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?
Even a Yale Professor can be a inept sleazy troll...
This doesn't mean shit to me.
So what the judge is Actually saying the conmen at apple have bunged me a nice big slice of wonga into my bank so i will find to suite them regardless of just how corrupt and thieving said company actually is and anyone that even tries to say apple are clean needs to go plug themself into the Gas main and the Electric main at the same time and turn em both on at the same time that way we get rid of another apple fanboy
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."
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.
whackier by the day. the native american elders' 'truth is, babys rule' presidential campaign bid has become wildly popular, almost overnight (give or take 400 years, more or less, seems like yesterday?).
in other 'news'; continued outbreaks of honesty on cnn?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded
soon, we'll all know all about all this generationull real sex religious training 'monkey business', & the eugenatic depopulation team response?
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?
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"
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.
Who do you think he would vote for?
D, R, L, TP, Gr?
[ hey I just noticed the Tea Party - Toilet Paper link ].
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.