Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Strange History of Apple and FlatWorld

Posted by timothy on from the surreal-world dept.

Fnord666 writes "When a company called FlatWorld Interactives LLC filed suit against Apple just over a year ago, it looked like a typical 'patent troll' lawsuit against a tech company, brought by someone who no longer had much of a business beyond lawsuits. Court documents unsealed this week reveal who's behind FlatWorld, and it's anything but typical. FlatWorld is partly owned by the named inventor on the patents, a Philadelphia design professor named Slavko Milekic. But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at one of Apple's own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. E-mail logs show that the attorney, John McAleese, worked together with his wife and began planning a wide-ranging patent attack against Apple's touch-screen products in January 2007—just days after the iPhone was revealed to the world."

19 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Ummm... by puddingebola · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not a lawyer, but doesn't this go under the banner of "conflict of interest"? If Apple has a strong relationship with this law firm, how does having a lawyer at that firm involved in a patent lawsuit against a company he may have represented in the past effect this? I'm sure this guy has probably thought that aspect of this patent fight through, but isn't that an obvious avenue of attack for Apple?

    1. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Am a lawyer, just because your firm has ties doesn't mean every attorney is tied to the company. As long as the attorney is effectively screened from any work involved with the company there is no conflict. It's rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.10 (1.9 is duty to former clients). If this guy worked, personally, on Apple legal work then there's a problem. I don't know if that's the case. The summary just says he's at the firm so I'm guessing he didn't. But he began planning right after the announcement so maybe he talked with other attorneys that did work on it. That would be a conflict because the screening was not effective.

      As usual with law, more facts are needed to know for sure.

    2. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was CC'd on private Apple email threads within the firm, conflict of interest - nuff said.

      also lol at anonymously claiming you're a lawyer online

    3. Re:Ummm... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      also lol at anonymously claiming you're anonymous online

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I sited the rules so you can look there. My anonymity doesn't change ABA rules. Further, I stated that if he had access to Apple legal docs it would be a conflict. So, you're just agreeing with what I said. LOL all you want but what I wrote is correct.

    5. Re:Ummm... by justthinkit · · Score: 3, Funny

      The novice posts a theory.
      An expert refutes it.
      Guess which one gets the +5.
      Burma Shave!

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:Ummm... by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not an attorney, but I'm married to one, and I can tell you that you just can't count on attorneys to be great spellers :)

    7. Re:Ummm... by Reeses · · Score: 2

      A timestamp and a few IP addresses can fix that.

      --
      Reeses
  2. That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by TechForensics · · Score: 4, Informative

    IAAL and I can tell you Mr. McAleese will not be a member of the bar much longer. As attorney offenses go, this is toxic / nuclear.

    This case will disappear quickly now that the real party-in-interest is revealed.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    1. Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I doubt it will disappear.

      Apple will now have recourse against the specific attorney and maybe his law firm and the original patent holder.

      In this specific case, I don't think Apple will say "Let bygones be bygones." They will want every cent of their costs paid at the very least and damages due to a corrupted counsel not doing their best for Apple's interests because of the conspiracy between known and unknown attorneys.

    2. Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      IAAL and I can tell you Mr. McAleese will not be a member of the bar much longer. As attorney offenses go, this is toxic / nuclear.

      This case will disappear quickly now that the real party-in-interest is revealed.

      I don't know. It sounds like he's building his resume to try a get a job with the RIAA or MPAA.

    3. Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what I was thinking. He's lost his job, no firm will rehire him and he'll be disbarred. He'll probably wind up writing story summaries for Slashdot.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although the legal profession often manages to live up to their reputation, try living in a world WITHOUT a functioning legal system.

      The reality is that poor people often (not always) do have access to legal representation. It's spotty, insufficient coverage and like many things (health care comes to mind) the members of the group and society as a whole ought to be working harder, much harder, at improving things.

      But look around you. You want Somalia? Russia? India? China?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But look around you. You want Somalia? Russia? India? China?

      Okay first, I get your point. And I agree with it. The rule of law is essential to civilization. So let me put that out there first.

      But, if you look at the history of every empire, every major civilization, you will find a pattern of increasing legal complexity to the point that the system itself caves under its own excesses. It becomes pathological and toxic to the purpose it was meant to serve, and ultimately strangles itself. If you read enough anthropology you find that civilization is cyclical -- it starts with anarchy, advances to a golden age, and then dies of increasing bureaucratic, legal, and political complexity, and the cycle repeats.

      America has passed its golden age. It is now on the downward slope towards eventual anarchy. The rule of law is becoming less and less accessible to more and more people. Crime rates are up. Incarceration is up. The government is spending more and more on law enforcement every year, and more and more on military as well. These things are classic signs of a society accelerating towards oblivion. I don't know that it can be reversed. I have yet to see a historical example where it was. I'd like to think it is possible, but empirically, that's a spot of wishful thinking more than anything.

      I know I was brief and snarky in the OP, but there is an underlying truth: This complexity does not serve the interests of the common person. It serves wealthy interests. So when I hear about the corruption of the system and people in it saying "Oh no, this guy went too far" I take it with a big grain of salt. Maybe it is going too far, but that's the general trend... and since I know of no way of reversing or correcting it, it's not really newsworthy for me. It's just history repeating.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What year, exactly, did America pass its golden age? You'd be surprised how many times people have said "America has passed its prime", over the decades before you were even a passing thought in your parents minds before you were born.

      It would be the point when children have less than their parents. Or about 20 years ago now.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jobs is already dead.

  4. More like, get hurt by a sword, pick up a sword by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Apple wasn't huge on patents until a stupid patent lost them a bundle on the 1st iPod. After that, Apple patented anything and everything then entered into the fray. Remember they could have owned everything related to a GUI, Xerox sold them all the prior work.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    1. Re:More like, get hurt by a sword, pick up a sword by dissy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Xerox didn't sell them anything. They were an early investor in Apple and allowed a couple of people from Apple to visit PARC.

      And Apple paid Xerox executives for that privilege.

      But sure keep deluding yourself

      It's a sad sad day when anti-technology trolls start arguing that handing over money in exchange for technology is not "selling"

      But keep making up shit to try and look cool bashing Apple. It's worked so well this past decade. They keep on making money hand over fist despite you.

    2. Re:More like, get hurt by a sword, pick up a sword by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Xerox did go to trial to protect the Star user interface. In 1989, after Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement of its Macintosh user interface in Windows, Xerox filed a similar lawsuit against Apple; however, it was thrown out because a three year statute of limitations had passed. (Apple eventually lost its lawsuit in 1994, losing all claims to the user interface).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star

      Seemingly there are a lot of people here too lazy to use Google.