Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

appleinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#11

Post by dodo53 »

beedogs wrote: post #7
fpgeek wrote: post #3

This just helps illustrate the absurdity of the US patent system. Samsung and Apple have already been at this for over a year and a half (longer if you count their pre-lawsuit discussions). Now, after we've been through lawsuit filings, discovery, back-and-forth over injunctions and a trial and gotten a verdict... The patent office turns around and says: "On second thought, we shouldn't have issued that patent in the…

> The USPTO does not receive any funding from general taxation sources. Rather, the agency is fully funded by the fees paid by patent applicants and patent owners. This is probably a big part of why the USPTO sucks. If they had the resources to hire dozens and dozens of industry experts, and pay them aggressively competitive wages, they could probably fix most of the problems most of us have with the system as a whol…

This is why I like the idea (from someone around here I think) that patent owners should state a value of the patent when filing, and fees should be a percent of that value. Then value of patent limits maximum damage for infringement. So the amount of damages that can be sued for depends on the amount of funded attention at USPTO on checking the patent is valid (and patent owners could have the option of increasing stated value later, in which case extra fees would be used to revalidate patent). But I guess the whole culture that the number of patents = amount of innovation in economy = success of USPTO would have to be battled.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#12

Post by pi18n »

fpgeek wrote: post #3

This just helps illustrate the absurdity of the US patent system. Samsung and Apple have already been at this for over a year and a half (longer if you count their pre-lawsuit discussions). Now, after we've been through lawsuit filings, discovery, back-and-forth over injunctions and a trial and gotten a verdict... The patent office turns around and says: "On second thought, we shouldn't have issued that patent in the…

I'd love to see some sort of punitive damages if a patent you sued over gets invalidated. At a minimum, Apple should need to compensate a portion of Samsung's legal fees.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#13

Post by narcissus »

fpgeek wrote: post #3

This just helps illustrate the absurdity of the US patent system. Samsung and Apple have already been at this for over a year and a half (longer if you count their pre-lawsuit discussions). Now, after we've been through lawsuit filings, discovery, back-and-forth over injunctions and a trial and gotten a verdict... The patent office turns around and says: "On second thought, we shouldn't have issued that patent in the…

Unfortunately I just don't see the motivation for them to not issue patents... maybe Samsung should sue them for essentially giving Apple the ammunition to put them through the year or so.

I presume that that's not possible, but still, maybe it would give their collective heads a shake.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#14

Post by MatthewPhillips »

cremnob wrote: post #6
Shooti wrote: post #2

Good news for Android scrolling if this sticks. This is probably whats keeping Google from implementing the "glass tilt" effect from the stock 4.0/4.1 home screen system wide.

Or they could just do their own thing.

bad for the consumer

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#15

Post by esolyt »

Shooti wrote: post #2

Good news for Android scrolling if this sticks. This is probably whats keeping Google from implementing the "glass tilt" effect from the stock 4.0/4.1 home screen system wide.

I actually prefer Android's current overscroll effect.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#17

Post by RexRollman »

fpgeek wrote: post #3

This just helps illustrate the absurdity of the US patent system. Samsung and Apple have already been at this for over a year and a half (longer if you count their pre-lawsuit discussions). Now, after we've been through lawsuit filings, discovery, back-and-forth over injunctions and a trial and gotten a verdict... The patent office turns around and says: "On second thought, we shouldn't have issued that patent in the…

If nothing else, delay all court proceedings until any contested patents have been reviewed.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#18

Post by Symmetry »

beedogs wrote: post #7
fpgeek wrote: post #3

This just helps illustrate the absurdity of the US patent system. Samsung and Apple have already been at this for over a year and a half (longer if you count their pre-lawsuit discussions). Now, after we've been through lawsuit filings, discovery, back-and-forth over injunctions and a trial and gotten a verdict... The patent office turns around and says: "On second thought, we shouldn't have issued that patent in the…

> The USPTO does not receive any funding from general taxation sources. Rather, the agency is fully funded by the fees paid by patent applicants and patent owners. This is probably a big part of why the USPTO sucks. If they had the resources to hire dozens and dozens of industry experts, and pay them aggressively competitive wages, they could probably fix most of the problems most of us have with the system as a whol…

Or we could just let them keep all the money they collect in fees, and let them set the fees at a level that would let them afford to do a good job.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#19

Post by chucknelson »

pi18n wrote: post #12
fpgeek wrote: post #3

This just helps illustrate the absurdity of the US patent system. Samsung and Apple have already been at this for over a year and a half (longer if you count their pre-lawsuit discussions). Now, after we've been through lawsuit filings, discovery, back-and-forth over injunctions and a trial and gotten a verdict... The patent office turns around and says: "On second thought, we shouldn't have issued that patent in the…

I'd love to see some sort of punitive damages if a patent you sued over gets invalidated. At a minimum, Apple should need to compensate a portion of Samsung's legal fees.

I don't think that makes sense. It's not Apple's fault that the US patent office granted the patent. Just because they changed their minds doesn't mean Apple is responsible. If anything, the US patent office should compensate both Samsung and Apple for essentially wasted legal fees.

Re: USPTO invalidates Apple's "rubber-banding" patent asserted against Samsung

#20

Post by jonknee »

dodo53 wrote: post #11
beedogs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USPTO does not receive any funding from general taxation sources. Rather, the agency is fully funded by the fees paid by patent applicants and patent owners. This is probably a big part of why the USPTO sucks. If they had the resources to hire dozens and dozens of industry experts, and pay them aggressively competitive wages, they could probably fix most of the problems most of us have with the system as a whol…

This is why I like the idea (from someone around here I think) that patent owners should state a value of the patent when filing, and fees should be a percent of that value. Then value of patent limits maximum damage for infringement. So the amount of damages that can be sued for depends on the amount of funded attention at USPTO on checking the patent is valid (and patent owners could have the option of increasing s…

That also completely screws the little guy, which is one of the big reasons the USPTO is said to exist.
Post reply on HN