US Patent Office Tentatively Invalidates Apple's rubber banding patent!

[Phokus]

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html

GOOD! Most of Apple's patents relating to their mobile products are B.S. and were stolen from prior art, they need most of their patents invalidated.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

you're such a troll.... at least have a serious discussion about this.

 

[PowerYoga]

It's true though. A lot of apple's patents are based on prior art and shouldn't have been granted a patent in the first place. They just resubmit the same thing over and over again until it gets approved, which is more of a statement on the current patent system than anything else.

Anyway I'm glad at the very least this one got picked off. Stupid shit like "rounded edges" should be tossed out altogether.

 

[Phokus]

you're such a troll.... at least have a serious discussion about this.

Apparently you don't want to have a serious discussion.

 

[slayernine]

For technology they need to revise the patent system to have a clause that auto-invalidates patents that can be proven to be anti-competitive in nature. If the market expects pinch-to-zoom as a standard feature it should not be a valid patent.

Why should any company be allowed to have a monopoly in the technology market? The only thing I somewhat agree with is that Samsung had a couple models where their design team copied the physical look and feel of an iPhone and that isn't a patent issue but more of a problem with trademark infringement.

 

[Brian Stirling]

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html

GOOD! Most of Apple's patents relating to their mobile products are B.S. and were stolen from prior art, they need most of their patents invalidated.

Well, that's a start!


Brian

 

[s44]

It's nice, but Google's overscroll glow solved this as a going issue years back.

 

[PowerYoga]

problem is you're trying to build around dumb general patents like these instead of just trying to build a better product. These patents are anti-competitive and doesn't protect any intellectual property, and they're used to troll companies that might remotely have a similar idea to their own, even if there's no intent. Apple is just trying to bully other companies into submission instead of focusing on better products to maintain market share.

 

[akugami]

I agree down with Apple! They provide crap/stolen patents. Unlike Samsung and their awesome patents which are very serious and innovative.

 

[badb0y]

I feel like Phokus has an orgasm every time some bad news about Apple comes out.

 

[cheezy321]

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html

GOOD! Most of Apple's patents relating to their mobile products are B.S. and were stolen from prior art, they need most of their patents invalidated.

I guess when you post FOSS articles its a great source but when I post them Florian Mueller is a shill and should not be listened to.

 

[cheezy321]

I feel like Phokus has an orgasm every time some bad news about Apple comes out.

Here he is after he found this article.


Infraction for inappropriate content that constitutes a personal attack.
Inappropriate GIF deleted
Moderator PM

 

[the DRIZZLE]

For technology they need to revise the patent system to have a clause that auto-invalidates patents that can be proven to be anti-competitive in nature. If the market expects pinch-to-zoom as a standard feature it should not be a valid patent.
/QUOTE]

That is the entire point of the patent system, to give the inventor a monopoly for a short period.

 

[Phokus]

I guess when you post FOSS articles its a great source but when I post them Florian Mueller is a shill and should not be listened to.

You do realize that FOSS hates open source and is a pro-Oracle, right?

 

[cheezy321]

You do realize that FOSS hates open source and is a pro-Oracle, right?

You do realize that groklaw is an open source cult and hates anyone who doesn't agree with their mantra, right?

 

[akugami]

You do realize that FOSS hates open source and is a pro-Oracle, right?

First, Mueller is not unbiased. This has already been proven. He should have disclosed his ties with Oracle earlier on if he wanted to be perceived as unbiased. Or at least as unbiased as possible given the circumstances. What's not been proven is that he is against open source. He's written that he uses a Samsung phone for one. And on more than one occasion he has disagreed with Apple's viewpoints and agreed with Android.

Second, you're not invalidating what cheezy wrote. That you quote FOSS when it suits your views but discount any other FOSS blog article as biased if it doesn't. Hell, your very response seems to validate what cheezy wrote.

Third, your own track record of being anti-Apple is very well established.
It has been proven time and time again by your own comments that you excuse equally bad, if not worse, behavior from companies like Samsung who are in competition with Apple. So if we are to invalidate Mueller in any Apple vs Android discussion because he might be biased against Android, we equally have to invalidate anything you say in an Apple vs Android discussion because you are so obviously biased against Apple.

 

[cl-scott]

I'd actually like to see a set of rather simple reforms to the patent system. I don't claim they would fix every problem, but I think they'd be a significant improvement over what we have now.

1: No conceptual patents -- you can patent specific THINGS, not ideas
2: Companies cannot hold patents -- Don't care what the supreme court says, companies are fictional entities and thus have no rights. The person who creates the patentable item retains ownership, and the company gets a perpetual royalty free license to the patent, but cannot prevent the owner from licensing it out to anyone else
3: You have to actually be USING the patent in some product (assuming #2 doesn't fly given the Citizens United ruling). You can't just blue sky ideas and patent them in the hopes that one of them may become useful some day down the road, and if you stopped producing any products based on that patent then you've donated that patent to the public domain
4: If the patent examiner can't understand what it is you're trying to patent, the default action is to reject it
5: If a patent is rejected, and you file again, the first one is at regular price, after which the fee doubles each subsequent time with a maximum of 5 attempts
6: You get a brief window of exclusivity, which the patent examiner gets to determine based on the nature of the patent, and once that window expires you MUST license the patent to anyone willing to pay the fee also set by the patent examiner when the patent is granted. You can work out other arrangements, but that is the minimum threshold someone needs to meet to get a license for the patent.

I'm sure someone will eventually be clever enough to figure out a way to game such a system, like bribing the patent examiners. And if I were absolute monarch for a day, I'd say that if that were ever found to be true then that examiner would be fired, and every patent they issued would immediately go into the public domain. In any case, not claiming that it's a perfect set of rules, just far more sane than what we have now.

 

[cliftonite]

First, Mueller is not unbiased. This has already been proven. He should have disclosed his ties with Oracle earlier on if he wanted to be perceived as unbiased. Or at least as unbiased as possible given the circumstances. What's not been proven is that he is against open source. He's written that he uses a Samsung phone for one. And on more than one occasion he has disagreed with Apple's viewpoints and agreed with Android.

Second, you're not invalidating what cheezy wrote. That you quote FOSS when it suits your views but discount any other FOSS blog article as biased if it doesn't. Hell, your very response seems to validate what cheezy wrote.

Third, your own track record of being anti-Apple is very well established.
It has been proven time and time again by your own comments that you excuse equally bad, if not worse, behavior from companies like Samsung who are in competition with Apple. So if we are to invalidate Mueller in any Apple vs Android discussion because he might be biased against Android, we equally have to invalidate anything you say in an Apple vs Android discussion because you are so obviously biased against Apple.

Pretty sure Foss was the first one to post the news. So I doubt he had many other sources to quote.

 

[akugami]

Pretty sure Foss was the first one to post the news. So I doubt he had many other sources to quote.

The problem is Mueller was blogging about Oracle vs Google while he had relations with Oracle. He did eventually come clean but it should have been done sooner in the interest of impartiality. In the end, it hurt his reputation and how the reading public perceives him. And it gives any John Doe who disagrees with Mueller the option of saying Mueller is biased if Mueller says anything they don't like.

 

[khha4113]

I feel like Phokus has an orgasm every time some bad news about Apple comes out.

I can say the same about you. Only change "Apple" to "Android"!

 

[cl-scott]

I can say the same about you. Only change "Apple" to "Android"!

Where is a good "Don't Feed the Trolls" image when you need one? Someone want to help me out here?

This reminds me of a sign a friend of mine has up on his cubicle at work (and I'm sure most of you have heard it before in some form or another): The sports team from my regional area is better than the sports team from your regional area.

Bonus credit to anyone who knows where I'm adapting this from, but you could have a photo of Steve Jobs in a Hitler mustache throwing puppies into a wood chipper, and there would be some here who would claim that the puppies had it coming... Maybe they wouldn't get out of his garden, even after he called them a sonofabitch.

There's no reasoning with people who have developed completely illogical emotional attachments to a company and its product lineup. So might I interest you in a nice brick wall? The benefit of the wall, is that you don't give up the insanity defense when you beat your head against it endlessly. You can enjoy the tastiest pills modern psycho-pharmacology has to offer.

 

[golem]

For technology they need to revise the patent system to have a clause that auto-invalidates patents that can be proven to be anti-competitive in nature. If the market expects pinch-to-zoom as a standard feature it should not be a valid patent.

Why should any company be allowed to have a monopoly in the technology market? The only thing I somewhat agree with is that Samsung had a couple models where their design team copied the physical look and feel of an iPhone and that isn't a patent issue but more of a problem with trademark infringement.

Then why have a patent, if it every becomes popular, it's useless. Actually why do R&D? You'll never be able to recoup your research cost since anyone can copy your ideas with no ramifications?

 

[preslove]

you're such a troll.... at least have a serious discussion about this.

You are much worse of a troll than he is.

 

[MrX8503]

If the market expects pinch-to-zoom as a standard feature it should not be a valid patent.

Lol what? That's a horrible idea.

 

[abj13]

you're such a troll.... at least have a serious discussion about this.

You're one of the last people around here that should be saying that crap.