-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Patent infringement battle between Samsung and Apple
- Thread starter mhsabir
- Start date
- Replies 184
- Views 16,173
MediaFire
Twisted
i just hope apples gets the ass kicked for the gods sake
Apple (and others) are patenting every "thought" which has been "thought" by milions but has not been patented.Additionally, wording in a patent is so vast that it virtually would cover everything on that line.It would be a "toll-naka" for any technology that is on basis of the "thought" patented.You make something which is very remotely connected to the patent. And then you have to pay for it.
The Patent, Used as a Sword
yeah. has been making a lot of headlines these days.
It was 2006, and Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone. Life inside company headquarters, former executives said, had become a frenzy of programming sessions and meetings between engineers and executives. And, increasingly, patent lawyers.
Just months earlier, Apple reluctantly agreed to pay $100 million to Creative Technology, a Singapore-based company. Five years before, Creative applied for a broad software patent for a “portable music playback device” that bore minor similarities to the iPod, an Apple product that had gone on sale the same year. Once the patent was granted to Creative, it became a license to sue.
Apple settled three months after Creative went to court. “Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent,” Mr. Jobs said in a statement announcing the settlement in 2006.
Privately, Mr. Jobs gathered his senior managers. While Apple had long been adept at filing patents, when it came to the new iPhone, “we’re going to patent it all,” he declared, according to a former executive who, like other former employees, requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.
“His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it’s a defensive tool,” said Nancy R. Heinen, Apple’s general counsel until 2006.
Soon, Apple’s engineers were asked to participate in monthly “invention disclosure sessions.” One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.
The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users’ preferences as they browsed the Web.
“That’s a patent,” a lawyer said, scribbling notes.
Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.
“That’s a patent,” the lawyer said.
Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.
“That’s another one,” the lawyer said.
“Even if we knew it wouldn’t get approved, we would file the application anyway,” the former Apple lawyer said in an interview. “If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea.”
The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. “I would like to decline to participate,” he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn’t believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.
yeah. has been making a lot of headlines these days.
It was 2006, and Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone. Life inside company headquarters, former executives said, had become a frenzy of programming sessions and meetings between engineers and executives. And, increasingly, patent lawyers.
Just months earlier, Apple reluctantly agreed to pay $100 million to Creative Technology, a Singapore-based company. Five years before, Creative applied for a broad software patent for a “portable music playback device” that bore minor similarities to the iPod, an Apple product that had gone on sale the same year. Once the patent was granted to Creative, it became a license to sue.
Apple settled three months after Creative went to court. “Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent,” Mr. Jobs said in a statement announcing the settlement in 2006.
Privately, Mr. Jobs gathered his senior managers. While Apple had long been adept at filing patents, when it came to the new iPhone, “we’re going to patent it all,” he declared, according to a former executive who, like other former employees, requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.
“His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it’s a defensive tool,” said Nancy R. Heinen, Apple’s general counsel until 2006.
Soon, Apple’s engineers were asked to participate in monthly “invention disclosure sessions.” One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.
The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users’ preferences as they browsed the Web.
“That’s a patent,” a lawyer said, scribbling notes.
Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.
“That’s a patent,” the lawyer said.
Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.
“That’s another one,” the lawyer said.
“Even if we knew it wouldn’t get approved, we would file the application anyway,” the former Apple lawyer said in an interview. “If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea.”
The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. “I would like to decline to participate,” he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn’t believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.
The '103 patent now broadly covers continuously moving an image to a general unlock region on the screen to unlock the device. While most of the background language in Apple's newest claims mirrors the first two patents, two key sections were overhauled. For the path, the new claims only require the step of "continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact." So the predefined path limitation is gone. Also, the new claims only indicate that there be "movement of the unlock image from the first location to an unlock region" on the display. Again, no single predefined start or stop location is required. You can see that the effective scope of the claim isn't concerned with where you start, the path you take, or that you end up anywhere other than a general "unlock region." It's really only important that you continuously move an image to an unlock region. That's significantly expanded patent coverage.
Apple gets yet another, broader slide-to-unlock patent | The Verge
Apple gets yet another, broader slide-to-unlock patent | The Verge
gadgetcrazy
Regulars
Let them patent every Damn thing in US. Folks there deserve this I guess.
