Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Florida Man Sues Apple For $10+ Billion, Says He Invented iPhone Before Apple (macrumors.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the Florida-man dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via MacRumors: A Florida resident that goes by the name of Thomas S. Ross has filed a lawsuit against Apple this week, claiming that the iPhone, iPad, and iPod infringe upon his 1992 invention of a hand-drawn "Electronic Reading Device" (ERD). The court filing claims the plaintiff was "first to file a device so designed and aggregated," nearly 15 years before the first iPhone. MacRumors reports: "Between May 23, 1992 and September 10, 1992, Ross designed three hand-drawn technical drawings of the device, primarily consisting of flat rectangular panels with rounded corners that "embodied a fusion of design and function in a way that never existed prior to 1992." Ross applied for a utility patent to protect his invention in November 1992, but the application was declared abandoned in April 1995 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after he failed to pay the required application fees. He also filed to copyright his technical drawings with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2014. While the plaintiff claims that he continues to experience "great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money," he has demanded a jury trial and is seeking restitution no less than $10 billion and a royalty of up to 1.5% on Apple's worldwide sales of infringing devices." MacRumors commenter Sunday Ironfoot suggests this story may be "The mother of all 'Florida Man' stories." Apple has been awarded a patent today that prohibits smartphone users from taking photos and videos at concerts, movies theaters and other events where people tend to ignore such restrictions.

30 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Florida Man files a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wakes up in a courtroom with no idea how he got there, claims "it was all just a huge misunderstanding" and he'll be needing his drugs back.

  2. Good luck! by pete6677 · · Score: 2

    Good luck there buddy. I'm sure you'll do awesome against the Apple lawyers.

    1. Re:Good luck! by lucm · · Score: 3, Funny

      My plan is to let him win, then sue him for 9.999 billions after that since I invented fhe iPhone in 1991. He has less lawyers than Apple so he will be easier to sue.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Good luck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, he's just following the American way. Come up with some half-baked idea, and when someone comes along with an actual successful creation which is even remotely similar, sue their asses off.

      We see it in product design, programming, music... remember, only schmucks get rich by accomplishing something. Everybody else does it by inheriting or stealing it. Preferably both.

    3. Re:Good luck! by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I invented the h-phone, the i-phone was just a progression.

    4. Re:Good luck! by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have a feeling if he won 10 billion he'd be able to afford a lawyer or two.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Good luck! by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should patent this idea.

    6. Re:Good luck! by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Not after he spent it all on scratchers and Boone's.

    7. Re:Good luck! by Hylandr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even though I detest Apple, they have prior art by about 8 years.

      The Apple Newton

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  3. 5 years too late by BlueStraggler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple began work on the Newton in 1987, so he's going to have to better than a 1992 napkin sketch, methinks.

    1. Re:5 years too late by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but it's annoying how much of a big deal the summary makes about "hand drawn" technical drawings and it's definitely not equivalent to a "napkin sketch". Not very long before 1992 I was using a pencil, paper and drawing board as well because of a shortage of CAD workstations where I was.

      That this is going to court at all is still a sign of multiple fuckups with patents. I also had the idea of something like a smartphone back then but I'd picked it up from fiction like masses of others that thought about it - it's a trivial passing thought unless you do something serious about it to make the idea reality. Patents are supposed to be about implementations of ideas and not just a vague description of something that would be nice to have.

    2. Re:5 years too late by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alan Kay did this in 1972.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:5 years too late by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a certain karmic justice in Apple having to formally address an idiot who thinks a slab with rounded corners is worthy of intellectual property, given that apple has asserted the same.

      While his application might have been abandoned, that doesn't negate it as prior art.

    4. Re:5 years too late by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      While his application might have been abandoned, that doesn't negate it as prior art.

      When I was in grade school, I made a crayon drawing of a square with a smiley face in. You're on notice Apple: Facetime is mine.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:5 years too late by sjames · · Score: 2

      The prior art doesn't do anything for him, but it SHOULD kill Apple's ability to further abuse the patent that should never have been.

      It doesn't say much for USPTO that they ignored prior art in their own files when they granted Apple one of the world's stupidest patents.

    6. Re:5 years too late by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a certain karmic justice in Apple having to formally address an idiot who thinks a slab with rounded corners is worthy of intellectual property, given that apple has asserted the same.

      Except, Apple's rounded corners patent was a DESIGN patent. As in it was looks. You had to have a device with rounded corners, AND a grid of icons AND a row of icons that's static. See the "AND"s? Android by default had none of those. The default Android look had rounded corners, a row of icons that was static, but NOT a grid of icons (ever wonder about the clock widget? Natch).

      Design patents also only last 5 years. You can actually manufacture a phone that looks exactly like the iPhone 4 or 4S right now and Apple cannot do anything - the design patent has expired.

      In fact, Apple's rounded corner patent has also long expired.

      This guy's patent is actually a UTILITY patent. If it's actually valid, it would cover ALL smartphones on the market - there isn't an exception that would exclude any phone on the market.

    7. Re:5 years too late by sjames · · Score: 2

      I didn't say I believe the patent to be valid, I said there's karmic justice to apple having to deal with it.

      Apple did assert the outrageous idea that the rounded slab was somehow brand new.

    8. Re: 5 years too late by dsparil · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple has a long list of design patents for the iPhone. These specificly only cover cosmetic elements. The US is the only country in the world that uses the word patent for this. In other countries they are called registered designs.

    9. Re:5 years too late by macs4all · · Score: 2

      While his application might have been abandoned, that doesn't negate it as prior art.

      Perhaps, but isn't his claim weakened by the fact that he waited so long to file suit?

      IANAL. Could someone who is tell us what the legal principle is in this case? Specifically, if you wait too long to claim harm, then your claim of harm is invalidated?

      And besides, what does prior art do for him? Wouldn't prior art just invalidate (some of) Apple's patents, and allow any other manufacturer to make a device that would otherwise infringe on those patents?

      Statute of Limitations and Laches are the two legal doctrines in play here. (Laches is a "Doctrine" that rests in the Roman "Equity" (fairness) form of Jurisprudence, "Statute of Limitations" is generally written into Statutes (Laws).

      Both will get your case thrown out, regardless of the merits.

  4. Why only ten billions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He should have went for eleventy.

  5. Sorry, Charlie! by slowdeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Patented in 1992, 24 years ago. Patent would have expired even if it had not been abandoned in 1995 due to non payment of maintenance fee.

    The only one who will win anything on this is Mr Florida's lawyer for his fees. Hopefully he is not so stupid as to take this on contingency.

    1. Re:Sorry, Charlie! by bozzy · · Score: 2

      The article says, Ross *applied* for the patent in 1992. It also says the application was abandoned due to non payment of the *filing* fee, so this wasn't even a granted patented. The application didn't get anywhere in the filing process. There's no patent to even infringe on in the first place.

      --
      playmoney.me - The free alternative to paper board game play money
  6. Ah Florida Man... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never change, buddy. Never change.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  7. Jury trial by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    "he has demanded a jury trial "

    Can I be on it? Can I? Can I? Yeah, I'm surprised this one wasn't filed in the East district of Texas.

  8. Did his device... by ZiakII · · Score: 2

    Did his device have rounded corners? Can he go after Samsung as well?

  9. Re:Was the Dynabook patented? by Jecel+Assumpcao+Jr · · Score: 2

    A very detailed article about the Dynabook was published in 1972:

    http://www.vpri.org/pdf/hc_per...

    The PDF makes it sound like an internal Xerox PARC report but it was actually article 1 in ACM '72 Proceedings of the ACM annual conference - Volume 1.

    While previous patents are the first thing the US Patent Office looks for in prior art that might invalidate a patent under consideration, an article such as the above counts just as much. A public demonstration of a product would count too. In fact, even if the prior art was produced by the author of the patent it can invalidate it, though there is a grace period (six months or something like that) in the case of the patent's author. I don't know if that has changed in the move from "first to invent" to "first to file" by the USPO.

    Once thing that always makes these discussions more confusing than they should be is that there are patents for inventions (how it works) and also patents for designs (how it looks). They are different and how they are invalidated by prior are is different. Since the summary talks about "rounded corners" and stuff like that we might be talking about a design patent.

  10. Re:So he invalidated Star Trek.. silly by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

    TOS had one in the 1960's. In fact, they devoted an entire character to walking around with one.

  11. 'Typewriter' keyboard... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good luck there buddy. I'm sure you'll do awesome against the Apple lawyers.

    Heh, yeah, I'm sure Apple's legal department ordered dozens of new coffee machines to power the all-nighters this air-tight case is going to bring.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  12. 1968, Stanley Kubrick, 2001: A Space Odyssey by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Even though I detest Apple, they have prior art by about 8 years.

    The Apple Newton

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    And lets not forget the tablets used in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a Stanley Kubrick film from 1968.

  13. Can we have good things like that? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

    See the second photo? Here you can see, except the first item :

    - a stylus, because the computer is for the user's content first and foremost
    - a desktop class keyboard with a small clever layout, and wired, because we can handle it and not waste battery in both devices! and other bluetooth wastes like latency, pairing and leaking IDs. USB-C solves the cable, since it's small and all ends are the same.
    - black and white display (for certain definitions of black and of white). When I write, or I draw, or I type - no needing to worry about fecking color. Battery savings. Readable under all lights with minuscule power use. Use hatching and such in "app" graphical content. World maps, illustrated books and manga dealt with it.
    - pocketable memory cards. Make them work with NFC if a big ass slot piss you off, whatever, I don't care! I can't hear you! Memory cards and USB drives are currently sized for rats not humans. You have to have special considerations to carry them and keep a mental note of what's on them.
    A flat memory card that's sturdy, just thick enough to not bend, indestructable, can write on it even with the wrong pen and can contain as much as 46603 floppies if I need it or whatever? Gimme please.