Slashdot Mirror

• 6,339,780: placing a loading status icon in the content viewing area of a browser
• 5,579,517: compatibility of file names employed by current and outmoded operating systems
• 5,652,913: storing input/output access factors in a shared data structure
• 5,758,352: compatibility of file names employed by current and outmoded operating systems
• 6,791,536: simulating mouse inputs using non-mouse devices
• 6,897,853: simulating mouse inputs using non-mouse devices

Patents asserted in litigation

• 6,339,780: placing a loading status icon in the content viewing area of a browser
• 5,778,372: browser that recognises background images in an electronic document and displays the background images after text - i.e. duplicate display
• 5,889,522: putting known tab controls into an operating system for use by all applications, rather then providing tabs on an application-by-application basis
• 6,891,551: using handles to change the size selection areas for selected text
• 6,957,233: storing and displaying of annotations of text which is not modifiable

These are the descriptions from the image in TFA

Yeah, right.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,136,359.PN.&OS=PN/4,136,359&RS=PN/4,136,359

Unless you're at least a little bit of a motorhead, you might argue that all carbs look alike.

Unless you're not a human, you might argue that all binary blobs look alike. Software is judged on its output, not the process by which it achieves that output.

But going back to that carburetor. If you had a carb patent and didn't even bother to take apart my carb to see if I actually infringed before suing me, how much money would I have to spend to defend myself if my carb was different from yours. Show your work, factoring in issues like the "Doctrine of Equivalents" and "After-invented technology" as you grasp at ever thinner straws to keep your case together and try to bankrupt me or force me to settle.

No one was awarded a patent for "mixing fuel vapor and air".

No, but they were awarded a patent for

A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.

and the patent holder is using it to sue people for having in-app purchase buttons.

They actually balance their budget, apparently:
http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_house_2012budget.jsp

Which would mean a small net loss for the government as a whole, since at least 1 someone is going to manage them from outside the USPTO system, but inside the government as a whole.

Still, it's better than I thought.

And the reasoning on the pricing is that it is supposed to promote the general welfare. So increased tax revenues should result by virtue of patents existing and being legally enforceable.

We would have had a $50 web browser with web technology protected by 73 Netscape patents acquired by Microsoft (including blatantly obvious patents they could exploit elsewhere, such as one for just making a menu bar hide, or showing how complex a password is while you type it in - used by many sites right now)

We would have had a $50 web browser with web technology protected by 73 Netscape patents acquired by Microsoft (including blatantly obvious patents they could exploit elsewhere, such as one for just making a menu bar hide, or showing how complex a password is while you type it in - used by many sites right now)

No, the first claim of the patent is for a gesture dragging a graphic along a "predefined, displayed path". So if the unlock gesture isn't a fixed path (like the Samsung S2, which can unlock in any direction; or the path isn't displayed, like a puzzle piece which moves along a fixed path to its destination but that path isn't visible, then it's not covered by the patent.

No we were talking about Steve Jobs, his vision and impact on the company, not giving a comprehensive overview of Apple history. Yes, Apple released a lot of mediocre crap after he was ousted, then he came back and we got the iMac, iPod and iPhone. Now the iMac was already under development when he came back and yet Jobs clearly made his mark on it His name is on the patent for the iMac's iconic case along with that of Jonathan Ive, the man whom he promoted to head of design and who generated design after iconic design for Apple after that. Doesn't smell like "a giant fake" to me.

Looks like we were all too slow: NOON.

Right dude, read the patent. Tell me you couldn't have come up with it easily on your own.

Wrong, dude. Don't read the patent. Come up with the same idea on your own, out of the blue, and then read the patent and see if they're the same. That you can think something is obvious in hindsight is meaningless. I can draw a model of an internal combustion engine on the back of a napkin right now. Does that mean that it was obvious in the 1800s? Hell, no... I've seen them.

So, you can do the same thing: you can read a patent, and then you can regurgitate it, and claim that that makes the patent obvious. Color me non-plussed.

Right dude, read the patent. Tell me you couldn't have come up with it easily on your own. The fact that something like that is patentable is an example of what's wrong with the patent system.

I don't know who you've been listening to, but anyone with half a brain knows that it's an obvious technique.

All of which is irrelevant, because this patent claims something different from the original Xerox patent. The difference lies in the first claim of each patent. In the Xerox "unistroke" patent, the symbols are defined as being one continuous movement, detected by a mechanism that's specifically looking for a particular set of motions, which correspond only to textual elements. In the later PalmSource patent, the symbols are complex arrangements of possibly-multiple strokes which, once the drawing is complete, are compared to a table of symbols and used to initiate actions.

In true Slashdot form, it's time for an analogy. The Xerox patent is like looking at a novelty clock face: Even if the numbers are distorted, you know exactly what they say because you know what to expect in each number's place. The PalmSource patent is like reading a prescription from a stereotypical doctor: It's a complex set of symbols, but all you need to recognize is what you have to do with it.

I'll say it again: The patent appears to cover later implementations of Graffiti.

I am pretty sure that a particular clone set (clones of a particular dog) would be patentable, just as at present there are many patented varieties of roses and other plants, that result from selective breeding. (USPTO info on plant patents). In those cases they are effectively clones, having been created by making cuttings of the original plant. They are genetically identical. Patent would be stronger protection than copyright.

However, from my reading of the USPTO info, those patents apply to plants, not animals. I'm too lazy to research further. It may be that animal clones would have be to added to this patent structure by legislation in order to be patentable. Whether that is a good idea is an exercise for the reader. But I expect it will happen.

Patent applications should cost no more than $500,

A patent application right now costs $650 for a guy in his garage (filing fee + search fee + examination fee, all as small entity).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee092611.htm

That is half the cost that a "large entity" would incur. Furthermore, the recent patent law, which sparked this whole debate, created a "micro entity" which is entitled to a 75% reduction in fees, i.e., it'd cost $325 for a guy in his garage. You can thank Obama now.

with a short approval process

Define short and where does the money come from to pay for the Examiners now that nobody is paying fees?

and should be able to be filled out completely by a person with a 6th grade education

You complain about patents on obvious things, yet a patent should be able to be filed by a person with a 6th grade education? WTF?! Can you wrap your head around how hypocritical that is?

and access to a library for prior-art searches and such. If any statement on an application is found to be untrue (i.e. insufficient listing of prior art) then future fees for that applicant will be $10,000 (by applicant, that includes the company listed, not just the inventor).

So what if that prior art is not in the "library." Are they penalized because the library is not complete? What if they do a reasonable search, but don't uncover an analogous idea in another technology area? What if, because they only have a 6th grade education, they can't understand the other technology area's teaching. For example, what if the idea is a lock/key type mechanism and there is an analogous technique in gene sequencing. What if I think it's analogous and you don't? Who's right and are they penalized 10,000 from now on? Doesn't that impact their job prospects in the future? What company is going to want to hire someone that automatically incurs a 10k penalty on their applications?

If any are provably negligently or fraudulently untrue, then all patents by that applicant will be rescinded and no further applications will be accepted from that applicant, nor any applicant who acquires any future interest in that company (including stock ownership).

Where to even begin with this. If I caught you shop lifting, does that mean you can never shop again? Especially on the negligently part. Negligence means you didn't mean to do it. And you're going to exact that punishment on them? I refer you again to how that negatively impacts their employment potential.

but back then, there was no easy way for him to publish. But a patent should be not just a commercial tool of profit, but a repository for knowledge, and so many people now are purposefully excluding their ideas from that repository because it's inconvenient and expensive, the opposite of what it should be.

The Patent Office has forum for exactly this called the Statutory Invention Registration. It allows someone to publish and invention (but give up any rights in it). Been around since the 80s.

Since you're going to debate the constitutionality of patents and copyrights, let's quote it, shall we?

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Inventors and Authors have the exclusive right - they can block others from doing - their respective writings and discoveries. And you ARE aware that movies and sound recording didn't exist in 1787, right? England had patents and copyrights before we did (patents in general date back to 500BC) and that's what this is talking about, albeit not explicitly called "a patent." And if you are going to be strictly constructionalist, there are literally thousands of things that a

How about you work it out for yourself.

Patents document things sufficiently to mount legal battles - not so well that it makes it easier to reproduce an invention.

Claim - a method in which atomic nuclei are fused together releasing energy capable of destroying cities.

Go ahead and try to build a hydrogen bomb now...

Chemists often mine old patents looking for ways to make things, but they're usually only useful as a starting point. If somebody wants to patent some molecule they'll publish some method that creates the molecule in 0.1% yield or whatever - enough to prove by spectral observation that they made it. They don't actually publish a practical method that can be used to make it, since they don't actually want anybody to make it.

Look here for an example of this in action. The patent (#4,444,784) describes Simvastatin/Zocor - one of the more popular drugs ever taken and due to its expiry probably one of the most commonly prescribed medications around. The first method in the patent starts with 200 gallons of mold and ends up with enough compound to make about 10 pills - at one of the lower dosages. Suffice it to say this is not economical even at $5/pill.

I didn't spend enough time digging through it to figure out which of the large family of compounds described in the patent ended up being the final pill and how you'd have to make it following the patent, but this is just illustrative. The patent was really just intended to cover the molecule, and the method just proves that they indeed had made it and tested its activity.

This is what's wrong with the patent system. The idea that you should cover every angle of an idea rather than just patenting the fundamental technology behind it. When did we go from patenting technology to patenting the application?

For example. Canon has scores of patents related to cameras and imaging technology. Rightfully so. They are useful patents. But then some of them are like this beauty. Now here's an patent which covers the use of fuel cells in electronic equipment. Think about that for a second. Covering the frigging obvious use of this technology which the entire world is hoping will replace batteries, with a patent for using the technology (which is not practical yet) in an electronic device.

We need a cleansing fire. The patent office and all their data should burn down, and all employees should be replaced. The patent system needs to be re-written by some people with zero experience in it. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."

How the christ can it possibly be legal to sue people who use technology that infringes a patent which was sold to them by someone else?

Isn't the whole enterprise of patents supposed to cover the manufacture and commercial sale of inventions, not their use?

No offense, but I don't know how you were rated insightful... The law itself answers your question:

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

(bold added)

Even from a theoretical policy perspective, your concept has flaws: you can't sell or make an invention, but you can freely use it without paying license fees... so copy someone's machine overseas where US law doesn't apply and sell it there, import it here, and happily use it without paying royalties. If the R&D is expensive enough, then you can undercut their prices even with the additional shipping costs.

This patent for instance clearly states 'redundant': http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=33&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6714559&OS=6714559&RS=6714559 What about sites with only one wap? There are so many loopholes with this....it's ridiculous. Broadcom themselves never even claimed to own the only rights to wifi back when they had this paltry array of patents, let alone all of the others that they posses. Then I came across this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50324501/Innovatio-IP-Ventures-v-ABP-et-al "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED" Good luck, assholes.

Mojang is claiming a trademark on the word 'scrolls' for use in computer games. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:qchtni.6.8

So, Bethesda is totally right to protect their trademark in this case.

Go ahead and search on http://tess2.uspto.gov/ for "scrolls"

With a filing date of May of this year, Mojang applied for a word mark on the word "Scrolls". Check the link, but this is just some of the claims they're making:

"Computer games; video games; computer software; computer and video games software; computer software downloaded or downloadable; computer software publications downloaded; interactive entertainment software; data recorded electronically from the Internet; data recorded in machine readable form from the Internet; discs, tapes, cartridges, CD-ROMs and other magnetic, electronic or optical media, all bearing computer games software or video games; electronic amusement apparatus for use with television receivers; electronic games apparatus; home video game machines"

Maybe a lawyer can come along and clarify if this is Bethesda being paranoid or if they're justified in feeling threatened.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc725/sched725.htm

Check subclasses 48-53 as well as subclasses 133 and 141.

The office is well aware of this sort of art, there are existing patents which search the interent as well as local sources such as DVD players, PCs, PVRs etc to create combined electronic program guides. They are found in the above sub classes.

this is not news.

This is an application, not a patent, and the original journalist is either ignorant or being sensationalist (you decide). Here's a link from the article to the published app:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110230178%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110230178&RS=DN/20110230178

A quick check of the USPTO website's "public PAIR" using the application serial number 12/726252 (right off the publication data) shows that the application has not even been looked at yet for patentability. But let's not let facts get in the way of journalism.

A lot of large companies do this - they shotgun out lots of patents for two reasons:

1) You never know when one may pay off
2) "My stack is bigger than yours" bragging rights - Companies get nervous when getting into an IP war with another company with tens of thousands of patents, even if none of them might be valid for "firing back" - when your stack is that big you're more likely to be able to fire back

Actually sometimes there's a third reason:
3) Keep your valuable employees happy even if they're a little eccentric and the patent is totally wacky - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=18&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Penzias.INNM.&OS=IN/Penzias&RS=IN/Penzias

A family member once worked for a company that was a VERY large patent holder. The patent guys had a rating system:
A rating of 1 was "Critical patent" - put your best IP lawyers on it and file in as many jurisdictions as possible
5 was "Patently stupid" - Have anyone write the patent and put in the bare minimum to file it for reasons 2 or 3 above

Yes they did although it was a card module that plugged in to the back of the device. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springboard_Expansion_Slot

Link to the Patent:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110230178%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110230178&RS=DN/20110230178

Link to various handspring springboard devices: http://www.88-keys.com/springboard_modules.htm

I will point out that it seems to be a patent application not an approved patent. So once again we have a bad title for TFA.
 

Patents have nothing to do with prescription. While albuterol is no longer patented, the HFA delivery mechanism is, and that is apparently enough to demand "brand name" prices. I used to pay $5 copay on something that cost $10 or so, now I'm paying $20 copay on something that costs $55 or so. I think it was just a convenient excuse by pharma to get another bite on the patent apple.

These patents appear to expire in 2014 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5605674 and 2015 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5766573

Patents have nothing to do with prescription. While albuterol is no longer patented, the HFA delivery mechanism is, and that is apparently enough to demand "brand name" prices. I used to pay $5 copay on something that cost $10 or so, now I'm paying $20 copay on something that costs $55 or so. I think it was just a convenient excuse by pharma to get another bite on the patent apple.

These patents appear to expire in 2014 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5605674 and 2015 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5766573

When was the last time you read a patent for a chemical or biological agent? The substance itself is just a valid a claim under the patent as the process that created it. US Classification 200/157.68 (definition) is one of the classes the resulting patent could land in if the process involves microwave energy.

If the person(s) who solved this challenge realize this, a landmark legal battle over crowd-sourcing for patent-eligible materials could be on the verge of happening.

Conventional wisdom is also called into question here, when the University system is trumped as the best way to continue research in an age when we could see the most significant advances in bio science come from people who are dynamos for complex rules. i.e. Gamers. Will it change? Likely not, the University system does have many advantages. But a decades-old problem solved in 3 weeks, by a single-generation crowd compared to how many layers of research papers on the topic? That's beyond embarrassing.

If the total pool of software patents numbers 1.5 trillion, then the total pool of relevant software patents is probably 1.4 trillion. Really, there is no such thing as a "relevant patent" when you're writing software, because everything from pure maths to data structures can be patented. Even if the codec is patent free, there is no guarantee the implementation will be. If one developer throws in an "information storage and retrieval utility" utilising "a hashing technique with external chaining and on-the-fly removal of expired data" then they are liable to be sued by Bedrock - as was the case with Linux.

It seems like Google is getting the short end of the stick here. The patents involved (listed here: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&reel=026894&frame=0001) all appear to expire within the next 5 years or so. It looks like IBM is just dumping soon-to-be-worthless patents.

>>If I'm lucky, I eventually do get the patent after a couple of years of legal wrangling and a fortune in fees, and now I can start manufacturing my super new hula hoop.

You might not be aware of it, but you pay reduced fees if you're a little guy.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_27.htm

Digital picture frame from 2006:
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
It looks exactly like an iPad, and exactly like the "electronic device" in Apple's design patent.

Now you'll probably say "but that's not a tablet!". I would reply that we're talking about design here, and confusingly similar looks, not operation. In fact the behavior of the device is explicitly called out as not being part of the design patent Apple filed [1].

Furthermore if how you use something matters, rather than trade dress, we can just call the Galaxy Tab a "digital picture frame and music player", and close the case in Samsung's favor.

[1] Patent title: "Electronic Device"
Primary Claim: "We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."
Label for only picture showing someone using the device: "FIG. 9 is an exemplary diagram of the use of the electronic device thereof the broken lines being shown for illustrative puposes only and form no part of the claimed design. "
IOW, there is nothing whatsoever in this patent that is inconsistent with a digital picture frame and music player, and they are not claiming anything in the patent that is specific to a tablet.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D504,889.PN.&OS=PN/D504,889&RS=PN/D504,889

I looked up TCP over SMS a while back, assuming someone must have written an April Fool's RFC. Turns out some guy submitted a patent application for it (#20080146257).

You can find out for yourself by viewing the file wrapper at the USPTO's website, but to summarize:

It took just over 3 years before the first office action in the case was sent to the applicant. Unfortunately, this delay is currently pretty close to average for applications in this technology area. After that, the applicant had to amend the claims four times to get the application into condition for allowance, which resulted in the additional two years of delay.

Note, however, that the application was published as normal at 18 months after the effective filing date (or 6 months after the actual filing date in this case, because they claimed benefit to a provisional application that they filed).

Microsoft has patented this in 2006.

Second Life has been doing this since March 2005.

There are also other, less known virtual worlds that have been doing it since prior to 2005.
(I think Active Worlds had this running in the same year or earlier? Needs to be checked.)

I wonder if this patent would hold against this sort of a prior art?

Ideas are not patentable! Patents cover IMPLEMENTATIONS!

According the article:

For example, one of the scenarios shown by Microsoft in the patent filing a belt with “electronic and electromagnetic tracking components” for sensing the movements of the user (although the patent doesn’t appear to be limited to that specific approach).

It sounds like they patented some vague idea of how something might be accomplished. That's not what patents are for.

this patent application was actually submitted way back in 2006 and only approved after years of back-and-forth with the patent office

I can see why... since it isn't a patent. Why was it granted at all? So in case I'm just overblowing this, lets look at the patent itself...

...Moreover, the presentation system 101 can employ a personal computer, a projection unit, a system including 3D goggles and headphones, or a simulator providing visual, audible, and physical stimulation, and the like, to present activities of the virtual guest to the user....

Aaand how would you do that? Elsewhere in the patent it talks about presenting virtual smells to the user. Right now, there is no technology to do that. This would be like me patenting teleportation by saying there is some sort of matter-to-energy and energy-to-matter device at either end, with some form of communication in the middle. That's the *idea* of teleportation, not a patentable implementation of it.

Almost every paragraph in the patent says something like this:

What has been described above includes examples of aspects of the claimed subject matter. It is, of course, not possible to describe every conceivable combination of components or methodologies for purposes of describing the claimed subject matter, but one of ordinary skill in the art may recognize that many further combinations and permutations of the disclosed subject matter are possible.

So it keeps admitting that they have no idea how to do this, or what combination of devices might achieve it, but they want to have all of them covered. Ordinarily, a patent author tries and make the patent broad enough to cover similar implementations - so that a trivial change can't be used to avoid paying the royalties. But this is ridiculous.

I think this is perhaps the second most quintissential example of the patent office gone wrong. The best example was when someone patented the tire swing. (Can someone find that? The closest I found was The patent on how to swing.

A provisional costs $110 if you are a small entity (e.g., a lone inventor).

Go here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm

Search for "Provisional application filing fee"

There are almost no requirements for a provisional other than listing who the inventors are, so you can file powerpoints, a thesis, hell probably a scan of a napkin.

People say the bar is low to receive a patent. Bullshit. I spend all day, every day trying to get my clients patents and it is not easy. The PTO is not some bigger rubber stamp machine despite what people here think. Yes, some bad apples get through. But truckloads of bushels do not.

Reading the actual MagSafe patent and the fryer patent, I find that it's not so much anything that didn't exist before, but rather the removal of an unnecessary feature (a heat-conducting probe) that separates the two inventions. Note that the fryer patent is the third item of prior art in the MagSafe patent.

Also note the two axes of symmetry allowing auto-alignment in the Apple patent.

Reading the actual MagSafe patent and the fryer patent, I find that it's not so much anything that didn't exist before, but rather the removal of an unnecessary feature (a heat-conducting probe) that separates the two inventions. Note that the fryer patent is the third item of prior art in the MagSafe patent.

Also note the two axes of symmetry allowing auto-alignment in the Apple patent.

Apple's patent is broad so you can't even change the connector shape etc. They nicely got a broad patent on any electronic device that uses the concept of a magnetic breakaway power cord.

Claim 1:

1. An apparatus for electrically connecting an electronic device to an electrical relation, comprising:
a first connector having a first magnetic element and having at least one first contact electrically connected to the electronic device; and
a second connector positionable adjacent the first connector, the second connector having a second magnetic element and having at least one second contact electrically connected to the electrical relation,
wherein the at least one first contact comprises a metallic contact extending from a first face of the first connector and biased relative to the first face,
wherein magnetic attraction between the first and second magnetic elements substantially maintains the first and second contacts in an electrically conductive relationship,
wherein the first and second connectors each comprise two axes of symmetry such that the first and second connectors couple together in only two orientations relative to one another, and
wherein the at least one first and second contacts of the first and second connectors each comprise a pair of first path contacts on the connector for establishing a first path of electrical communication between the device and the relation,
wherein the pairs of first path contacts form an electrically conductive relationship with one another regardless of which of the two orientations the connectors are magnetically coupled.

See that third wherein? You can change the connector shape so that the first connector and second connector don't have two axes of symmetry such that they couple in only two orientations, and you're clear of this patent. In fact, here's a patent from the 1970s, cited in the Apple patent, that only has 1 axis of symmetry. You could freely use that design without infringing the Apple patent.

What this also means is that whenever a new type of device comes out ... trolls can rush to the patent office to try to patent everything under the sun "when applied to a XYZ device" .. If someone invents a flying car .. the first person to rush to the patent office and file a patent for "GPS device in a flying car" will get the patent. "Door on flying car" ..patent granted. "Bubble sort algorithm used in a computer system in a flying car" .. patent granted.

Or even today they can scour the patent office for software patents and just apply the words "tablet device" or "mobile device" to it since many things don't have device specific patents even today. Hello riches.

Sorry, that's simply incorrect. Under 35 USC 103, a patent claim can be deemed obvious if it is a trivial combination of known items in the prior art. So, if "flying cars" exist and "GPS devices" exist, then "GPS device in a flying car" is obvious by definition. Same thing for "doors on a flying car" - doors are known - or scouring the patent office for software patents that lack the words "tablet device".

As such, contrary to popular Slashdot "wisdom", there are no "[known device] on the Internet!" or [known method] performed by a computer!" patents. The title of the patent, or the abstract may make it seem that way, but the claims always have [known method]+[known computer/internet]+[something entirely new and unknown], and it's that third bit that makes it patentable. In fact, your original assertion was that Apple got a patent on the exact same magnetic power safety mechanism that was in use on fryers, but "when applied to electronic devices." This is incorrect. If you go to the Apple patent and read the claims, there's quite a bit of detail there. And if you click on the cited references, you see a bunch of patents from the 70s on magnetic power connectors, including ones for deep fryers, that are different because they each lack one or more of the features in the claims.

Apple did not patent the concept of using a magnetic power connector. They patented a specific power connector, one that was new and a substantial improvement over those that existed.

Reading the actual MagSafe patent and the fryer patent, I find that it's not so much anything that didn't exist before, but rather the removal of an unnecessary feature (a heat-conducting probe) that separates the two inventions. Note that the fryer patent is the third item of prior art in the MagSafe patent.

Reading the actual MagSafe patent and the fryer patent, I find that it's not so much anything that didn't exist before, but rather the removal of an unnecessary feature (a heat-conducting probe) that separates the two inventions. Note that the fryer patent is the third item of prior art in the MagSafe patent.

As some others have pointed out, this seems to be more about trademarks than copyrights, though, and no one said they were sending out DMCA notices, just C&D, which are used for trademark infringement too.

It doesn't matter if the asteroids site doesn't have any copyright infringement, it's infringing their trademark:

See http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4005:nuopru.2.15

Same for the emulator sites.

Word Mark ATARI 2600
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 026 038. G & S: HOME AND BUSINESS COMPUTERS; COMPUTER HARDWARE, NAMELY, CENTRAL PROCESSORS, PRINTERS, TERMINALS, KEYBOARDS, DISK DRIVES, MANUALLY OPERABLE MULTI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIOMETERS; FLOPPY AND HARD DISKS; COMPUTER PROGRAMS RECORDED ON DISKS FOR HOME, SCHOOL AND BUSINESS USE. FIRST USE: 19770600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770600

(CANCELLED) IC 028. US 022 023 038. G & S: VIDEO-GAME MACHINES FOR HOME USE; COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMS. FIRST USE: 19770600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770600
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Search Code 15.05.03 - Computer (desktop); Computer terminal; Laptop computer; Monitors, computer (without keyboards)
Serial Number 73704210
Filing Date December 31, 1987
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition October 4, 1988
Registration Number 1520637
Registration Date January 17, 1989
Owner (REGISTRANT) ATARI CORPORATION CORPORATION NEVADA 1196 BORREGAS AVENUE SUNNYVALE CALIFORNIA 940083427
Attorney of Record JAMES E. SIEGEL
Prior Registrations 1221509
Description of Mark THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE LOCATION OF THE WORD "ATARI" AND DESIGN THE NUMERAL "2600", HOWEVER THE DOTTED LINES MERELY SERVE TO SHOW THE POSITION OF THE MARK ON THE GOODS.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date July 24, 1995

Either someone else already successfully opposed it, or they didn't pay their fees in a timely manner. "It's dead, Jim!"

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).