Apple Sued Over iPhone Browser

SpuriousLogic writes "A Los Angeles real estate developer is suing Apple for patent infringement over the way the iPhone navigates Web sites. The suit, which was filed on behalf of EMG Technology, seeks unspecified damages. EMG Technology is a company that holds the patents of Elliot Gottfurcht, the real estate developer, as well as Marlo Longstreet and Grant Gottfurcht. The company claims that the iPhone infringes on patent 7,441,196 — a patent that was approved only last month, after a filing process that began on March 13, 2006. That patent is for an invention that displays 'on-line content reformatted from a webpage in a hypertext markup language (HTML) format into an extensible markup language (XML) format to generate a sister site.' This sister site is a simplified version of the original site that is then displayed on any number of devices — including cell phones, EMG says."

Comments

Looking to test Bilski?

[danaris]

Let's hope this case is the first of many to be swiftly decided for throwing out the patent entirely based on In re Bilski.

Dan Aris

Re:Looking to test Bilski?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the apparatus is nothing more than an ordinary computer. It's rather hilariously described from fairly elementary principles:

"FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a client hardware architecture of one embodiment of the invention. A processor 100 is coupled to various memory units and an I/O bus bridge 110 by a local bus 102. Among the expected memory units are random access memory (RAM) 106, which may be any standard RAM, including standard dynamic random access memory (DRAM), and may be symmetric or asymmetric. Also coupled to bus 102 is a read-only memory (ROM) unit 108. The ROM will typically include the boot code for the processor 100. A non-volatile RAM (NVRAM) unit 104 is also coupled to the bus."

And so on. This "client hardware architecture of one embodiment of the invention" isn't distinctive in the least. It's "hardware fluff" to make the application look like it isn't only a software patent.

Re:Looking to test Bilski?

[omeomi]

Is it just me, or does the iPhone not do this anyway? It displays the regular webpage. Sure, there are some sites that detect the iPhone browser and deliver specially-formatted versions of their pages, but the iPhone isn't reformatting anything...

Re:Decoding anyone?

[LandDolphin]

Seeing as the people who evaluate the patent probably don't have any computer experience, the answer would probably be yes.

Re:Uh... wrong browser?

[Professor_UNIX]

If you're going to interpret rendering a page with less "features" as generating a sister site then Mosaic 1.0 is prior art for this patent. Try browsing the web with Mosaic 1.0 and you'll see a drastically different web "scaled down" for older computers by cutting out Flash, Java, Javascript, CSS... hell, it may not have even supported tables.

Re:Prior Art

[UnknowingFool]

As a law student what would be your take on this company that seemingly has sued Apple when their technology doesn't infringe on the patent at all. Now I haven't read the exact patent and don't pretend to fully understand it but the article quotes:

That patent is for an invention that displays "on-line content reformatted from a webpage in a hypertext markup language (HTML) format into an extensible markup language (XML) format to generate a sister site." This sister site is a simplified version of the original site that is then displayed on any number of devices--including cell phones, EMG says.

Most phone web browsers do this because of the limitations on the device. Apple's iPhone however scales the web page in size for memory and screen considerations but does not rely on a sister site nor simplifies the page. At best this is a case of a plaintiff not doing their research. At worst, it's another patent troll company looking for the biggest fish.

Re:Yet another patent troll.

[dontmakemethink]

Indeed, patents are the new domain squatting. Patent applicants should be required to demonstrate reasonable facilities and intent to bring the process or product to market. Otherwise inevitable discovery by an apt and able company should supercede impotent IP claims. "I thought of it first" isn't enough.