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.'"

8 of 31 comments (clear)

  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.
  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 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
    2. 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. 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.

  4. 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.