Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sued Over OS X Quick Boot

Posted by Unknown on from the the-rms-says-patents-are-baaaad dept.

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.

16 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by firex726 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand.

      You make it sound like they weren't _already_ out of hand.

    2. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Taste of their own medicine? I take it you completely forgot about Nokia suing them, and Kodak before that? Or how about the company that sued them on the basis of the iPod's playlist?

      To say that "Apple started it!" is extremely childish and naive.

    3. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone slings patent shit around. Kodak had basically patented putting an LCD on a camera and using that instead of a viewfinder, an idea that had certainly been around prior to Kodak's patent and had possibly been implemented before then, too. I'd have to go back and check. Yes, Apple is slinging stupid patent crap around. So is LG. So are just about all the major players in the industry, and everyone needs to knock it the hell off. Google is about the only one who hasn't gone willy-nilly with patents as they seem more interested in violating them than attacking with them.

    4. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by StripedCow · · Score: 3

      Doesn't matter. Lawyers (being good friends with law-makers) are making money, that's all that counts.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    5. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...filed under category "self-serving exaggeration"

      True, but it's not exaggerated by much.

      Yes, other companies had the technology to make iPad/iPhone style products before Apple did theirs. It's telling, however, that none of them actually came out with such a product until after they had seen the iPhone/iPad's example. Until then, the tablet companies all thought that simply installing Windows on a tablet PC was sufficient, and all the smartphone companies.... well, the less said about them, the better.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some protection? Definitely. 20 years of protection? Hell no. That's an eternity in the software biz, and would absolutely stifle innovation (which is antithetical to the purpose of patents.)

    7. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you mean pre-iphone we had this. Look like anything you've seen before? Pics came out ~6 months before the iPhone was announced. Apple made it "cool", they didn't invent the modern smartphone by a long shot.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The LG Prada was announced December 12, 2006 and came out May 2007. Apple showed the iPhone January 9th 2007 and released it June 29th 2007.

      To go from seeing the Prada in December to a workable prototype iPhone in less than a month would be very difficult. Apparently the Prada did win an award in Sept. 2006, but even if someone from Apple saw it then, that's still a huge leap to think Apple could design the iPhone and write iOS up enough to show it in Jan 2007.

      The point isn't to show that Apple copied LG. The point is to show that a company other than Apple had the same idea before the iPhone was released. As for tablets, those have been around for 20+ years, Apple simply recognized that the hardware was finally good enough to make a marketable tablet.

    9. Re:These patent lawsuits are getting out of hand. by Cyberllama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taste of their own medicine? I take it you completely forgot about Nokia suing them, and Kodak before that? Or how about the company that sued them on the basis of the iPod's playlist?

      To say that "Apple started it!" is extremely childish and naive.

      But in the case of HTC and Samsung, Apple most certainly started it. It's like an elementary school. Some 6th grader beats up on a 4th grader, so he goes and picks on the 2nd graders. The 4th grader in question is no less a bully simply because he was bullied himself.

      When Apple counter-sued Nokia, that was just perfectly reasonable self-defense. Nokia was the bad guy there. When they sued HTC with a collection of completely bogus patents simply because HTC had fewer patents for self-defense, Apple was being evil.

      In the past few years we've seen some of the bigger and better-known names in tech resort to patent trolling simply because they find themselves falling behind their competitors due to a failure to innovate. Nokia, Microsoft and TiVo are all guilty. Apple, however, is about the only big name to start patent trolling before they hit their decline. They're doing it while on top. In that particular way, Apple's patent lawsuits are unique in the industry.

      So while they certainly did not start the patent wars, they have definitely distinguished themselves with their misbehavior as of late and they undeniably did start the fights between HTC and Samsung.

  2. Prior art? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Prior art? by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think this is the info you are hinting at. the patent in question specifically mentions config.sys and auto exec.bat, as well as POST processes.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/08/apple_sued_over_mac_x_fast_boot/

      "The method for a quick boot process includes the steps of performing a power-on self test (POST) operation when a personal computer system is powered on or a reset button is pressed; performing a normal boot process after the POST operation; saving the contents of memory and the status of the attached devices to a hard disk; checking if a reboot is requested; restoring the saved boot configuration information from the hard disk, after POST is completed during the reboot process; checking whether or not an initial device configuration file and/or an automatic batch file were changed; and executing commands in the two files and saving a newly created boot configuration information to the hard disk for future boot," the patent reads.

      "The personal computer system, may reboot quickly because of omission of execution of the initial device configuration filed and the automatic batch file."

      Yes, the patent specifically discusses CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files, carefully laying out the entire boot process for an IBM PC running MS-DOS. But it says the scope of the method is broader. "Though the description hereinbefore may refer to terms commonly used in describing particular computer systems and software, such as IBM personal computer and Windows95 operation system, the concepts equally apply to other systems and software," it reads.

  3. Re:Just sayin' by itchythebear · · Score: 3, Informative

    He is probably referring to this.

    --
    If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
  4. Re:LG sells Android phones... connection? by Calos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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%
  5. The usual overly broad software patent by KeithIrwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Kodak isnt a bad player by voss · · Score: 3, Informative

    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