USPTO preliminarily revokes one of Apple's most important multitouch patents, which it has already u - Polidicks

[url]http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/07/u-s-patent-office-preliminarily-invalidates-apples-steve-jobs-patent-on-the-iphone/[/url] [quote=MacRumors]FOSS Patents reports that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a notice preliminarily ruling that Apple's massive iPhone patent popularly referred to as "the Steve Jobs patent" invalid in its entirety upon reexamination. [img]http://imgkk.com/i/r-m8.jpg[/img] The patent, issued as Patent No. 7,479,949, had been granted in January 2009 and incorporated several prior patent applications dating back to September 2006 before the company publicly unveiled the device. Steve Jobs is listed as the first inventor on the patent, and FOSS Patents notes that it is probably the most famous of the over 300 patents credited at least in part to Jobs. [quote=FOSS Patents]Some people say that first Office actions are partial because they are based only on submissions made by those challenging the patent, and many examiners like to take a tough position early on in order to enable and require the patentee to present the strongest arguments in favor of validity. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the significance of a first Office action. Also, a complete rejection of all claims of a given patent is potentially more devastating than one affecting only some claims.[/quote] Apple has asserted the patent against a number of its competitors, including Samsung and Motorola, and an ultimate finding of invalidity in the reexamination process would substantially weaken Apple's cases against those companies, although it is far from the only weapon in Apple's patent arsenal.[/quote] [url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57557880-37/another-apple-multitouch-patent-in-trouble-after-second-look/[/url] [quote=CNET][img]http://imgkk.com/i/btiq.png[/img] One of Apple's broad patents covering multitouch technology is under fire by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, following a reexamination. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) this week ruled that all twenty claims included in an Apple patent covering interaction with touchscreen devices are invalid, according to a filing spotted by blog Foss Patents. The decision, which was handed down on Monday, is not final. It's the second such Apple patent to be deemed completely invalid following a reexamination by the USPTO. A similar decision for an Apple patent covering the company's rubber banding bounce effect came in late October, and is also subject to an appeal. Of note, late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs is listed as the chief inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, along with 24 others. The company filed for it in April 2008, and was granted it just nine months later.[/quote] [url]http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html[/url] [quote=FOSS Patents]For the second time in less than two months, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a first Office action tentatively declaring a key Apple multitouch patent invalid. In late October, a first Office action in a reexamination proceeding stated the preliminary conclusion that all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll bounce) patent are invalid. Back in August, a California jury held Samsung to infringe that patent, and according to interviews jurors gave later didn't make much of an effort to ascertain its validity. This week, the USPTO issued a first Office action rejecting all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 on a "touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics", which has been referred to by many people, including Apple's own lawyers, as "the Steve Jobs patent". Here's the header of the Office communication (click on the image to enlarge): [img]http://imgkk.com/i/fgqx.png[/img] The above Office action was filed on Monday, December 3. Once again, a first Office action tentatively invalidating a patent comes shortly after an infringement finding against Samsung: in late October a preliminary ruling by an ITC judge deemed this patent valid and held Samsung to infringe it (as well as three other patents). The ITC staff supports the judge's initial determination. The touchscreen heuristics '949 patent has also been asserted against Motorola. Judge Posner declared large parts of the patent invalid and identified only some minor potential infringement on Motorola's part that he decided would not warrant injunctive relief even if Apple prevailed on whatever little was left of its related claims. In the build-up to the ultimately canceled trial, Judge Posner had barred Apple from referring to the '949 patent as "the [Steve] Jobs patent". Steve Jobs is the first named inventor (of many) of this patent. Many of his 300+ patents are design patents, but among software patents, the '949 patent is probably the most famous one. The USPTO held an exhibition relating to Steve Jobs's patents, but now it's apparently having second thoughts about the most prominent one of them. Back in 2010 a reexamination request against the '949 patent was denied by the USPTO. But another request resulted in the opening of a reexam proceeding, and the preliminary result is that the patent is deemed invalid in its entirety. I have said on various occasions that first Office actions and other non-final Office actions are just preliminary. Many patent claims that are rejected at this stage do ultimately survive. There are many steps inside the USPTO, followed by a potential appeal to the Federal Circuit (and in a few cases even the Supreme Court). Some people say that first Office actions are partial because they are based only on submissions made by those challenging the patent, and many examiners like to take a tough position early on in order to enable and require the patentee to present the strongest arguments in favor of validity. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the significance of a first Office action. Also, a complete rejection of all claims of a given patent is potentially more devastating than one affecting only some claims. Should the first Office actions tentatively invalidating the rubber-banding and the touchscreen heuristics patents be affirmed at the end of the proceedings (after all appeals have been exhausted), Apple would lose two iconic patents, but it would still have thousands of other patents, including hundreds of multitouch patents. If you've previously read my comments on the '949 patent, you may have noticed that I never liked it because it seeks to monopolize the right to solve a problem as opposed to a specific solution. My position on the rubber-banding ('381) patent is more nuanced. It's psychologically brilliant and represents outside-of-the-box thinking even though its implementation is utterly trivial from a technological point of view.[/quote]

Let the apple hate begin...

[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38742463]Let the apple hate begin...[/QUOTE] Its not like they don't deserve it.

[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38742463]Let the apple hate begin...[/QUOTE] Naaah, most people are just stating the painfully obvious. [sp](Daniel M is an exception though)[/sp]

If the patent has been revoked, will all rulings made using it be reversed?

[QUOTE=Terminutter;38742532]If the patent has been revoked, will all rulings made using it be reversed?[/QUOTE] I don't think so, since it's after the fact. But I dunno.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38742576]I don't think so, since it's after the fact. But I dunno.[/QUOTE] Well they should at-least [B]TRY[/B] to,

I believe they'll be able to appeal the rulings, which will be a guaranteed chance for apple to delay and stall

about fucking time

Faith still not near restored in this broken system but it is a start.

Good, shit like this should either be FRAND or not patented at all.

Fucking incredible.

[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38742463]Let the apple hate begin...[/QUOTE] Apple uses a bunch of ridiculous(and now invalid) patents to sue the shit out of the competition. What's not to hate?

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;38747201]Apple uses a bunch of ridiculous(and now invalid) patents to sue the shit out of the competition. What's not to hate?[/QUOTE] What about them producing their hardware for piss cheap and then charging 300% markup? You can hate that too.

[QUOTE=Forumaster;38747219]What about them producing their hardware for piss cheap and then charging 300% markup? You can hate that too.[/QUOTE] And while they make huge profits, the working conditions in china are shit (although this is true for many other tech companies too) [QUOTE] (CBS/AP) NEW YORK — Assemblers of iPhones and iPads often put in more than 60 hours per week — and sometimes work for a week straight — in violation of Chinese law, according to the first independent audit of Chinese factories where Apple (AAPL) products are made. The estimates suggest that if Apple were to absorb a Foxconn wage increase to keep pay the same and cut the work week from 60 hours to 49, it would pay about $2 more to have an iPhone made. Dinges expects Apple to offset any higher labor expense by wringing out savings elsewhere. Not that $2 will make much of a difference. Apple's regulatory filings imply that it makes hundreds of dollars in profits per phone.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Forumaster;38747219]What about them producing their hardware for piss cheap and then charging 300% markup? You can hate that too.[/QUOTE] The reason they can get away with the mark-up, is because they've managed to make the average Joe/Jane believe it's because it's a luxury device with their advertising. Only place where I'd give Apple credit, with their advertisement teams in charge, they could sell sand in Sahara and ice on Antarctica to the average consumer.

Good; overly-broad troll patents like these are anti-consumer; not just anti-consumer, but a threat, yes a THREAT, to all of humanity. Competition breeds innovation, innovation breeds awesome new things and prevents stagnation, something that the capitalists and conservatives need to learn if they are to avoid annihilation.