ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apple , lawsuits , samsung

Reply
Old 19th December 2012, 04:47 PM   #841
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Or maybe that the reporter is amazed as everyone else that you could patent using touch inputs on a touch screen to do stuff.
Whether or not the reporter is incredulous about the patent is no excuse to misrepresent the proceedings and fail to do even the most cursory research into the case status.

But this sort of shoddy reporting pervades both legal and science reporting - and skeptics should know better than to repeat such articles as though they were presumptively accurate.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 06:01 PM   #842
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
There's no way this can be good for the end user:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...kodak_patents/


Quote:
Report: Apple, Google, Microsoft join forces to buy Kodak patents
Quote:
Kodak went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January and got a cash infusion based largely on the value that could be realized on the auction of its patent portfolio. Kodak has a huge amount of digital imaging patents and estimates the stack's value at over $2bn at current market rates.

According to Bloomberg, two consortia had been planning to bid on the patents. Apple, as it did in the Nortel patent buy, sided with Microsoft and ex-Microsoftie Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures with an opening bid of around $500m.

Meanwhile Google teamed up with a group of Asian smartphone vendors and patent firm RTX to offer a similarly sized rival bid and it might have been hoping to get the support of Kodak, since there's little love lost for Cupertino in the company at the moment.

Now, according to two sources, Apple and Google's groups have hammered out their differences and the two consortia have joined together to share costs and put in a combined bid of around $800m.


And the secret friendship between Apple, Samsung, and Google has become official today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/bu...lion.html?_r=0


Quote:
On Wednesday, the sale was finally announced, but instead of bringing as much as $2.6 billion as Kodak once predicted, the selling price was far short of that amount, at about $525 million. The buyer was a consortium that includes many of the world’s biggest technology firms, among them Apple, Google, Facebook and Samsung Electronics.

If those 4 can get along, why can't we!

(Before the experts jump in, this is sarcasm, I realize they are neither secret friends, or getting along...)
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 06:08 PM   #843
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,951
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
And the secret friendship between Apple, Samsung, and Google has become official today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/bu...lion.html?_r=0





If those 4 can get along, why can't we!

(Before the experts jump in, this is sarcasm, I realize they are neither secret friends, or getting along...)
So now those 4 can ensure that any new market entrants can be sued out of business. Legal collusion.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2012, 06:16 PM   #844
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So now those 4 can ensure that any new market entrants can be sued out of business. Legal collusion.

Well, obviously they have some reason for doing it, since they supposedly hate each other...

I would not be surprised if you are close.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2012, 12:54 AM   #845
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So now those 4 can ensure that any new market entrants can be sued out of business. Legal collusion.
Possible. Also possibly the opposite - the joint ownership essentially signaling that this particular group of patents won't be asserted against anybody. It's happened before.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2012, 07:11 AM   #846
TheL8Elvis
Illuminator
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,999
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
As usual, this is woefully inaccurate reporting. What we have, again, is a first office action rejecting the claims - not a final rejection, and certainly not USPTO "invalidating" the patent. Apple still has the opportunity to respond and there's no reason to believe that the rejection won't be withdrawn after they do. See my earler response.

By the way, the reexamination proceeding appears to be number 90/012,332 in case anyone's interested in looking at it. Note that the linked article doesn't actually provide you with that information or any way to get from it to the actual rejection - probably because, as usual, the reporter didn't bother to gather any actual facts before writing.
Better:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/19/3...ot-invalid-yet

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected several Apple patents in recent months, and today it added one more to the list — but that doesn't mean the patent is no longer valid. Earlier today the USPTO rejected US 7,844,915, a patent that covers the ability of a programming interface to determine whether one finger initiates scrolling, or a different number of fingers perform another action. It's the same patent that was repeatedly referred to as the pinch-to-zoom patent, even though its real definition is much, much narrower than that. The invalidation of the patent would cause considerable consternation for Apple when it comes to its $1.049 billion infringement win over Samsung — so much so that Samsung brought the decision to the attention of Judge Lucy Koh in a court filing today — but that critical step of invalidating the patent hasn't actually happened yet.

It's the same situation that we saw with Apple's bounce-back patent. The whole discussion is part of an ex parte reexamination; that means Apple is the only other party talking to the USPTO about the patent, and it will still have an opportunity to fight for keeping the patent valid or to amend its language so that it will stay relevant in the Samsung case. It's also important to note that while 21 individual claims within the patent were rejected, only one — Claim 8 — was used in the trial, providing Apple a very specific target when working with the Patent Office.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2012, 07:56 AM   #847
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Hey wow, somebody actually did their homework before reporting! Excellent!
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2012, 08:19 PM   #848
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,951
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Better:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/19/3...ot-invalid-yet

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected several Apple patents in recent months, and today it added one more to the list — but that doesn't mean the patent is no longer valid. Earlier today the USPTO rejected US 7,844,915, a patent that covers the ability of a programming interface to determine whether one finger initiates scrolling, or a different number of fingers perform another action. It's the same patent that was repeatedly referred to as the pinch-to-zoom patent, even though its real definition is much, much narrower than that. The invalidation of the patent would cause considerable consternation for Apple when it comes to its $1.049 billion infringement win over Samsung — so much so that Samsung brought the decision to the attention of Judge Lucy Koh in a court filing today — but that critical step of invalidating the patent hasn't actually happened yet.

It's the same situation that we saw with Apple's bounce-back patent. The whole discussion is part of an ex parte reexamination; that means Apple is the only other party talking to the USPTO about the patent, and it will still have an opportunity to fight for keeping the patent valid or to amend its language so that it will stay relevant in the Samsung case. It's also important to note that while 21 individual claims within the patent were rejected, only one — Claim 8 — was used in the trial, providing Apple a very specific target when working with the Patent Office.
So Apple gets to re-word a patent and if that version is approved it applies retroactively to Samsung?

The patent office and patent law is far more screwed up that I ever thought. Dismantle and overhaul the whole stinking mess.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2012, 08:51 PM   #849
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So Apple gets to re-word a patent and if that version is approved it applies retroactively to Samsung?
Reexam claims can only be narrower than the original claims, so there's no unfairness to the idea of the reexam claims "applying retroactively." By definition, if Samsung infringes any amended claims, then they infringed the original claims already. All amendments can do in reexam is narrow the scope of the patent on the basis of the newly identified prior art.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2012, 09:17 PM   #850
Alareth
Expert Expertologist
 
Alareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,641
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
And the secret friendship between Apple, Samsung, and Google has become official today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/bu...lion.html?_r=0





If those 4 can get along, why can't we!

(Before the experts jump in, this is sarcasm, I realize they are neither secret friends, or getting along...)
Semi-OT, but it's worse than anyone could imagine ... those companies aren't actually buying the patents, they fronted the money so the patents can be acquired and managed by Intellectual Ventures, the biggest patent trolling company on the planet. As investors they will be exempt from future patent litigation using the newly purchased Kodak patents.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...om-bankruptcy/
__________________
Pixelated Reality | Alareth Does Art!

Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak
Alareth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2012, 12:23 AM   #851
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by Alareth View Post
Semi-OT, but it's worse than anyone could imagine ... those companies aren't actually buying the patents, they fronted the money so the patents can be acquired and managed by Intellectual Ventures, the biggest patent trolling company on the planet. As investors they will be exempt from future patent litigation using the newly purchased Kodak patents.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...om-bankruptcy/

Which is pretty much exactly what Wildcat said (that they will be used against everyone except those 4) and the opposite of what AvalonXQ said could also be a possibility (that they would not be used against anyone).
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2012, 08:15 AM   #852
TheL8Elvis
Illuminator
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,999
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Which is pretty much exactly what Wildcat said (that they will be used against everyone except those 4) and the opposite of what AvalonXQ said could also be a possibility (that they would not be used against anyone).
It's 12 companies (not 4), and they don't control the patents. All this does is ensure they won't get sued out of business. It's doesn't mean they get to sue anybody. Which is what Wildcat claimed:
Quote:
So now those 4 can ensure that any new market entrants can be sued out of business. Legal collusion.
Since those 12 companies don't control the patents, they can't ensure anything.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...om-bankruptcy/
However, many Kodak patents may still end up out "in the wild" and could be used in lawsuits. The group of 12 paid for a "portion" of the sale, but Intellectual Ventures is actually going to own the portfolio and can use it as it wishes—it just can't sue already-licensed companies, such as this group of 12 buyers.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2012, 09:56 AM   #853
John Albert
Illuminator
 
John Albert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,140
The 12 companies don't control the patents, the patent troll company Intellectual Ventures controls the patents for them and sues all non-signatories in their place. They're basically outsourcing the business of monopolizing on innovation.
__________________
“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
—Mark Twain
John Albert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2012, 10:05 AM   #854
TheL8Elvis
Illuminator
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,999
Originally Posted by John Albert View Post
The 12 companies don't control the patents, the patent troll company Intellectual Ventures controls the patents for them and sues all non-signatories in their place. They're basically outsourcing the business of monopolizing on innovation.
How do you know this ?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...om-bankruptcy/

However, many Kodak patents may still end up out "in the wild" and could be used in lawsuits. The group of 12 paid for a "portion" of the sale, but Intellectual Ventures is actually going to own the portfolio and can use it as it wishes—it just can't sue already-licensed companies, such as this group of 12 buyers.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 03:21 AM   #855
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Interesting (and long) article about the current state of Samsung VS Apple.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91901Q20130210

Too many good quotes to quote. Just read it.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 03:24 AM   #856
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Interesting (and long) article about the current state of Samsung VS Apple.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91901Q20130210

Too many good quotes to quote. Just read it.


Latest news:

Judge Koh tells both sides to "pick their best cases".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...w-lawsuit.html
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 11:05 AM   #857
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,951
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Latest news:

Judge Koh tells both sides to "pick their best cases".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...w-lawsuit.html
And if anything illustrates the sheer folly of these software patents it's the judge's acknowledgement that they're not even important enough for the court to hear. This is why Koh gets it wrong, if some of the patent claims are irrelevant then all of them are. Judge Posner got it right when he threw the whole mess out when it was before his court, I have no idea how Koh justifies "well just give me 25 of your claims" from a legal standpoint.

Software patents are sheer idiocy.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 10:07 PM   #858
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
The jury's decision cannot be questioned. As I understand it, only matters of law or matters of redress may be.
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
What a jury SAYS is never considered.

The judge called for a re-trial specifically because of what the jury said the used to make their decision... Just like Christian Klippel said would happen the day we found out what they jury had done.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10016008.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...ward-by-$450m/

Quote:
Some damages in the Apple-Samsung trial need to be recalculated, Judge Lucy Koh said Friday, as she slashed $450.5 million off the more than $1 billion initial patent infringement judgment and ordered a new trial devoted to determining a new final figure. The jury blundered when determining damages linked to some Samsung products, she said. Here's a look at them. Above, the Samsung Transform.

Quote:
"The Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury," Judge Lucy Koh, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, said in an afternoon ruling.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2013, 05:42 PM   #859
Hungry81
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 417
Apple's ios 6.0 WiFi glitch causing excessive bills. http://m.smh.com.au/digital-life/mob...323-2gmeg.html
Hungry81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2013, 07:05 AM   #860
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
Trademark for the name "iPad mini" denied.

A bit of a weird rejection for Apple:

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/03/p...enied-by-uspto
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2013, 08:05 AM   #861
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 67,784
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Trademark for the name "iPad mini" denied.

A bit of a weird rejection for Apple:

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/03/p...enied-by-uspto
From the actual rejection it looks as if Apple simply screwed up in their application rather than "iPad Mini" not being trademark'able'. Can't see how a properly constituted application could be rejected given they presumably hold a trademark on "iPad".

I suspect that this is an example of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2013, 09:44 PM   #862
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,100
I agree that the 2nd point in the article shows that, as you say, they simply screwed up their application:

Quote:
And two, USPTO maintains that the webpage specimen submitted by Apple to demonstrate the use of the applied-for trademark is not valid.
It was the first point that seemed weird, especially the highlighted:

Quote:
One, USPTO’s examining attorney contends that the “iPad mini” name is “merely descriptive.” Apparently, the term “mini” in “iPad mini” just describes the small size of the device. That’s as opposed to differentiating the device from its full-size counterpart, which is, of course, known simply as “iPad.”
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.