Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over OS X Quick Boot
An anonymous reader writes "With a patent originally owned by LG in tow, a Florida based company called Operating Systems Solutions LLC recently filed suit against Apple claiming that OS X's use of quick booting infringes the aforementioned patent."
The company in question is a bit suspicious — having formed very recently — and so others are speculating it was created for a proxy battle against Apple by LG.
These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand.
Everyone is suing everyone else, minimal innovation is happening and when it does it's from some upstart who gets buried the moment it makes a press release.
There have been many implementations of this any many variations since at least the early 90's. I don't know when the patent was lodged but I think Apple themselves may have prior art on this.
Patents and patent trolls should become illegal in our current economic environment.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
He is probably referring to this.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
And forgive me for possibly stating the obvious---
If LG were to sue Apple directly, Apple might throw a hissy and stop buying LG's panels.
So to prevent that, LG creates a shell/shill to bring the suit, on the presumption that Apple won't see right through it and continue to buy panels as if nothing was wrong.
Anybody else buying that?
"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind."
I'm sure before nearly every nation on earth was dragged into World War 1 that they thought it was a good idea to get into a 'little fight.' At least times will be interesting again...
No, I think that if random /. posters are coming up with that 5 minutes after reading the summary, LG wouldn't be stupid enough to think that no one at Apple - who has a vested interest in these things - would ever come to that conclusion. I mean, seriously. That doesn't take any insight.
It's seems unlikely that LG is the puppeteer. As - AFAIK - they're not involved in any of the Apple/Android/mobile patent wars with Apple, it would be pretty stupid for them to instigate a fight. After all, they sold off a parent that this new company claims has significant value. If that's the case, why would LG sell it? Why not pursue Apple themselves? The only reason would seem to be legal insulation from the lawsuit if they think the claim is tenuous and they're just trying to ruffle Apple's feathers. But if they're not involved in the patent fight, why would they provoke Apple and risk their current business with Apple?
In short: no, it seems too transparent and too stupid (stupid at least with the information I'm aware of; maybe an Apple suit against LG is imminent or something).
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
I think that Apple, and others, have been using truncated boot processes for a decade or so. I can't see this one going anywhere.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Or they were looking for a headline something like "OSS Sues Apple" Very easily confused headline that could generate some publicity.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
I think he's trying to say that they who live by the sword, die by the sword ...
Having read the patent (RE40,092 in case anyone is interested), it's claims are so broad and complete that any implementation of any kind of acceleration of the booting process would violate it. In fact, they're so complete, that any hibernate mode would also likely violate them, which suggests that it shouldn't be hard to find prior art since hibernate modes substantially predate this patent. I suspect that Apple will use prior art to get the patent invalidated, but it's tough to say for sure.
The real problem with this patent, though, is the standard one for software patents: it's just a set of general ideas about what you could do to make booting faster (store configuration data, check configuration data, write some or all pages of memory to disk, read some or all pages of memory from disk) with nothing that could actually be described as a specific invention or process. As such, the patent (as is almost always the case with software patents) is so broad that it's ridiculous. They've basically been granted a patent on any feasible idea for speeding up the boot process.
I think he's trying to say that they who live by the sword, die by the sword ...
We can do that? Man, that beats paying lawyers, unless...
you probably have to use lawyers to deploy the sword...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
They have been researching digital cameras since the 1970s and have like 1000 patents relating to digital cameras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Sasson
They literally the invented digital still camera and got a patent for it in 1978
Their patents have been tested in court. However Kodak seems to have no problems licensing its patents. Kodak
doesnt pursue frivolous or overly broad claims. Kodak actually invented most of the digital camera technology existing today
and licenses it to everybody.
Apple tried to claim a patent claim against kodak and got bitchslapped in May.
http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2011/05/16/Apple-loses-round-in-digital-camera-patent-dispute-with-Eastman-Kodak.html