21–30 of 34 posts
It clearly reads on the USPTO site: "United States Patent Application". This is an application for a patent , NOT a patent! Just because someone files an application does not mean they are going to get a patent (even if they usually do).
Yes, but even trying is both dishonest and a waste of the patent office's time. The patent office can still make things right, but Apple just did (some) Evil™ here.
It clearly reads on the USPTO site: "United States Patent Application". This is an application for a patent , NOT a patent! Just because someone files an application does not mean they are going to get a patent (even if they usually do).
Yes, but even trying is both dishonest and a waste of the patent office's time. The patent office can still make things right, but Apple just did (some) Evil™ here.
Apple did not "just do some Evil" here. This is simply bad reporting about someone's mistaken mis-observation. I don't know why, but when it comes to Apple, a lot of people's normal inhibitions for shoddy reporting become spectacularly lowered.
Accurate headline: "Someone clueless about patents glances at a patent application, sees an image that matches an existing app, and assumes that is what is being patented". The exiting app he's talking about in fact does not appear to do what the patent describes, which would have been apparent had he tried to actually read the patent application.
Serious question- Does anyone actually read these things? Patent applications are enormously unreadable, and in virtually any internet discussion it comes down to "They patented something trivial!" "No, the details are what matter" .... QUIET.... So what did they patent?
Idiotic, but pragmatic, but surely they can use some common sense...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but even trying is both dishonest and a waste of the patent office's time. The patent office can still make things right, but Apple just did (some) Evil™ here.
No they didn't. This is the same thing that happens any time anyone gets riled up about a patent. Someone glanced at the title or an image (in this case) in a patent application and assumes that is what the patent is for . In this case it is not, which is clear if you read the actual claims of the patent. The image is one of many existing third-party app screens used in this patent application to show apps where the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they didn't. This is the same thing that happens any time anyone gets riled up about a patent. Someone glanced at the title or an image (in this case) in a patent application and assumes that is what the patent is for . In this case it is not, which is clear if you read the actual claims of the patent. The image is one of many existing third-party app screens used in this patent application to show apps where the…
If I copied a business partner's design in line art and put it in a patent application somewhat related to the business partner's business it would be OK? I think not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they didn't. This is the same thing that happens any time anyone gets riled up about a patent. Someone glanced at the title or an image (in this case) in a patent application and assumes that is what the patent is for . In this case it is not, which is clear if you read the actual claims of the patent. The image is one of many existing third-party app screens used in this patent application to show apps where the…
If I copied a business partner's design in line art and put it in a patent application somewhat related to the business partner's business it would be OK? I think not.
It clearly reads on the USPTO site: "United States Patent Application". This is an application for a patent , NOT a patent! Just because someone files an application does not mean they are going to get a patent (even if they usually do).
Yes, but even trying is both dishonest and a waste of the patent office's time. The patent office can still make things right, but Apple just did (some) Evil™ here.
I think this is just a storm in a cup of water. Seriously, read the entire patent application. The usage of the screen may fall under fair use just to make a point in the patent application. Don't get lawyers involved. Those parasites are not worth it for something like this. That is just my gut feeling.
And ... this is Apple. They win this patent, they'll sue. They've always done this.