Judges tosses Apple v. Motorola

A U.S. judge has tossed out the Apple v. Motorola patent case for good, according to reports.

Click to expand...

Source
Judges tosses Apple v. Motorola | Mobile - CNET News

Hopefully this legal shit will slow down...

Hi there
There was another one in Holland where Apple and Samsung are fighting it out (again)

Why for once can't the LAWYERS go on strike. !! Everybody else seems to be doing it these days.
Some of this legal horse sh__e should just be replied to with a ONE LINE respone as follows. --

"Don't Care --Had enough-- Not Paying -----what are you going to do about it....end of"

what are they going to do -- send Bailiff's to S. Korea or China to seize the factories. !!! I'm sure they'd be treated with the total utter comtempt that they no doubt duely and justly deserve.

An old adage from the Honorable days of the old "Texas Repuplic" I believe sums it up correctly during days of the "Old West" during Poker Game disputes.

"Smith and Wesson always Beats 4 Aces" !! .

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

Hi there
There was another one in Holland where Apple and Samsung are fighting it out (again)

Why for once can't the LAWYERS go on strike. !! Everybody else seems to be doing it these days.
Some of this legal horse sh__e should just be replied to with a ONE LINE respone as follows. --

"Don't Care --Had enough-- Not Paying -----what are you going to do about it....end of"

what are they going to do -- send Bailiff's to S. Korea or China to seize the factories. !!! I'm sure they'd be treated with the total utter comtempt that they no doubt duely and justly deserve.

An old adage from the Honorable days of the old "Texas Repuplic" I believe sums it up correctly during days of the "Old West" during Poker Game disputes.

"Smith and Wesson always Beats 4 Aces" !! .

Cheers
jimbo

Click to expand...

Lawyers go on strike!!!

Then they won't get paid....

Hmmm,,,, will never happen.

Holding on to patents, in order to sue some company which may develop goods or services that are invisibly related to said patent, is *patently evil and should be made illegal. Bravo judge, but you will probably be disbarred in the States for being in possession of Common Sense.

* SORRY! Couldn't resist it!

Jimbo

Lawyers go on strike!!!

Then they won't get paid....

Hmmm,,,, will never happen.

They cannot strike. That would be a human thing to do. Every one of them is totally inhuman. Check out Tony Blair and his missus Cherie.

Bertison said:

Holding on to patents, in order to sue some company which may develop goods or services that are invisibly related to said patent, is *patently evil and should be made illegal.

Click to expand...

Apparently you have never spent a large fraction of your life creating valuable intellectual property and protecting it consistently with copyright and published patents. Well, I have. I object to the notion that I must give away my life to someone else simply because he wants and needs to use it without getting my permission and paying me for that privilege.

I am not his slave nor is he mine. He can ask polite permission and pay a fair (mutually agreed) price and I won't object. If he tries to steal it, I have the moral and legal right to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn't make an iota of difference if YOU can't see the violation. The violation still exists and my PRIOR right to the intellectual property has been legally established.

If you want to be a perpetual slave to the collective, it is your choice. I will not be so cooperative.

Patenting technologies or designs is one thing. Patenting concepts to try to prevent any competition in the marketspace is a totally different thing.

These aren't patents that people work long and hard on protecting, they are things like "When an message arrives, a notification will be made to the user to let them know they have a message waiting". Or better yet, "an electronic device, that is portable, which can be used with a human intervention interface to allow the human to interact with the device and input data and hit a button to otherwise cause an action to be taken by the device to accomplish the desired result" < These are the type of horseshit patents which we are tying up the legal system trying to enforce.

pparks1 said:

Patenting technologies or designs is one thing. Patenting concepts to try to prevent any competition in the marketspace is a totally different thing.

Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that ALL technologies and designs are concepts at their root. A copyright is a time limited right to EXCLUDE others from using your exact implementation as is or in a derivative work without permission. A patent is a time limited right to EXCLUDE others from using the patented concept without permission. Both rights include the right to demand payment for permission to use the concepts and implementations involved and to exclude the competition from using it without prior agreement.

All human artifacts are, at their starting point of their, life intellectual property and exist as concepts that were a product of the inventor's life. Hence your stated desire is to use a part of the inventor's life is a desire to have a slave and to use his life without permission or payment. THAT is evil to its core! Perhaps you don't "intend" to have a slave but your evasion of the underlying facts does not excuse you from participating in an evil.

lkgriffith said:

Bertison said:

Holding on to patents, in order to sue some company which may develop goods or services that are invisibly related to said patent, is *patently evil and should be made illegal.

Click to expand...

Apparently you have never spent a large fraction of your life creating valuable intellectual property and protecting it consistently with copyright and published patents. Well, I have. I object to the notion that I must give away my life to someone else simply because he wants and needs to use it without getting my permission and paying me for that privilege.

I am not his slave nor is he mine. He can ask polite permission and pay a fair (mutually agreed) price and I won't object. If he tries to steal it, I have the moral and legal right to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn't make an iota of difference if YOU can't see the violation. The violation still exists and my PRIOR right to the intellectual property has been legally established.

If you want to be a perpetual slave to the collective, it is your choice. I will not be so cooperative.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Please read PParks' excellent post and you may understand.

Massive companies such as Apple, Microsoft et al are guilty of making up "pretend" Patents, some of which are presented and written in the vaguest of terms. They then employ teams of Patent Lawyers, whose sole function is to trawl through every single new development that may have even the slightest and most tenuous connection to the patent they have specially prepared. It is entrapment and fraud, IMHO. What, I ask you, would be your response, if your own application for a patent led to you being placed in the position of having to defend yourself against a huge, wealthy company which decided that they alone owned the intellectual property to your ideas and work?

I have obviously struck a sensitive nerve with you. The fact remains that Apple took on a company that was prepared to go to the wire with them. Samsung have deep pockets too and have shown that they will not be bullied.

There is also the issue of Apple's use of virtual slave labour in some of their factories and suppliers. They are not alone in this of course, but they do make the loudest denials.

Hi everyone

So if say I'm waiting at a bus stop in London on a rainy winters day and I want to know when the next bus will arrive - I'm not allowed to design something just because a youngster has showed me a complicated application on his mobile.

I might say -- the application he has is great but if I can get the same data myself from Tfl (transport for London) --and it's freely available -- I can write a lot better one.

Now where does "Intellectual property" start and end in this case -- Until I'd seen the original application I wouldn't have had a notion about it -- but once I'd seen it I KNEW I could do a zillion times better with PUBLIC domain data.

A lot of the so called "Intellectual Property rights" are just a bunch of "Horse Sh--E".
We aren't talking here about apps like adobe photoshop or whatever.

Cheers
jimbo

id just look at the time table at the bus stop .

Sorry, but you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Please read PParks' excellent post and you may understand.

Click to expand...

Then be more explicit about your point other than a patent is only a concept. However, the law as it has been amended by congress and administered by the Patent Office permits such things - even pure software patents vaguely written. Hence they are legal even if not satisfactory according to your opinion. The complaint should be against congress who made the law and not the companies complying with and using the laws as written.

My patents and my technology have been attacked in a court of law and they won. It has also been examined by quite a number of companies with thousands of times more resources than I. My patents and technology has held up under their investigation. The reason being was that I was very careful to found my patents on the old form of Patent law: new and useful additions to the state of the art, specific, material, and conceptual with a clear and active intent to commercialize it. I even wrote some critical sections of one particularly critical patent. It was accepted by the patent office with only one amendment that actually made it stronger.

I would join your fight if it were against issuing patents of do the same old same old thing but do it on a computer or on the Internet kind of thing. I would even support a requirement of having to present clear a persuasive evidence of intent to commercialize rather than just sitting on it.

I too object to those who simply collect patents to be used as covert torpedoes to shoot out of submarines at anyone who dares to create value for the market. If, after so many years, you cannot show an earnest attempt to realize its potential value, you should lose it. This is not what you argued and this is not how the current law is written.

Either work and get the law changed or figure out how to live with it. I have done the latter.

For example,

The software giant (MICROSOFT) applied for a patent in 2005, and was granted it on August 19, 2008. US patent number 7,415,666 (United States Patent: 7415666).

In this patent, Microsoft patented the use of the PageUp and PageDown key to scroll a document either 1 page up or 1 page down. Now, keyboards from 1981 came with Page UP and Page Down keys. I wonder what this button did back in 1981 prior to those fabulous Microsoft engineers who managed to invent and then protect the concept in 2005?


And here, in 2004, Microsoft invented the double click and patented it;
http://100777.com/node/820

And here is another one, if you see an email address and click on it, and email will be sent via some application.
http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.p...-6895426-a-direct-attack-against-thunderbird/

I think this is very vague and none of these are intellectual properly which should be protected.

pparks1 said:

I think this is very vague and none of these are intellectual properly which should be protected.

Click to expand...

They are not vague. They are quite specific. There is also massive prior art. That should have been sufficient for their claims to be dismissed. However, the fault is in the hands of congress for amending patent law so that it allows the patent office to accept such previously faulty patent claims as valid.

The built in idea is that such claims will be validated or dismissed in court rather than judged by an unaccountable patent examiner. On the surface that might sound fair but the courts have no competency to judge anything other than the application of written law. They specifically have no competency to judge science, engineering, or the process of invention. This is why I say the primary fault lies with congress. They amended the law. Change congress and change the laws but don't blame corporations that follow the law as written. Either that or live with it as I do.

The bottom line is a patent is only a pretext for law suits with a slight presumption of right on the side of the patent holder. However, the holder has to prove infringement and damages. The alleged patent violator can show prior art in defense. The internet age makes finding prior art rather easy.

lkgriffith said:

[They are not vague. They are quite specific. There is also massive prior art. That should have been sufficient for their claims to be dismissed. However, the fault is in the hands of congress for amending patent law so that it allows the patent office to accept such previously faulty patent claims as valid.

Click to expand...

Exactly true. But to hear something like, "woah, somebody violated 35 patents" sounds downright awful. But then you find out that 30+ patents were all prior arts and thus not enforceable just makes this whole concept of software patents silly.

Apple need not worry, they have a cult like following of people who love their products. They don't need patents to protect themselves, they simply need new versions of their products.