No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 133 posts
Re: undefined
#2This looks like a significant event for other mobile OS providers like Google. Is it?
Re: undefined
#3Thank god, it would've been a disaster for the industry if this had been upheld.
Re: undefined
#4Nice of them to invalidate them - now - after they already passed them and Apple already used them in lawsuits - and won with them. But better late than never, I guess.
Re: undefined
#5That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.
Re: undefined
#6That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.
No one's saying they can't implement pinch to zoom.
Re: undefined
#7That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.
And them having a patent on this feature comes into play there..... how?
Re: undefined
#8That's too bad. If it weren't for Apple bringing this to their mobile web browsers (and other phone manufacturers copying the feature), we'd still be tapping a magnifying glass icon that opens up a menu with controls to zoom in and out.
That's like saying you can't use drop-down menus on the web, because one site did it first. I'm not saying in other cases that it might not have taken longer for the others to figure it out (months, years?). I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is.
Maybe if the patent system made a bit more sense, we wouldn't be so much against all software patents. It reminds me of the argument that people shouldn't be yelling "SOPA" everytime a slightly dangerous law appears, because in the end the whole protest thing loses its effectiveness. In the same way Apple and others shouldn't file for a "patent" everytime they work for a few hours on something. But the system shouldn't allow these type of patents in the first place, otherwise there will be companies to take advantage of it.
Re: undefined
#9Nice of them to invalidate them - now - after they already passed them and Apple already used them in lawsuits - and won with them. But better late than never, I guess.
I'm hoping it's a sign of change within the Patent Office. If this becomes a regular occurrence I'll be extremely happy.
Re: undefined
#10I've been thinking lately that with the number of patents in existence, the likelihood that a newly submit patent application is truly novel without any invalidating prior art is probably very low.
The USPTO should start each review under the premis that the application will probably be denied unless the application includes sufficient justification for it being truly novel.
If the USPTO started denying the majority of applications you'd, 1) start seeing less applications, and 2) applications would be of a higher caliber.