iPhone Infringes On Sony, Nokia Patents, Says Federal Jury

Live by the sword . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

. . . die by the sword. I hate Sony with the heat of a thousand suns, but would love to see them make Apple write an eight figure check.

Re:Live by the sword . . . by MightyMartian · 2012-12-13 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

More than likely we'll just end up with a cross-licensing deal and an end to this particular patent theater of war. Frankly, I don't think Apple's expectation was ever to permanently ban competitors devices, it was simply to delay their release into major markets long enough to cripple sales.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by Neon+Spiral+Injector · 2012-12-13 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

A company that makes no products has no need to cross-license patents.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by NeutronCowboy · 2012-12-13 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

My thoughts exactly. Yes, MobileMedia might be a patent troll, but Apple well deserves this lawsuit. I hope that Steve Jobs' thermonuclear approach to Android will backfire on an epic level: once the patent wars leave the shell of dead corporations strewn all over the landscape, people will huddle together and promise themselves "never again" And the only way to do that: no more patents.
Either that, or we wisen up and make the patent system much more reasonable (working prototype, truly limited time, no patents on math or business methods, etc.). I wonder which one will happen first.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by ArhcAngel · 2012-12-13 07:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Which Sony? They are so schizophrenic they frequently sue themselves.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Live by the sword . . . by Kergan · 2012-12-13 07:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

If the deal extends to its owners, who actually do make products, then it may have needs.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by viperidaenz · 2012-12-13 07:44 · Score: 1

If you delay a product long enough, it becomes obsolete. You can then play catch up instead of innovating.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-12-13 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

. . . die by the sword. I hate Sony with the heat of a thousand suns, but would love to see them make Apple write an eight figure check.
Unfortunately the only real winners will be the lawyers.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by GodInHell · 2012-12-13 07:47 · Score: 2

Only eight? I think we're in the 9 figure range, no?
Re:Live by the sword . . . by Alien+Being · 2012-12-13 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

They should both be writing billions of hundred dollar checks to pay back all the money they have stolen from consumers.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by jo_ham · 2012-12-13 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

They should both be writing billions of hundred dollar checks to pay back all the money they have stolen from consumers.
I'm curious. What money have they stolen from consumers?
Re:Live by the sword . . . by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-13 08:10 · Score: 4, Informative

The rounded corners are a design patent, which, despite it's similar name, is something completely different to a patent.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by im_thatoneguy · 2012-12-13 08:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

A company that makes no products has no need to cross-license patents.
The *point* of this company is cross licensing. Nokia, Sony etc could establish a complicated network of cross licensing deals, or they can put it into one pool and then take out the rewards relative to their contribution to the coalition.
Apple can just pay the license fee, or contribute enough intellectual property to the pool such that it gets back a share equal to a share of the patent group.
This is how the MPEG group works. MPEG is a collection of dozens of patents from tons of people. If you have something that can make MPEG better you can simply sell your patent to the group and make a nice little royalty. Or you can get your royalty and buy MPEG licenses gaining you access to the rest of the patents.
This is how the patent system should work for complicated systems. You build a cell phone patent pool. Then if you want to create new OS you pay the license fee without having to negotiate with 50 different patent holders.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-13 08:33 · Score: 1

Except it's not Sony it's MobileMedia which is owned by Nokia, MPEG-LA, and Sony. Think they won't sue other companies they're going after RIM and HTC.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-13 08:36 · Score: 1

So you're looking in the mirror when you say that...
Re:Live by the sword . . . by thaylin · 2012-12-13 08:48 · Score: 1

As opposed to apple, who disregard, and even flaunt that disregard for IP.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by jo_ham · 2012-12-13 09:09 · Score: 1

You're a fucking idiot if you can't figure it out for yourself.
I must be a fucking idiot then, since I'm still not seeing what money Apple have stolen from consumers?
What definition of "stolen" are we using here? Maybe that has something to do with it?
Re:Live by the sword . . . by houghi · 2012-12-13 09:12 · Score: 1

once the patent wars leave the shell of dead corporations strewn all over the landscape, people will huddle together and promise themselves "never again
This reminded me of the movie Branded.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by Tough+Love · 2012-12-13 09:28 · Score: 1

Apple's stock price down 1.7% as of now. Sellers of Apple stock are also winners.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by farble1670 · 2012-12-13 09:49 · Score: 1

right, not a holy war, a thermonuclear war.
http://androidcommunity.com/steve-jobs-had-pledged-thermonuclear-war-on-android-20111021/
Re:Live by the sword . . . by Nerdfest · 2012-12-13 10:31 · Score: 1

Some of would get a decent amount of entertainment out of it as well.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-13 11:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple doesn't have any valuable patents to cross license. That has always been their problem. They are up against companies that have been producing mobile tech for decades and own patents that are essential for many of the standards in use around the world. Apple has a bunch of design patents that can either be worked around or invalidated in court.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Live by the sword . . . by hawkinspeter · 2012-12-13 23:44 · Score: 1

I don't see how that would work - patents are a government granted monopoly to encourage people to publish their innovations.

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Re:Live by the sword . . . by Nopel · 2012-12-14 00:29 · Score: 1

Unfortunately the only real winners will be the lawyers.
So Sony.

--
I only registered so I could disable D2. Ugh.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by hawkinspeter · 2012-12-14 05:50 · Score: 1

I agree with the sentiment, but that's not theft - it's an added cost.

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Re:Live by the sword . . . by sjames · 2012-12-14 22:14 · Score: 1

Agreed, it's not theft in any strictly defined sense. Call it damages.
Re:Live by the sword . . . by mdmkolbe · 2012-12-15 08:37 · Score: 2

Having a monopoly is one thing, banding together multiple monopolies to squeeze out competition is another.

links to patents by schneidafunk · 2012-12-13 07:16 · Score: 5, Informative

patent 6,070,068, which was issued to Sony and covers a method for controlling the connecting state of a call

patent 6,253,075, which covers call rejection

patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:links to patents by MachDelta · 2012-12-13 07:43 · Score: 4, Informative

I get the second and third patents (even if they're blindingly obvious), but that first one....

6,070,068 - In a communication terminal device, the connecting state of a call can certainly and easily be controlled without learning troublesome operating methods which are different depending on the connecting state of a call by providing controller for displaying processing items available to a call a display and controlling the call into the connecting state corresponding to the processing item which is selected and determined by the user's operation of an input unit, the user can control the connecting state of the call by merely selecting the desired processing item.

...seriously, what the fuck does that even mean?
Re:links to patents by systemidx · 2012-12-13 08:10 · Score: 1

That's called a run-on sentence.
Re:links to patents by aevan · 2012-12-13 08:16 · Score: 1

*blink* "On-screen options to hangup or redial, instead of special buttons"...that's the best I can glean from it.
Re:links to patents by im_thatoneguy · 2012-12-13 08:32 · Score: 3, Informative

I think it means providing a GUI button for hanging up. :P
Re:links to patents by floodo1 · 2012-12-13 08:51 · Score: 4, Informative

The patent claims that before this awesome "invention" users had to hit either 1,2, or 3 on the keypad followed by the send button in order to manage the call waiting aspect of your phone. It also claims that you had to press a different number to control a given call waiting function (place on hold, hang up current call, combine calls into a three way call, etc) depending on what you were doing on the phone at the time, so this was confusing and cumbersome for users.

So this Sony employee "invented" a simple menu system (though the patent seems to cover any sort of system, aka apple's buttons which pop up on screen when you get a call waiting type of call) which lets you (via a scroll wheel and button, in the example) select "Hold" or "Disconnnect" or what have you by scrolling and clicking. In this way the user doesn't have to remember whether they should press 1, 2, or 3 and instead can just click on words to do what they want.

It's worthwhile to look at the images which contain samples of the menu system (as well as flow charts and block layouts of a typical GSM cell phone).

TLDR: This extremely generic/broad patent is for a simple system to handle call waiting on a cell phone. A system which is novel because it's easier to use than the old keypad based system in use at the time.

Consequently it's ridiculous.

--
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
Re:links to patents by floodo1 · 2012-12-13 08:54 · Score: 2

Reading that first patent is quite interesting. They basically patented a system of on screen objects that you can select in order to handle call waiting functionality....which was a new invention compared to the old way of using the 1,2,3 and send keys, which was confusing for people (according to the patent).

Highlights the ludicrousness of patents. "Hey man, this is groundbreaking stuff here, making a menu system with simple text labels instead of making people remember which number to press at which time". Pretty much NOTHING new about the idea, just the specific application to cell phones .... /LAME

--
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
Re:links to patents by Gr8Apes · 2012-12-13 11:01 · Score: 1

That's rich, and this is more valid than the much maligned "rounded corners design patent" how?

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:links to patents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 11:08 · Score: 1

Maybe the inventor used emacs. If so, this would be a new idea to him.
Re:links to patents by floodo1 · 2012-12-18 18:28 · Score: 1

You win! Eleven words to say what I said in volumes: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3314779&cid=42279293

--
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!

When? by rotorbudd · 2012-12-13 07:16 · Score: 1

is all of this going to reach critical mass and blow up in their faces???

--
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"

Re:When? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-13 07:31 · Score: 2

This argument gets repeated ad nauseum, but economics says that the market determines the price. If they pass these costs off the consumen en masse then they don't sell devices.
Re:When? by Ost99 · 2012-12-13 07:46 · Score: 1

The assumptions underlying the theory of market determined prices are for the most part not present in the mobile phone market.

--
---- Sig. gone.
Re:When? by king+neckbeard · 2012-12-13 08:04 · Score: 1

That's assuming a remotely compeitive market. However, because patents and regulatory barriers keep new companies from entering the market, and the lack of competition between carriers further eliminates choices, consumers pretty much have to just bend over and take it.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

patent troll? by rgbrenner · 2012-12-13 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

is there really a debate about if MobileMedia is a patent troll?

They hold patents. Check.
Specifically formed to sue other companies for patent infringement. Check
They don't make a single product or use their patents in any way. Check.

Definitely a patent troll. There is no debate.

I get it.. you hate Apple. But don't pretend like these assholes are suddenly good for everyone.

Re:patent troll? by squiggleslash · 2012-12-13 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

If they're owned by companies that actually make products, then presumably they're more of a consortium (like the MPEG LA) than a patent troll, per-se.
I don't know, I hate software patents, but I like seeing companies that trying to destroy competitors products by abusing the patent system being themselves a victim of it.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:patent troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:22 · Score: 1

I am pretty sure Sony and Nokia make devices.
Re:patent troll? by Coolhand2120 · 2012-12-13 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

They are jointly owned by Nokia and Sony. So the developers of the technology in question own the company. It is not simply a 3rd party that buys up patents to sue other companies. Because they are owned by the people who developed the technology, I wouldn't call them a patent troll.
Re:patent troll? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-13 07:36 · Score: 1

Who cares. This should be an illegal corporate structure no matter who owns them.
Re:patent troll? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-13 07:37 · Score: 1

They are a CORPORATION formed specifically to sue. I don't think the ownership is relevant.
Re:patent troll? by thesameguy · 2012-12-13 07:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, this is my feeling on the matter as well. Someone who buys up currently useless patents in the hopes that someday they will be useful is what a troll does. A group of companies pooling patents for things they all make sounds fairly reasonable - *especially* in the tech sector.
I'll be interested to see the outcome of this. Given Nokia and Sony's current situations I don't think they will be too aggressive with Apple - I think their short-term need for cash from a licensing deal would exceed their risk tolerance for fighting for a big check and forcing Apple to perform these functions in some other way. At the same time, I wonder if, in light of the Apple Maps debacle, Apple will continue with their "we don't negotiate" tactic or seek to pay out some licensing and not rock their own boat.
I completely understand defending one's territory, but Apple is *clearly* not actually threatened by the rest of the industry. Their success is only somewhat based on their technology - they should have been more gracious about sharing/selling it. Instead, they aggressively pursued an entire industry. Now, they have no friends and are trapped in a room with a bunch of scared dogs. Not position I'd like to be in literally or metaphorically.
Re:patent troll? by knarf · 2012-12-13 07:48 · Score: 1

Definitely a patent troll, just a patent troll started by practising entities. The only reason they started this troll is to be able to use the common troll modus operandi: sue with bullshit patents without the risk of being sued because, troll as they are, they have nothing to sue over. This 'company' and its ilk is to the stated purpose of patent law as what high frequency traders are to the stated goal of the stock market: they are parasites.
Pity it is not legal to use a jumbo-sized fly swat on this vermin.
*Splat* another one bites the dust... It would be so... rewarding.

--
--frank[at]unternet.org
Re:patent troll? by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-13 08:38 · Score: 1

So you missed the bit about being formed to sue other companies.
Re:patent troll? by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-13 08:39 · Score: 1

LMOL - yeah check out their history Potsy.
Re:patent troll? by toriver · 2012-12-13 09:01 · Score: 1

Only if you blatantly ignore the commonly-used definition of a patent troll in order to reduce the term to a swear word. Urge to auto-block brainless AC posters... rising...
Re:patent troll? by jrumney · 2012-12-13 13:11 · Score: 1

then presumably they're more of a consortium
Companies banding together for anti-competitive purposes is usually called a cartel, not a consortium, and is illegal. For some reason patents are different.
Re:patent troll? by drinkypoo · 2012-12-14 02:01 · Score: 1

is there really a debate about if MobileMedia is a patent troll?
Not really. But there should equally be no debate about whether Apple is a patent troll. That is not their sole function, but it is one of their functions. They apply for and get bad patents and then use them to attack the competition when they cannot compete on fair grounds.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:20 · Score: 1

This is ridiculous. Apple invented the patent! How could they infringe on one?

Re:absurd by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-13 07:25 · Score: 1

In fact, if you use all the letters from "Steve Jobs Apple Newton Lisa MobileMe", you get "patent". Coincidence? I think not.
Re:absurd by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-13 08:17 · Score: 1

This is ridiculous. Apple invented the patent! How could they infringe on one?
They may have invented the patent, but they forgot to patent it.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

There's your problem ... by gstoddart · 2012-12-13 07:20 · Score: 5, Informative

U.S. patent 6,427,078, which covers a data processing device

Is so broad as to cover everything like a computer, but smaller.

From the actual patent:

The object of the invention is a device for personal communication, data collection and data processing, which is a small-sized, portable and hand-held work station comprising a data processing unit (2); a display (9); a user interface (10, 11); a number of peripheral device interfaces (12, 17); at least one memory unit (13); a power source, preferably a battery (3); and an application software. According to the invention the device also comprises a camera unit (14). The camera unit (14) comprises a camera (14a), preferably a semiconductor camera, and optics (14b) connected thereto, which are placed in the housing (1) of the device. Alternatively, the camera unit (14) is fitted on a PCMCIA card (15) which can be connected to the PCMCIA card slot (16) of the device. An object of the invention is also a PCMCIA card (15) provided with a camera unit (14).

I'm sorry, but that's Von Neumann architecture with some form of camera attached.

Since it starts with the definition of work-station and then simply says it is hand held, it basically is one of those "with a computer" (or in this case cell phone) patents.

I'm not going to go through each of the claims on the patent, but I'm not seeing anything in here that sounds like an invention -- just a description of a small computer with its own display. Which to me, means this patent should have never been granted.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:There's your problem ... by tsotha · 2012-12-13 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Probably true, but Apple has been suing the hell out of everyone with the same kind of flimsy portfolio. Sauce for the goose.
Re:There's your problem ... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-13 07:34 · Score: 1

Another obvious patent then. Wanting to make ANY device smaller goes back to the beginning of invension itself.
We need a full fledged effort of some sort to invalidate patents. Maybe even a legal foundation of some sort. It's in the interest (at least for now) for every patent to be summarily accepted so you know the corporate controlled government will never fix it.
Re:There's your problem ... by gstoddart · 2012-12-13 07:35 · Score: 2

Probably true, but Apple has been suing the hell out of everyone with the same kind of flimsy portfolio. Sauce for the goose.
Maybe, maybe not.
Unfortunately, with the way the patent system is structured, every company wants to/has to patent as many things as they possibly can. And every company wants to use patents to skew the market in their favor -- either by insisting on licensing of patents which are absurd, or preventing competitors from selling similar products.
At a certain point, the lawyers do well with it, and the consumers (who invariably get all of these legal fees passed onto them) suffer.
From what I've been able to see, patents don't lead to innovation -- they lead to endless bickering among companies about who invented a rectangle with square corners, and who owns the rights to a "Device for personal communications, data collection and data processing, and a circuit card".
So many of these patents either cover something which should be fairly obvious to anybody in the field (the "with a computer" patents), or end up covering something which other people invented and have been doing for a while. I can't remember what it was, but I remember seeing something in the last 5-10 years which was the topic of a patent lawsuit, and it covered stuff I'd learned in school and which people had been talking about for a while.
This is just pissing contests between multi-nationals for the most part.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:There's your problem ... by Sarten-X · 2012-12-13 07:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm not going to go through each of the claims on the patent, but I'm not seeing anything in here that sounds like an invention
Likewise, I'm not going to open the book, but I'm not seeing anything in Moby Dick that makes it decent literature.
The claims are the single most important part of the patent. Everything else is just to make the claims clear enough that somebody else can duplicate the invention. Not reading them is tantamount to judging a book by its cover.
Actually reading claim 1, we see a patent for a handheld computer containing a camera, that uses a radio to transmit the pictures. In claim 2, this is specified to be the cellular phone network. Now what's interesting is that the first cell-phone cameras came to market in the summer of 1997. Surely this is prior art, yes? And the whole patent is invalid?
No. The patent was filed in February of 1997, placing it nicely in the territory for a genuine invention. There were some devices in as early as 1995 that might possibly be prior art, but I'm certainly not qualified enough to determine whether they fit the patent claims or not.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:There's your problem ... by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-13 07:40 · Score: 1

Maybe, maybe not.
REALLY? Rounded corners? Who are you kidding? There's no "maybe, maybe not" about it. Get real.
Re:There's your problem ... by gutnor · 2012-12-13 07:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, so that makes it twice worse. It does not matter who win or lose with a shitty patent. At the end of the day a shitty patent is a net cost to all of us.
Re:There's your problem ... by gstoddart · 2012-12-13 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually reading claim 1, we see a patent for a handheld computer containing a camera, that uses a radio to transmit the pictures. In claim 2, this is specified to be the cellular phone network. Now what's interesting is that the first cell-phone cameras came to market in the summer of 1997. Surely this is prior art, yes? And the whole patent is invalid?
So, I ask you, before 1995 did we have the technology for a computer to transmit images of a camera over a network? The answer, of course, is in 1991 someone had a webcam which showed the coffee pot.
From the same link, the first commercial webcam was available in 1994, which is now a year before your lower bound. So by then we'd had cameras sending stuff over the network via a computer for years.
So, now walk me through this one, since I'm apparently quite slow ... if I take something which is already being done "on a computer" and "using a network", which specific part of "hand-held computer" and "cellular network" causes this to be an "invention"?
We already had desktop computers. We already had some inklings of hand held computers. We could already hook a camera up to a computer and send images over a network. And, by 1990 we had already reached the point of being able to generalize the concept of 'network' to include arbitrary transport mechanisms (IP over Avian Carrier), so a cellular network is a specific variant of networking instead of something fundamentally new. The general problems of networking had been well discussed for years.
So, given that several years before this patent was even applied for we had mechanisms to "allow a computer to transmit the output of a semi-conductor camera over a network" -- I find it awfully difficult to figure out how this represents anything other than taking several already common things, and putting them into a smaller device which uses a cellular network.
Small isn't magic. Radio isn't magic. Cellular networks aren't magic. So to me, the first web cam of how much coffee was left covers almost all of the functional aspects of this patent -- except in a smaller box. And the last I checked "in a smaller box" isn't really sufficient to differentiate yourself as a distinct patent.
If someone had shown me this patent in 1997, I would have said the same thing -- in what way is taking something you can already do, but on a different device something which merits a patent?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:There's your problem ... by gstoddart · 2012-12-13 08:08 · Score: 2

REALLY? Rounded corners? Who are you kidding? There's no "maybe, maybe not" about it. Get real.
You get real ... the fact is that, once the patent office granted someone a design patent, it's the same as any other patent, and enforceable.
Do I think it's a good or sensible patent? Absolutely not. Does that change the fact that it was granted? Not at all.
I think for the most part, patents don't work, are usually overly broad, and do very little to foster anything resembling real innovation.
From there all manner of stupidity ensues. If the patent office had said "Patent rounded corners? Are you insane?" and kicked out the patent, it would be a moot point. But, they didn't ... and every bit of stupidity which comes thereafter is an entirely logical result from the starting conditions.
If people are going to be granted absurd, but legally enforceable patents, what do you think will happen?
As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game -- I generally don't care which company is doing stupid things with the patent system, because the brokenness lies in the patent and legal system. But the game has turned all of the players into idiots and asshats.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:There's your problem ... by samkass · 2012-12-13 08:15 · Score: 1

Maybe, maybe not.
REALLY? Rounded corners? Who are you kidding? There's no "maybe, maybe not" about it. Get real.
Really? Repeating the lie about Apple patenting "rounded corners" to justify defending a patent troll?
Hint: Apple has never claimed to have a patent on rounded corners. That's an invention of the internet. They have a design patent on the overall iPhone design and have only sued the one company that blatantly (and admitted doing so in their own internal correspondence) copied it.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:There's your problem ... by bws111 · 2012-12-13 08:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Here is what US patent law says is patentable (this has been the language since 1793): any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Emphasis mine.
So, was the move from wired webcams on wired network computers to cameras on wireless devices new? Yes. Was it useful? Yes. Was it an improvement on an existing something? Yes.
And remember, it isn't the idea of a camera on a cellphone that is patented, it is specifically how it is done that is patented.
Nothing in the patent law, now or at any time in the past, says that to be patentable something has to be so amazingly new that nobody could possibly have thought of it before.
Re:There's your problem ... by medcalf · 2012-12-13 08:51 · Score: 1

Actually, you're quite wrong. Patents do not exist to "ensure reimbursement for teh person who actually makes the invention work." They exist to ensure monopoly control and profits (for a limited time) to the entity that patents the invention. They don't have to make it work to have the rights; they just have to have the idea. The point of the GP, and the grounds on which the USPO should be denying a lot of these patents, is that the people doing the patenting did not in fact have the idea. Many electronics/software patents are fundamentally nothing more than cobbling together things that have been done together before, that are already generalized, but finding niche cases where they haven't been done. For example, this patent on the camera in a handheld device sending pictures over a cellular network is more specific than (but not a different idea than) a camera in a device sending pictures over a network. The extension forward would be to, say, patent doing the exact same thing in a tablet or an e-book reader. The idea hasn't changed, the extension is obvious, and the patent would nonetheless almost certainly be granted.
Moreover, inventions are exactly ideas. It is not the physical thing which is patented, but the idea behind it. Most patents are granted before (often long before) a device implementing that patent is ever created.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:There's your problem ... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-12-13 08:52 · Score: 1

Maybe, maybe not.
There is no "Maybe". It is definite. Rounded corners on a rectangle? A grid of icons? If those can be patented, why not just patent the wheel, which was invented thousands of years ago, and charge royalties to every automobile manufacturer?
Re:There's your problem ... by Kielistic · 2012-12-13 08:58 · Score: 1

...Repeating the lie...

...the one company that blatantly (and admitted doing so in their own internal correspondence) copied it.
Nice
Additionally, if you actually read the infamous rounded corner patent you will see it is definitely not an iPhone. Probably an initial mock-up of an iPad but even then it's not the same. What's more is they specifically point out what is and is not covered in the patent using solid vs. dashed lines. There's not much solid line other than those rounded corners.
Claiming they don't have a patent on something because they have a "design patent" isn't exactly a strong argument.
Re:There's your problem ... by toriver · 2012-12-13 09:02 · Score: 1

So basically all the posturing about "how the patent system is bad" was just pretending, covering up for run of the mill Apple hate. "We like the patent system now that Apple are getting hurt!" Grow the fuck up Mr. Anorak.
Re:There's your problem ... by Dragonslicer · 2012-12-13 09:22 · Score: 1

I'm not going to go through each of the claims on the patent...
There's your problem.
Re:There's your problem ... by tsotha · 2012-12-13 09:54 · Score: 1

Do you think a patent should be granted based on aesthetics?
Re:There's your problem ... by dzym · 2012-12-13 10:15 · Score: 1

We don't LIKE the patent system, but we like abusers of the system even less. Hate the players AND hate the game.
Re:There's your problem ... by Graymalkin · 2012-12-13 10:18 · Score: 1

A design patent? Yes. As that is exactly what design patents are meant to do, protect aesthetic designs.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:There's your problem ... by Tough+Love · 2012-12-13 10:22 · Score: 1

Repeating the lie about Apple patenting "rounded corners" to justify defending a patent troll? Hint: Apple has never claimed to have a patent on rounded corners. That's an invention of the internet. They have a design patent on the overall iPhone design and have only sued the one company that blatantly (and admitted doing so in their own internal correspondence) copied it.
It is you who should take a hint and stop spouting off randomly about things you apparently have very little knowledge of. Apple was in fact granted a design patent for the "trade dress" of certain products in the EU. A german court granted Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung tablets based on that design patent. Note: this was not a ruling on the alleged infringement, which has not been decided by the German court, but has already been rejected by a UK court. That does not stop Apple camp followers from crowing about a supposed judgement, which does not in fact exist. A real ruling was made in the UK, that Samsung did not infringe the same design patent. The effect of the UK ruling is EU-wide. The judge also ruled that Apple must publicly apologize to Samsung. You might imagine that the prelimnary injunction granted in Germany now rests on shaky ground, and you would be right. But that will probably not stop you from continuing to make wildly wrong claims in public about what actually happened.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:There's your problem ... by bhagwad · 2012-12-13 11:05 · Score: 1

That kind of talk is just as good as saying "I hate the action but in this case I'll let it slide because the victim of the action essentially started the whole thing."
FTFY
Re:There's your problem ... by Eskarel · 2012-12-13 17:38 · Score: 1

Apple Patent on Rounded Corners"
Note the dashed lines are not what is patented, just the solid rounded rectangle.
Re:There's your problem ... by thejynxed · 2012-12-14 04:15 · Score: 1

I agree. The "rounded corner" patent is absolutely ridiculous. There is only so many ways to make a rectangular device/shape. What they are doing, is patenting a line that has a curvature. Like you say, what's next, some asshat will patent an unadulterated triangle or circle?
I would argue that the patent should be thrown out for the simple reason that there are essentially only four ways to make a rectangular shape. Two longer straight or slightly curved sides, featuring: rounded corners, straight-line corners (forms a direct point, like a triangle), dual-cornered (looks like 1/4th of a hexagon), and tri-cornered (looks like a partial octagon).

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.

All I can say ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:28 · Score: 1

... It's about time!

Overall I detest patent trolls for their detrimental effects on innovation and the US economy, but it'll bet if Apple wasn't so aggressive in their own patent troll behaviour this suit probably would never have happened.

Incoming Call Rejection Patent by Doctor+Morbius · 2012-12-13 07:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

IncomingNumber := GetIncomingCallNumber();
RejectCall := SearchRejectedNumbersList(IncomingNumber);
If (RejectCall)
RejectIncomingCall();
else
AnswerIncomingCall();

There I just wrote the code to reject incoming calls if the number is in the rejected numbers list. How is this patentable?

--
If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.

Re:Incoming Call Rejection Patent by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-12-13 07:38 · Score: 2

Enjoy your cease and desist notices!
Re:Incoming Call Rejection Patent by jittles · 2012-12-13 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative

IncomingNumber := GetIncomingCallNumber(); RejectCall := SearchRejectedNumbersList(IncomingNumber); If (RejectCall) RejectIncomingCall(); else AnswerIncomingCall();
There I just wrote the code to reject incoming calls if the number is in the rejected numbers list. How is this patentable?
Except that I don't think that is what the patent covers at all. First of all, the iPhone does not let you create a filter list that automatically rejects calls. At least not until iOS 6 (and I doubt the lawsuit was filed since the release of iOS 6 and has a judgement). Instead, I think this is a patent covering the ability to tell the cell tower to stop ringing your phone because you're not going to bother answering. That, at the time it was added to cell phones, was certainly novel as far as I know. I had never seen a POTS phone that let you reject a call instead of just muting the ringer. I didn't bother reading the patent, so I could be wrong. But my guess is the patent actually comes from the Erickson side of the house, and not actually from Sony as it existed at the time of the filing.
Re:Incoming Call Rejection Patent by toriver · 2012-12-13 09:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, design patents suck. Louis Vuitton should not get a design patent on "bag with pockets on" - it reduces the income of copycat bag makers and makes life more expensive for people who wanted to save money on getting a cheap knock-off that looks like a LV handbag.

Oh, they don't mind. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wealthy corporations consider patent litigation to be a cost of doing business. They are happy to accept the risk of being victimized by a patent lawsuit from another wealthy corporation, in return for the ability to squash any-and-every small upstart that might threaten their empire.

Fellow wealthy corporations are generally not a threat to one another. Even when in the same market space, they just form cartel arrangements, pay each other licence fees, and jointly dominate the market. The only real threat they face are young individuals with novel ideas forming small/nimble businesses that totally upset the existing market landscape. The fact that the ability to build such businesses is the foundation of the American dream (and very good for the economy) means nothing. All they care about is protecting them and theirs from such threats, and patent law does an excellent job of that.

To those who object that small businesses can get patents too: realize that having a patent means jack squat if you don't have the financial resources to afford the patent litigation. Small businesses never do, whether they own any patents or not.

Re:Oh, they don't mind. by marcello_dl · 2012-12-13 07:56 · Score: 1

Mod parent up.
It concisely explains all the apparent inconsistencies about patents.
The patent system is damn perfect as it is now, but for a different purpose than the one advertised.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Oh, they don't mind. by oGMo · 2012-12-13 09:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

The only real threat they face are young individuals with novel ideas forming small/nimble businesses that totally upset the existing market landscape.

Yes but let's not pretend Apple is a "young upstart" just trying to live the American Dream. They're the problem, as much as any other large corp. And unfortunately this is a clear counterexample to your "the only real threat they face" assertion. Apple won't play nice with the other megacorps. This is really a bigger threat, because it means your cartel-esque arrangements can't be made.
I expect everyone else to band together and make an example out of Apple for any other megacorp who wants to try this in the future, which is what's essentially happening in this case.

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Oh, they don't mind. by Eskarel · 2012-12-13 17:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with Apple is that they are probably the largest abuser of the patent system going at the moment. They're not a young upstart, they're not "fighting the cartels", they're using patent law to form a monopoly cartel of one because they are even more greedy and evil than their competition. I hope people make an example out of Apple because they are working very hard on breaking the entire patent system and not in a "we're going to free this up for innovation" way, in a "no one will ever do anything at all in the mobile market if they're not us" way.

Its not a patent troll if by viperidaenz · 2012-12-13 07:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's back by companies who actually use the patents.

really conflicted on this by roc97007 · 2012-12-13 07:41 · Score: 2

I want to side with Apple on this, the patents themselves seem ridiculous. But Apple has misbehaved in exactly the same manner, for the same absurdly ridiculous details. It's apparent that it's not about the individual patents, it's a full-on mud wrestle.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:really conflicted on this by roc97007 · 2012-12-13 08:27 · Score: 1

Ok, you're right. You've changed my mind. I hope Apple is crushed by this verdict. Because that's how the law works.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:really conflicted on this by ImprovOmega · 2012-12-13 09:46 · Score: 2

Shamelessly stealing from another post in another thread:

It's like when Hitler went to war against Stalin. You want Stalin to win, but not by too much.
Re:really conflicted on this by bhagwad · 2012-12-13 11:10 · Score: 1

Apple's R&D is legendary.
So legendary in fact that their "patents" on the rubber banding effect are being thrown out by the USPTO.
And those legendary rounded corners they spent BILLIONS inventing...
tsk tsk.
Re:really conflicted on this by headwes · 2012-12-13 11:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple is pissed off that everyone copied them. And everyone did. This is not in dispute. THIS REALLY HAPPENED.

Oooh, let me try!

Re:Every phone... by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-13 07:41 · Score: 2

So, you make a point of ONLY purchasing infringing devices?

Meanwhile the EU got rid of such patents by WillAffleckUW · 2012-12-13 07:46 · Score: 1

Sux to be the US.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

those proverbial chickens are coming home to roost by zuki · 2012-12-13 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Given Apple's current stances on these very issues, I don't expect they're going to get a lot of sympathy here

Yet beyond the mere satisfaction of seeing the bully take a couple, it does highlight how inherently flawed the patent system has become, and that whether copyrights, patents or trademarks, it's all become so lawyered up as to defeat the very purpose of these limited protections.

That it arguably poisons the well for the rest of us and human innovation at large is something future generations are going to have to come to grips with; in the meantime as I don't see any short-term end in sight. Not a good time to be a start-up in that space.

Re:those proverbial chickens are coming home to ro by DCFusor · 2012-12-13 08:01 · Score: 2

Mod parent up. Succinct statement of reality, rare.
Actually, it's been bad to be a startup for awhile. You can't invent any one thing, then bring it to market without stepping on 100's of patents at least, if it is significant - and why bother if it's not? Your one measly patent has no hope against a well-lawyer armed adversary who wants to lawyer you into the ground and steal your one patent from you in bankruptcy. You need a portfolio of 100's to 1000's of patents to get them interested in cross licensing. No startup can generate that.

I was a business owner (software dev for customers), then a VC. I've had to give up both, it's just too dangerous out there to be creative.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!

Apple: Ignore the double-standard! by Chas · 2012-12-13 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because when someone else sues *Apple*, they're a "patent troll".

But when *Apple* does the same thing in suing others, they're just "protecting innovation".

Ow. Need to see an ophthalmologist now. I just rolled my eyes so hard I strained something.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Apple: Ignore the double-standard! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 09:12 · Score: 1

Companies that exist solely to sue and profit are patent trolls. Try harder.
Re:Apple: Ignore the double-standard! by Chas · 2012-12-15 23:05 · Score: 1

Patent trolling is a descriptive (and perjorative) used to describe an opportunistic use of patent litigation.
This can be applied to a person or company.
And there's no prerequisite that that's ALL they do.
Know what you're talking about before you decide to start yapping son.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

So what? by westlake · 2012-12-13 08:15 · Score: 1

MobileMedia has garnered the unflattering descriptor "patent troll" from some observers.

MobileMedia licenses patents held by Sony, Nokia, and MPEG LA. MPEG LA in turn licenses tech developed by global giants in manufacturing and R&D like Cisco, Mitsubishi, NTT, Philips, Samsung, Toshiba and so on. It is idiotic to argue that these guys don't make product or that their contributions to the evolution of mobile technologies are trivial.

Re:So what? by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-13 08:41 · Score: 1

The company was formed to engage in litigation. That's a patent troll.
Re:So what? by grouchomarxist · 2012-12-13 19:18 · Score: 1

What's interesting is that Apple is a member of MPEG LA: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

Re:Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-13 08:40 · Score: 1

So you like Paten Troll companies...awesome...

Slashdot... Where patent trolls are evil!!! by sdsucks · 2012-12-13 08:50 · Score: 1

Where patent trolls are evil!!! ... unless they are suing Apple.

Strong convictions there, boys.

Re:Slashdot... Where patent trolls are evil!!! by Dragonslicer · 2012-12-13 09:28 · Score: 2

Just because one side of a dispute is evil, that doesn't mean that the other side isn't also evil. "Evil" is not some monolithic organization that only fights "Good". Sometimes evil fights evil.

"Don't hate the player hate the game"... by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-13 08:55 · Score: 1

Famous last words of "players"...

You'd better read this: by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-13 09:01 · Score: 1

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1675ExC.pdf. Rectangular, rounded corners, "minimalist design".

Apple by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-12-13 09:02 · Score: 1

In regards to Apple and its own Patent Trolling: Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Apple is a the biggest patent troll by toriver · 2012-12-13 09:08 · Score: 1

*sigh* Again. But no. Instead of keeping pointing out that Apple does not fit the patent troll definition to mindless ACs I am going to ignore them.

Sadly probably not by oGMo · 2012-12-13 09:19 · Score: 2

I hope that Steve Jobs' thermonuclear approach to Android will backfire on an epic level: once the patent wars leave the shell of dead corporations strewn all over the landscape, people will huddle together and promise themselves "never again" And the only way to do that: no more patents.

That is not the only way. The more probable approach is that the next round of "standards" won't be, that corps involved (e.g., Motorola, Samsung, Sony, and others who are usually involved in actual R&D) will patent the hell out of everything, and this time no Mr. FRAND Nice Guy. Everyone will know Apple is the enemy unwilling to share its toys in the sandbox, and no one will let Apple play. Apple gets squashed out of the market, and it's a lesson to the next company who wants to try the same approach.

--

Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

Re:Sadly probably not by Gr8Apes · 2012-12-13 10:59 · Score: 1

I hope that Steve Jobs' thermonuclear approach to Android will backfire on an epic level: once the patent wars leave the shell of dead corporations strewn all over the landscape, people will huddle together and promise themselves "never again" And the only way to do that: no more patents.
That is not the only way. The more probable approach is that the next round of "standards" won't be, that corps involved (e.g., Motorola, Samsung, Sony, and others who are usually involved in actual R&D) will patent the hell out of everything, and this time no Mr. FRAND Nice Guy. Everyone will know Apple is the enemy unwilling to share its toys in the sandbox, and no one will let Apple play. Apple gets squashed out of the market, and it's a lesson to the next company who wants to try the same approach.
You are dreaming - anything that's standards based, as something like a cell phone network has to be, will never be allowed to lock itself down in that fashion. And Steve had every right to be pissed considering that Schmidt was on Apple's board and privy to much more than a normal outsider. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lawsuit against Schmidt at least considering that he had to violate part of his terms to serve on Apple's board.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Patents are a farce by uncoveror · 2012-12-14 05:35 · Score: 1

Patent was supposed to protect inventions that physically exist, not vapor and certainly not subtle variations on a product that has existed for a long time. I can't think of a single thing related to cell phones that could possibly be new enough to constitute an invention. Abolishing patent outright would be a good thing.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.

Slashdot Mirror

iPhone Infringes On Sony, Nokia Patents, Says Federal Jury

115 of 166 comments (clear)