Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred By ANDREW POLLACK, Special to The New York Times Published: March 24, 1990 <i>G. Gervaise Davis 3d, a copyright lawyer in Monterey, Calif., said the decision in the case ''is not a bit surprising.'' He said Xerox had waited too long to file a copyright infringement case and had to resort to a weaker charge of unfair competition. <b>''I think it's unfortunate,'' he added, ''because Apple is running around persecuting Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard over things that they borrowed from Xerox.''</b></i>
Apple is in defense mode. This should be interesting. On another note, does anyone have a Nexus One? I'm having a tough time deciding whether or not to stick with my iPhone 3G, or jump ship over to Android. Suggestions?
What's funny is google busted out an impressive OS in the android that's widely superior to that joke of a system the iphone runs. And Jobs is being a whiny little baby and suing everyone.
Way to go Apple -- after the iPad proves you've run out of ideas again, you decide the next best thing is to return to your patent-trolling ways. This is not about HTC at all, this is about Google and Android and the fact that Steve Jobs is starting to see the writing on the wall and just what a massive threat Android poses to his empire. When I say this is the worst case of patent trolling/abuse I've ever seen, I mean it. Check out this nonsense of a portfolio (it's times like this that I wish someone would fire everyone at the USPTO and just start afresh): - Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device. Really? You patented camera power management? - Patent #7,383,453: Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor. LOL, again. They patented telling a CPU to go into sleep mode. Which means that a very large proportion of modern computer systems are in broad violation, from desktop Intel and AMD-based desktops to embedded microcontrollers made by TI, Motorola and Qualcomm. TI's OMAP3430 chip has a very specific implementation of this "patent", called SmartReflex. It does exactly this -- reduce/increase voltage on demand to the processor to conserve power. And I know this stuff was developed LONG before 2008. Has anybody at the USPTO ever actually heard of the term "prior art"? - Patent #5,455,599: Object-Oriented Graphic System. Ahahaha -- if you've ever written a graphical user interface using object-oriented methodology, you're stealing Apple's technology. I'm looking at you Xerox. Wait, you mean to tell me Apple stole this technology from you? I'm confused. - Patent #6,424,354: Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods. OK -- now we're entering the twilight zone. Let's put it this way -- if you've ever written any worthwhile piece of software using C++, Java, C# or even C using an object oriented methodology, you're in violation. - Patents #5,519,867 and #6,275,983: Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating System. Yeah. LOL. Where do I start? Patent 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data. This one takes the cake. And one more for good measure: Patent #5,969,705: Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program. According to the description from Engadget (which was written by some clueless idiot who obviously has zero knowledge of operating systems and licks the gonads of a Steve Jobs statue in his bedroom every night before going to bed): "You're going to love this one: '705 is a 1999 patent covering a form of multitasking. Specifically, it hits on the idea that a foreground app can direct a background process to go do some task while the foreground app remains responsive." O RLY? Wow, how come someone didn't think of this before? Somewhere, in a dead and forgotten DOS box, a TSR is rolling in its grave. Screw you, Apple. Patent abuse like this is one of the worst things in modern tech, especially software patents ... which should really not be allowed in the first place.
I had my eye on that until the Windows 7 series phones plans were announced. Now I think I'll hold out and see what that brings.
Are you this diligent when people are suing apple under the same pretense(s)? Do you think that they're the only ones who do something like this? It's ironic, but it's the way they all play the game right now. We'll see what comes of it... though the haters will paint it however they want to, I guess... for whatever reason.
Awww, a fanboy to the rescue. Yes, they are the only large cap patent-trolling tech giant I know of. They're not the only company to file for and receive ridiculous broad patents for stuff that should not be patentable -- many other tech companies have also done so, hence my comments about the gross incompetence of the USPTO and the dire need for its overhaul. It has become quite commonplace for these companies to file and receive broad and sweeping patents for "innovations" which really aren't innovative and have obvious prior art. The difference is companies like Apple don't go around suing everyone they think might infringe -- in the biggest cases they enter into licensing and cross-licensing agreements. The irony of the situation is that they have refused to honor Nokia's claims, which unlike Apple actually has a REAL portfolio of cellular/mobile hardware patents based on decades of research and development, and yet they think they can sue someone over a claim on a patent for scrolling on a touchscreen or an object-oriented GUI. It's not "the way they all play the game right now", it's an egregious move by a company that doesn't know how else to properly compete with an emerging threat. As someone who has done a lot of work with GUIs for quite a long time, I find this suit particularly outrageous. You really mean to tell me you "invented" display rotation? Child please.
I would sue any company that intentionally leaves out embedded functional technology, such as bluetooth in ipod touch/iphone, prohibiting consumers to use the already paid for hardware............wait, there must be something here I can sue, right?
“Companies have been working on this for some time,” said Mark A. Lemley, a law professor at Stanford who also represents Google in some unrelated matters. “Now, it’s fair to say the Apple technology works better than prior generations of technology, so there may well be inventions there.” Greg Aharonian, who runs the Internet Patent News Service, a site devoted to intellectual property news, said he believed that at least some of Apple’s patents would be found to be invalid. But he said the company’s goal might be to buy itself some time in the marketplace. but... The iPhone, introduced in 2007, was the first cellphone that largely did away with physical controls, turning the entire device into a finger-activated screen. Apple had to invent new visual cues and software tricks so users could operate such a device, and the result was a product that wowed customers and seemed unique in the marketplace. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/technology/03patent.html i think what got ripped off was really just the user experience that apple ushered in with the iPhone. i agree they are buying time and hate that apple is so anti OPEN SOURCE. however, i think the real battle is about operating system dominance going forward. oh, and please, try and make your points without the venom, you'll find more sympathetic ears.
Wow, thanks for the laugh. Obviously it's all about patents and gui's to you, and apple is just the most egregious company ever in this respect, and you have no personal beef. gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up.
