen gestures for manipulating images about a year before the iPhone's debut.

Steve Jobs was a marketer, not an innovator. The best thing I've heard about him was that he was the kid who copied off you in school, but ended up with a better grade.

[MWB]

So why didn't that British man end up being the person to make the money off it? Because he didn't make it accessible and easy to use, would be my guess (along with getting artists to agree, which was a huge credit to Jobs). Also, the creation of the iTunes store was huge.

Jobs was a great marketer, with a lot of help from Lee Clow's ad campaigns. However, to ignore innovations he made to products (whether they were just improvements or new ideas, which go hand in hand) is a bit foolish. It's not like Apple was some mega company when he and Wozniak started it or when he came back the second time. He was a big driver of the innovations that made it successful. It didn't start as a successful company that was able to market product because it was big.

To add an analogy that should be up your alley, tif. A piece of fish is a piece of fish. A chef doesn't invent that. However, he adds to it, molds it, changes it, makes it better, thus creating something new.

[pittsoccer33]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... ne-retail/

This isn't about cell phone patent litigation, but it is about how Newegg defeated a patent troll lawsuit it was sued for.