Slashdot Mirror


Smartphones Patented — Just About Everyone Sued 1 Minute Later

This week the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a surprisingly (although I guess it shouldn't be) broad patent for a "mobile entertainment and communication device". Upon closer inspection you may notice that it pretty much outlines the ubiquitous smartphone concept. "It's a patent for a mobile phone with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files. The patent holding firm who has the rights to this patent wasted no time at all. At 12:01am Tuesday morning, it filed three separate lawsuits against just about everyone you can think of, including Apple, Nokia, RIM, Sprint, ATT, HP, Motorola, Helio, HTC, Sony Ericsson, UTStarcomm, Samsung and a bunch of others. Amusingly, the company actually first filed the lawsuits on Monday, but realized it was jumping the gun and pulled them, only to refile just past the stroke of midnight. "

24 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. If I had invented the smartphone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would be pissed that all these tech companies rake in the money by ripping off my invention. Good thing the patent system protects our geniuses from intellectual property theft.

    1. Re:If I had invented the smartphone... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Funny

      While your points are solid, here at the USPTO we pride ourselves in granting patents regardless of originality, gross obviousness and indeed, patentability itself.

      We like to think of ourselves as a progressive institution.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  2. not very smrt by brian1078 · · Score: 5, Informative

    no "smartphone" required. my 2 year old Verizon LG VX8300 is a "... mobile phone with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files ..."

    1. Re:not very smrt by stinerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The main problem here is "continuation filings". Using these, you can take longer and longer to amend your patent. Of course, that means that you can amend your patent to cover things that are already in the market. So file in '97 and file enough continuations until 2000 or so and you've just retroactively patented 3 years worth of progress.

      What needs to happen is that if you file a continuation, the clock gets reset to that continuation. So file in '97 and file a continuation in 2000 means that anything in '98 and '99 now counts as prior art.

    2. Re:not very smrt by gravesb · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you add new matter, its prior art date is of the continuation in part that you filed to add the new matter. Otherwise, all of the adjustments must have support in the original filing. Essentially, what you propose is the way the system works now.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    3. Re:not very smrt by reiisi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could we say that's the way the system _is_ _supposed_ to work now?

      Evidently, it doesn't.

      --
      Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  3. Good luck by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These guys will be smashed into paste by hordes of the highest paid lawyers on planet Earth first thing Monday morning.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Good luck by Marcion · · Score: 5, Funny

      how do they expect to fight a war on 10 different fronts...

      ... I hear Darl McBride will be available on the job market very soon...

    2. Re:Good luck by shmlco · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just just be nine different fronts. Apple should file for summary judgement and immediately sue them for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The iPhone doesn't have "removable storage".

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  4. I have a question, your honour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you hear me now?

  5. abusive behaviour by Atreide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    putting abusive people in jail would make them think twice

    they cost money to other companies, but also to state and law
    how can tribunal tolerate such behaviour and not fine a big toll ?

    --
    The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
  6. Awesome` by moogied · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finally, a firm got enough balls to blatantly abuse the living crap out of the patent system. Maybe this will start the much needed rework of the patent system.

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
  7. They sued WHO? by sirwired · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They do realize that IBM, from it's lofty perch near the top of the Fortune 500, doesn't take too kindly to patent extortion? Especially pathetic ones like this? The same IBM that is a company that does not manufacture phones of any kind, smart or otherwise? The same IBM that has a larger patent portfolio than the next-highest competitor by a substantial margin? The same company that probably has a patent on breathing and a another patent on filing patent lawsuits? The same IBM with a quite famous, take-no-prisoners legal strategy? The same IBM that just spent more in legal fees fighting SCO than the company was worth?

    Methinks a couple of those plaintiffs are going to get dropped from the suit, quite quickly. Unless of course IBM wants to make an example of them (not out of the question), in which case they will have their patent forcibly invalidated, with maybe some Sherman Act sprinkled on top for good measure.

    SirWired

    1. Re:They sued WHO? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The same IBM that has a larger patent portfolio than the next-highest competitor by a substantial margin? A large patent portfolio is only a threat against companies that actually make something. Standard operating procedure these days is to spin off separate companies to do the patent trolling.

      The fact that IBM's lawyers are colloquially known as 'Nazgul' should probably be more worrying to them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Re:Prior art? by DaveM753 · · Score: 5, Funny

    everyone?

  9. What I don't Get... by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just roll my eyes and think is the USPO as dumb as the Fed?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

    The first smart phone was developed way back when. But let's consider a more recent example:

    The Nokia Communicator line was the first of Nokia's smartphones starting with the Nokia 9000, released in 1996.

    The earlier chained patents was 1997. So I really wonder what pot, and I do mean pot, the people in the patent office are smoking.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  10. Re:Prior art? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bueller?

  11. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sometimes they do .. for example the RIMM versus a patent holding company called NTP:

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/03/technology/rimm_ntp/

    Other situations companies settle such as this one where a company claimed it owned rights to JPEG

    http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2005/02/21/daily14.html

    So yeah, patent trolling can be quite lucrative from a financial standpoint .. but I dunno what it does to the conscience.

  12. Patent Document is a Reqs Doc, Not Design by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basically you can gather a list of blue sky requirements, write them up in legalese and then apply for a patent. Easy! Any half-witted project manager can do that in their sleep.

    It's trivial to list requirements. Actually solving the many problems in realising the requirements is where all the work is, and applications like this indicate nothing like that.

    There is no technical detail here that indicates the patent applicant ever intended to make anything or worse - ever solved any of the problems involved in designing a product like this.

    That's where I think the patent system fails - you can essentially patent a requirements document without ever needing to progress further. It's not rewarding an inventor, because an inventor would have either created a prototype or created a design sufficiently detailed to allow a prototype to be built.

    Patents like this reward the wrong people.

  13. Re:Manufacturers to release hardware fix by trickno · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't have removable storage for my phone. I have a removable phone for my storage.

  14. Re:Prior art? by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the Nokia Communicator 9000 was the first Smartphone, certainly in Europe. It was first introduced in 1996, and presumably in development for some time before that.

  15. Mod Parent Way The Hell Up... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Seriously - I'd love to see a clause put into any patent (and copyright) based lawsuit filing, signed by the CEO himself, that says:

    "I hereby swear under penalty of perjury that I am filing this lawsuit in good faith. Furthermore, if my lawsuit is found to be without merit, and is dismissed with prejudice, then my corporate charter shall be dissolved, and my corporation's holdings shall be split and sold to the highest bidder at public auction. Furthermore, my corporate officers, who are members of my corporation's board at time of filing, shall be individually levied personal fines of 3x their individual annual personal income (consisting of, but not limited to: salary, bonuses, incentives, and all other forms of income), as calculated on the year this lawsuit was filed. My corporation furthermore cannot be sold, merged, transferred, or acquired by any other entity until the lawsuit is concluded, nor can board members be replaced except in the event of death or permanent incapacitation. My corporation furthermore cannot issue any further financial instruments during this time period, until the lawsuit is concluded (instruments include but are not limited to: stock issues, bond issues, or any other forms of publicly traded debt)."

    That would simultaneously wipe out the RIAA, the MPAA, and damned near every real patent troll on the planet...

    ...or at least make the fsckers think real hard before they do it.

    /P

    (PS: if you can improve on it or correct dumb mistakes that I was bound to include inadvertently, please, go for it).

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  16. Re:They forgot to sue one party by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, where would God get a lawyer?

    I'd bet he could think of one particular angel that'd be suitable...

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  17. Re:Prior art? by zete · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We should just get the patent office to read some of Tesla's work. This quote illustrates Tesla predicting smart phones more than 100 years ago: As soon as [the Wardenclyffe plant is] completed, it will be possible for a business man in New York to dictate instructions, and have them instantly appear in type at his office in London or elsewhere. He will be able to call up, from his desk, and talk to any telephone subscriber on the globe, without any change whatever in the existing equipment. An inexpensive instrument, not bigger than a watch, will enable its bearer to hear anywhere, on sea or land, music or song, the speech of a political leader, the address of an eminent man of science, or the sermon of an eloquent clergyman, delivered in some other place, however distant. In the same manner any picture, character, drawing, or print can be transferred from one to another place... Nikola Tesla 1901