Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins $625.5 Million Ruling Over Cover Flow
An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has reversed a $625.5 million judgement against Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit pertaining to Apple's Cover Flow feature. The lawsuit was filed by Mirror Worlds, a company founded by Yale professor Dave Gelertner. 'Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law,' US District Judge Leonard Davis explained in his decision."
Pretty thin article.
So what does "failing to lay a solid foundation" mean for overall patent suits in Texas?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Is this a step in the right direction or will this (and others) keep aiming for the SCOTUS?
As would you if there was a chance of getting your hands on $625.5m.
Clearly you've never been to a bar in New Haven, or you'd know that's the rule rather than the exception.
This doesn't mean shit to me.
Reigning in the lunacy surrounding software patents appeals to most /. readers. It's comforting to know that some are so narrow minded they cannot see how this eventually affects most end users and not just a single manufacturer.
I could of sworn I saw this kind of thing on CD jukeboxes and when flipping through a book. Maybe I was hallucinating.
Though Gelertner’s patents were upheld by the court, Judge Davis threw out the $625.5 million damage award and closed the case in Apple’s favor.
Isn't this like saying "Apple infringed on your patents, but they won't have to pay anything. Have a nice day."
So much hate in so little space!
Dave Gelertner is also famous as one of the UNABOM victims who survived. He originally wrote a book called "Mirror Worlds" that offered a theoretical means to digitally replicate the natural world in a way that would be indistinguishable from the original. After publishing this book he received a mail bomb from the UNABOM (purported to be FBI detainee Ted Kaczynski) which prompted him to stop publishing, remove the book from distribution, and re-write another book under the same title that some consider a complete retraction of the original premise.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)
This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.
Hateful, violent and illiterate. A perfect example of the sort of person who thinks that buying a consumer product from a different company than they would is an action deserving of death.
One day, with luck, you'll grow up and realize what an incredible douche-bag you've been.
I have to agree, just before the jury verdict (ie. after seeing all the evidence) the judge denied a judgement as a matter of law ... and then turned around and essentially granted it on appeal after the jury verdict. It smells to high heaven.
So many slashdotters are confused. They don't know whether to be pissed off that a big corporation didn't get screwed, pissed off at a patent troll, or happy because they're apple fan bois.
This is bad news for small developers. According to the article, the original patent in question was filed in 1999 and a jury determined that Apple infringed upon it. Then when it was appealed, the judge determined that even though the jury ruled one way, they were wrong. Then he goes on to eliminate the awarded damages, while at the same time stating that original patent was valid.
So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying royalties,
So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?
The Yale professor is David Gelerenter.
He was injured by a bomb sent by the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.
$sig not found
Do you use KDE? The KDE Plasma Cover Switch animation seems to be Cover Flow. I'm not sure how this ruling affects that, but I bet it does.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Oh so many permutations!
software patents suck v. big corporations suck
apple sucks because they have too much power v. software patent squatters suck because they live to get huge awards for doing nothing
judges suck v. juries are stupid
They've successfully appealed a 625.5M$ judgment against them.
"A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, today said Apple *didn’t* infringe a patent owned by Mirror Worlds LLC"
He was injured by a bomb sent by the
Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.
So what? That gives him a right to be an idiot?
Lemme think a moment. 625 milion. The lawyers take a cut, expert witnesses want their pay, I have to pay for all the expenses involved in being in court for half of eternity. When everyone is paid off - I might have enough to take the taxi home.
I'll pass, thank you.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
No GF and he's beaten himself off so often for so long it's not working so well any more and he's becoming frustrated. I expect hate from basement dwellers like him.
Doesn't Project Looking Glass use a lot of similar techniques? This in particular looks pretty much just like Cover Flow to me. Here's someone else who seems to think the same.
Twinstiq, game news
The first linked article isn't clear.
The judge ruled that Apple did not infringe the patent at issue, and the judge also set aside the jury's damages award. The judge upheld the validity of the patent, which likely means that the judge agreed with the jury on invalidity.
It's somewhat rare for a judge to completely disregard the jury's verdict, especially on a fact-intensive inquiry such as noninfringement. After the jury verdict, Apple most likely filed a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement. This motion requests that the judge set aside the jury's verdict and make his on ruling based on the motion.
Of course, both sides can still appeal - the patentee might appeal the judges grant of JMOL, and Apple could cross-appeal on invalidity and other issues.
Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. was a company based in New Haven, Connecticut, which created software using ideas from the book Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (1992) by Yale professor David Gelernter, who helped found the company and served as chief scientist. The company ceased operations in 2004.
.
The troll is Mirror Worlds, LLC of Tyler, Texas (a subsidiary of Plainfield Specialty Holdings I, Inc.) which filed the suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement
These trolls buy up patent rights of defunct companies and use them as an excuse to file infringement lawsuits.
I believe that professor has nothing to do with this lawsuit.
$sig not found
Who do you think he would vote for?
D, R, L, TP, Gr?
[ hey I just noticed the Tea Party - Toilet Paper link ].
Wow, isn't it weird how the anti-Apple fanboys are the most full of vitriol and hatred?
you aint got the first idea kiddo when you wake from your apple flavoured stuper you might see the world throu normal glasses instead of rose pink poofter ones
Not that I like siding with Apple (and I'm not, really...).
Software and Business Method Patents need to go away. They serve no useful purpose. Patent the machine, not what you tell it to do or use it for.
Physical objects are difficult to design and prototype. Patents are *supposed* to give inventors protection while they come up with those designs and prototypes. Patents aren't supposed to protect simply an idea, but an idea that you truly want to bring into existence. That said, you should be able to prototype a patented machine within a reasonable amount of time, or you lose the patent (fscking squatters). Warp drive, anyone?
Software? That barrier simply does not exist. I can bring my ideas into existence with only a single machine that I can use for years to create ideas limited only by my time and resourcefulness. Copyright it, sure. Patent? Absurd.
Republican.
Even so, the outcome of the patent litigation between Apple and Nokia is far from certain. As noted by Alexander Poltorak at GPC: "One cannot help wondering if the latest round [of suits between Apple and Nokia] is not a proxy for a fight between Microsoft and Apple, which are rivals as well." It's questionable whether these mobile wars should take place in the courts, in the form of patent litigation, or should be properly restricted to the marketplace, where they rightfully belong. Whatever one's position on the issue, however, it's true that as long as IP rights exist, then patentees have every legal right to enforce them.