A judge overseeing the interminable patent battle between Samsung and Apple has denied the South Korean firm's latest bid to stall proceedings. Samsung asked for a stay of the case after telling the court that an examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had issued an "Advisory Action" which ruled that Apple's "pinch to …
As TJ1 helpfully posted in an earlier forum, the "Reexam - Final Rejection" from the USPTO is available online (here, reexamination number 90/012,332). The 60 page document rejects all claims in Apple's patent quite thoroughly based on prior art and obviousness.
But I guess in the legal world it's no big deal to shuffle around a cool few hundred million based on a patent that may or may probably not stand the test of time? Nuts!
The USPTO had rejected all claims in the Apple multi-touch patent due to prior-art and obviousness.
After a couple of months, they reversed that decision in its entirety and allowed all claims to stand.
Very bizarre, not sure who had a word in who's ear over the course of those few months but it doesn't look like Apple has much to worry about from USPTO rejections when they are crucial to their business*
*Their "competitor licensing" business that is.
If Samsung are so inventive then where were all their multitouch finger gesture based phones in 2006 and earlier?
Much of the worlds computing development happens in the US and EU. ARM, Intel, Microsoft, Apple and so on. Why do people think Samsung are so inventive?
10 seconds on a search engine would reveal that Samsung have R&D labs in the US & EU.
> Why do people think Samsung are so inventive?
Yep, those Gooks cannot into computers. We used to bomb them, no?
Justice that is not swift is no justice - of haven't they heard?
And a patent that is bloody obvious is obviously not worthy of becoming a bloody patent - but that doesnt seem to stop the US patent office.
So whats your point?
It's been one hell of a long time since the legal system - in the US or the UK - had much to do with Justice.
The patent system was never invented for any purpose justice. It was meant to be a pragmatic, economic instrument designed to encourage investment and innovation by granting a period of monopoly in order to realise a return, Once the operation of the patent system acts to stifle innovation and competition it is not operating correctly, Of course, these days it is often used just as a method of restricting competition or something close to extortion in the case of patent trolls.
nb, of course, prior to the patent system government (or, more often, crown) granted monopolies were very often granted as means of rewarding political friends.
2 thumbs down? There must be lawyers reading El Reg,
Our (and the Merkins) legal system has developed to administer the law.
Justice might have been an intent when drafting and passing laws, but the legal system is there to administer and enforce the law as is, not as should be.
Failure of the law to reflect justice is a failure by the legislators (aka politicians).
And when was the last time politicians screwed up..?
Apple - just give up the game. Stop trying to claim you invented breathing FFS!
Good ole 'mericans, you don't know when to stop, do you?
They're busy winning the patent lottery- why on earth would they stop?
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?