Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Court Invalidates Motorola Message Syncing Patents

Posted by Unknown on from the patently-obvious dept.

Dupple writes with news of another tech patent thrown out for obviousness. From the article: "On Friday, the High Court of London issued a ruling that said that one of Motorola's patents covering technology to synchronize messages across several devices should be invalidated. Originally, the patent covered the synching of messages across multiple pagers, but recently Motorola has used the patent in lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft for using similar message-syncing services in iCloud and on the Xbox, respectively. The presiding Judge Richard Arnold declared Motorola's patent invalid and said it should be revoked because the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.'"

31 comments

  1. Dictionary by crizh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine a Judge whose dictionary has the same definition of 'obvious' as the rest of us.

    Satan is skating to work this morning.

    --
    Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Dictionary by tqk · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Judge whose dictionary has the same definition of 'obvious' as the rest of us.

      Imagine a /. editor who can see "syncing" and then allow "synching."

      Good to see another obvious patent go down in flames. "But, this is done on a computer!" Meh.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  2. If we're killing off obvious patents. . . by kimvette · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The presiding Judge Richard Arnold declared Motorola's patent invalid and said it should be revoked because the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.'"

    So does that mean that patents on the following will be invalidated as well:

    * email over (over a wireless network)
    * The hyperlink
    * Toolbars/button bars/ribbon bars
    * the double click
    * single-click purchase
    * app stores (over a wireless network)
    * Click to purchase upgrade (inside a smartphone app)
    * Rounded-off rectangles

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:If we're killing off obvious patents. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first domino falls; the others could be soon to follow.

      And a DoE supercomputer size load at that! :)

      This is good news on Christmas Day!

      Cheers /.

    2. Re:If we're killing off obvious patents. . . by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't hold your breath. If you want to innovate best move to China and just ignore patents.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:If we're killing off obvious patents. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure "rounded off rectangles" could seriously be defended in court. The math to produce one has been around for a very long amount of time, these days it goes by the name of super ellipse.

    4. Re:If we're killing off obvious patents. . . by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      I don't know about where you live, but in the UK if you want a good example of prior art of a rounded rectangle as a design element, you could point at a road sign.

  3. Take that Apple! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...oh wait.

  4. Curious by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.

    What does "priority date from 1995" mean? Granted, there are thousands of patents like this that should be invalidated. But does that mean they filed for this patent in 1995? If so, it's wasn't all that obvious then. Did it take seven years for it to be granted? And is the judge referring to the 1995 or 2002 date when he mentions the "expert in the field at that time?"

    1. Re:Curious by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 4, Informative

      This should explain it for you.

    2. Re:Curious by Sique · · Score: 1

      Obviously it was obvious then. We were syncing messages between different computer architectures for about a quarter of a century in 1995. What do you think the Internet Protocol is, beside a mechanism to sync messages over a wide range of hardware and architectures?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Curious by Alomex · · Score: 1

      But does that mean they filed for this patent in 1995? If so, it's wasn't all that obvious then.

      Push email got introduced in 1986 in IMAP if not earlier. Was the Motorola enhancement that much different that deserves a patent? the judge which look at the specifics of the case believes it is not.

  5. What a scrooge by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

    That's not a very nice thing to do to Motorola right before Christmas.

  6. Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by jkrise · · Score: 2, Funny

    Europeans are better endowed when it comes to matters of intellect, than Americans. So maybe this patent should be invalidated in Europe but not in the US.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by Swampash · · Score: 2

      You're confusing intellect with education.

    2. Re:Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      You're confusing intellect with education.

      Your confusing intellect and education with brain washing...

      dang commie... we don't want none o' that!
      dang muzzies... we don't want none o' that!
      dang fags... we don't want none o' that!
      dang atheists... we don't want none o' that!

    3. Re:Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Europeans are better endowed when it comes to matters of intellect, than Americans. So maybe this patent should be invalidated in Europe but not in the US.

      Yes, European history is chock full of illuminating examples of said enlightenment - must be nice to live in such a peaceful, civil place...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by GrandTeddyBearOfDoom · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Bertrand Russell quote (from memory, my bad if not word for word...)

      All men are born ignorant, not stupid: education makes them stupid.

      --
      -- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
    5. Re:Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is, and we pity those who live in such a barbaric country as America.

    6. Re:Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, fool. When was the last time the USA started a World War? Oh that's right, Germany has that claim to fame.

      We pity those poor Europeans, never knowing when one of their own will turn around and kill them all.

  7. INVALIDATE THE WHOLE SICK PATENT SYSTEM AND LAW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Invalidate the whole sick patent system and law!

  8. Well there's still the Privy Council by DABANSHEE · · Score: 0

    Or should I say the Privy Council/Supreme Court? I think I recall there were some legislative changes in that regard some 5 to 10 years ago.

    BTW has Apple considered the consequences, precedence wise?

    1. Re:Well there's still the Privy Council by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW has Apple considered the consequences, precedence wise?

      Or anyone else with equally dubious patents.

      Oh, I get it, you're just trolling or wanting to get modded up by slagging off apple. What a child you are

  9. All the patents looking like live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some test cases given to the site.
    Dog Poop Bags

  10. Re:the judge was by stevetruelord · · Score: 1

    too funny!

  11. Re:TEMPEST FRS attacks - censored info vanishing! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    One would think there's a suitable 12-step program...

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cant really put a patent on a vague software technologies. You can copy right a specific program. But trying to patent software technology like this would be like Tolken trying to place patent on the fantasy genre or George Lucas trying to patent science fiction genre. It just doesnt work like that.