They'd be wise to let this go
it's not exactly great publicity, and by the time they're done they'll have spent more on lawyers than on any monetary gains derived from this sort of activity.
The infamous "bounce-back" Apple patent has been mostly rejected by the US Patent Office, a decision that will have a major impact on the fruity firm's legal battles with Samsung. Sammy was quick to point out the ruling on the patent to the court, as the jury in the recent billion-dollar Californian case ruled that 21 accused …
Apple don't actually need to win and they know it. If they can keep this dragging long enough that Samsung invest time and effort into developing alternate, possibly less effective, alternatives (which it would appear they already have done) then the lawsuit has had a favourable outcome for Apple even if they lose. It's the game of lawyers.
Please point out something that Apple did FIRST and then maybe they will get some sympathy if someone copies it. Everything they have ever done has been copied from somewhere else, they just claim they did it first and then try to sue the arse off anybody who does something vaguely similar.
The suggestion that prior art trumps Apple's claims suggest that Apple not only didn't have "their stuff copied", but that they in fact copied someone else, who'd already done it. To then sue Samsung on the basis that "they own the idea" (effectively) is hypocritical to say the least.
Apple are the ones crying like babies. The problem is that they are not the ones that had their stuff copied. In fact, the opposite.
Unfortunately El Reg doesn't delve into the prior art claims or Apple's rebuttal to them.
There are only two claims of prior art--products that I hadn't heard of until now (a DiamondTouch tabletop computer by Mitsubishi and a TableCloth app, very hard to find information about what that even is or does) and in the case of the DiamondTouch, cross examination proved that it didn't even have the bounce back feature when it was demo'ed to Apple.
So I think it's extremely likely that Apple didn't copy the idea, it's just possible that they didn't invent it first.
I'm not so arrogant or so far up myself I consider anything I've done to be utterly unique and inventive and not in some way derivative of work that has gone before.
Mind you that's why I'm G E and you're anonymous. And a coward.
15:37 - And yes, I just corrected the typo in 'arrogant'
"@AC - To quote, Steve Jobs who quoted Picasso - "Good artists copy, great artists steal""
So even his quotes have prior art, how very fitting.
I honestly cant believe that trivial, obvious things like bounceback can be patented in the first place. I really hope Apple get hammered over all this, then maybe companies will think twice before trying to pull the same, innovation killing trick in the future.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery. However, if the one being imitated goes around and whines about being imitated or that no one is paying the attention to the smartest kid in school, the one that comes up with all the good ideas, then everyone starts to get a funny feeling about the person they are copying, rather than being truly impressed by that person's (hopefully) wonderful/practical/useful/genius/etc idea. If you hog ideas, you stifle your ability to generate more.
...and put it towards designing some NEW products...instead of warming over what is already OLD merchandise...then they might just see their stock price head in the opposite direction from where it is going currently...which is DOWN.
"the USPTO has rendered a dispositive decision"
For a horrible moment I thought this was an ugly bit of lawyer-euphemism for "negative". Thankfully it's an ugly piece of lawyer jargon instead, being an adjective form of "disposition". Phew!
(Where's the icon for <wipes-pedantic-brow>?)
It would seem that in US law nothing is final until you run out of money. Or die. Is that why inmates spend so many years on Death Row? So the lawyers keep getting fees from all those appeals?
Relevance: if what we're being told about iOS 7 is true (that it will imitate Windows 8 which is visually flat and non-skeuomorphic) then (a) Apple is indeed running out of ideas and (b) these are beginning to look a bit like Death Row appeals for Apple.
Currently their only real hope seems to be war on the Korean peninsula and a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
No its not for the lawyers. I recall hearing years ago that the reason for so many appeals when it comes to the death penalty is to allow those condemned that sliver of hope that in the case they truly are innocent to be freed.
Could be wrong but that came to mind as soon as I saw your question
On a side note I'm all for death penalties so long as they is irrefutable proof of guilt.
The USPTO decided that prior art anticipated the bounce-back patent that gets documents or photos to bounce when you try to scroll beyond their end on a touchscreen
The USPTO should have decided that the patent was based on a stupid animation that doesn't rise to level of an invention, let alone an original one.
"A 'final' office action does not signal the end of reexamination at the USPTO, much less the end of consideration of the patentability of the claims under reexamination. Rather, 'finality' is primarily a procedural construct that limits the right to amend claims and introduce evidence as a matter of right in reexamination."
Da Fuq did I just read?
Do they have The Architect from the Matrix working for them?
If so, I'm taking both pills... and grabbing some popcorn.
Am I the only one who is getting sick and tired of companies that are supposed to be innovating in their chosen field, but instead choose to find out the next best way to sue their immediate competition?
This is not just aimed at Apple (as Samsung has filed a few counter complaints, and everyone sues everyone these days. I just want something actually new to come out of one of these companies, rather than mild re-hashes to pay for their ever ongoing legal battles.
I hope they end up suing themselves into oblivion (actually, that means the only people who win are the scumbag lawyers!)
Really, is Apple "supposed to" innovate? According to whom? The Bible? Your mom?
Apple can do as they damn well please. There is no requirement for them to innovate anything. Jesus, they invent the modern mobile phone and the modern tablet computer and now everybody expects them to revolutionize the industry on an annual basis.
Why doesn't anybody expect Samsung to innovate anything? All they've been doing year after year is putting a faster processor and a bigger screen in their phones. Oh wait, the S 4 has a thermometer too. Miracle of innovative miracles.
We can play this game as much as you want... you think Samsung invented transistors? (Nope, Bell Labs, 1948.) The ARM processor cores that they use? (Nope, ARM, UK company.) LCD screens? (Nope, RCA, ~1968.) Digital cameras? (Nope, again Bell Labs, ~60s.)
As much as you would love your little narrative that Samsung invents all the technology in iPhones the fact is that they are merely acting as a manufacturing arm for Apple... in almost all cases they are not the sole supplier of any given component, or even the preferred supplier.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019