Apple granted broad mobile patent • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#61

Post by alphang » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:28 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #48

VanL wrote: post #26

The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release. Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff)…

It will probably be invalidated anyway since there is prior art. I had a document reader on my old Zaurus that did exactly this.

But didn't the US government just change patent law to first-to-file?

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#62

Post by mifay » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:29 PM UTC

samdk wrote: post #55

bcrescimanno wrote: post #18

I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…

"Don't hate the player, hate the game" If you find your arguments relying on catchy phrases like this, you should reexamine them, because they're probably lacking. I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "p…

Chaque goutte d'eau est un raz de marée en dénie.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#63

Post by grecy » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:34 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #23

nicholassmith wrote: post #4

If Apple decides to use them it'll take years for it to litigate, and they'll probably be proved invalid in the process. Don't fear poor Android phones, you're safe for now.

Most of the patents they've granted look to my highly un-patent-lawyer-like eyes like things I had on phones 5 years before Apple jumped into the fray. I'm not really sweating it too much. Multi-touch is big though and I at least have no recollection of prior art.

> Multi-touch is big though and I at least have no recollection of prior art.

For anyone that doubts this, checkout the iPhone announcement keynote one more time. It's really worth watching again.

The first time Steve slides to unlock, and the first time he "flicks" to scroll with rubber-banding the crowd is floored.

It's worth watching for the "stylus" gag alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uW-E496FXg

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#64

Post by bcrescimanno » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:37 PM UTC

samdk wrote: post #55

bcrescimanno wrote: post #18

I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…

"Don't hate the player, hate the game" If you find your arguments relying on catchy phrases like this, you should reexamine them, because they're probably lacking. I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "p…

Attempting to inject a little humor does not invalidate an argument. I'm not really attempting to defend Apple; I'm simply saying, "this is the state of affairs and Apple is not the only offender."

We can dislike that excuse all we want; but, why are we faulting for-profit companies for working within the legalities of the system to do what they're supposed to: grow their business and maximize their profits? It's a flawed system, to be sure; but, it's the system we have at the moment.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#65

Post by kstenerud » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:40 PM UTC

alphang wrote: post #61

kstenerud wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will probably be invalidated anyway since there is prior art. I had a document reader on my old Zaurus that did exactly this.

But didn't the US government just change patent law to first-to-file?

Prior art still applies, with two exceptions if the inventor discloses the information and then seeks a patent within one year.

http://ocpatentlawyer.com/patent-act-first-to-file-and-its-e...

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#66

Post by freehunter » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

RobAtticus wrote: post #17

personlurking wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that SJ passed away and the author is using the wrong grammatical tense.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but what is the proper tense? Nothing in that sentence reads to me like the author thinks that Steve is alive (okay, 'see' maybe).

Personally I wouldn't have used that sentence at all. If I needed something along those lines, I would have written "Steve Jobs' longtime wish may finally come true ... to see Android devices taken off the market."

Just the wording "get" and "see" imply that he could still receive these benefits.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#67

Post by TallGuyShort » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:51 PM UTC

alphang wrote: post #61

kstenerud wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will probably be invalidated anyway since there is prior art. I had a document reader on my old Zaurus that did exactly this.

But didn't the US government just change patent law to first-to-file?

I believe you are correct, but it only applies to patents that are filed after 3/16/13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_inve...

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#68

Post by rst » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:55 PM UTC

alphang wrote: post #61

kstenerud wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will probably be invalidated anyway since there is prior art. I had a document reader on my old Zaurus that did exactly this.

But didn't the US government just change patent law to first-to-file?

IANAL, but I believe that prior art can still kill a patent. The patented stuff is still supposed to be the inventor's original work. (The patent office may not be terribly diligent about searching for prior art, and establishing prior art can still be a massively expensive pain in the ass... but that's another rant.)

What first-to-file certainly did change is what happens when two claimants try to file a patent on something that wasn't prior art. It used to be that the patent office looked through the inventors' records to try to establish who was the first to invent the non-public technology; now, it's just the one who was first with the patent office paperwork.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#69

Post by lmm » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 4:56 PM UTC

huggyface wrote: post #9

Ridiculous headline (the submission simply mirroring the original article) that is the sort of hysterical end-of-times interpretation of patents that has yielded so many nonsensical, time-wasting discussions before.

It's entirely possible the submission was originally made with a better headline, and then mod-edited to match the article.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#70

Post by samdk » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 5:04 PM UTC

bcrescimanno wrote: post #64

samdk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game" If you find your arguments relying on catchy phrases like this, you should reexamine them, because they're probably lacking. I especially dislike this one in particular because it's used as an excuse to avoid having to justify harmful actions. "Everyone else was doing it too" is not a valid excuse for doing something wrong, especially when you are--as Apple is--a large enough "p…

Attempting to inject a little humor does not invalidate an argument. I'm not really attempting to defend Apple; I'm simply saying, "this is the state of affairs and Apple is not the only offender." We can dislike that excuse all we want; but, why are we faulting for-profit companies for working within the legalities of the system to do what they're supposed to: grow their business and maximize their profits? It's a f…

It's obvious Apple isn't the only offender, but they are a big and, lately, very active one.

I fault them for their actions because I think what they're doing negatively affects a large number of people. It being legal and them being able to make money because of what they're doing doesn't make it okay.

To be clear: I will say the same thing about any company using using frivolous patents to suppress competition. It is a flawed system, and the people in the best position to oppose the system are the people in charge of large tech companies. Apple is not doing the best thing possible within a flawed system, and they are not trying to change the state of affairs. They are using their patent portfolio aggressively to try to suppress competition, and I think that's a problem.