Apple Ordered To Pay Over $600 Million... For Patent Infringement Of Cover Flow?
from the you-can't-be-serious dept
I'd been meaning to write about the absolutely ridiculous Mirror Worlds patent infringement lawsuit against Apple for a few weeks now, not realizing a ruling was going to come so quickly. A few weeks ago, the Yale local newspaper had a really laughable one-sided article talking about how Apple had "stolen" the technology behind three of its offerings: cover flow, spotlight and time machine, because a Yale spinoff company, Mirror Worlds, had sued Apple for patent infringement. The original lawsuit covered four patents:- 6,006,227: Document stream operating system
- 6,638,313: Document stream operating system
- 6,725,427: Document stream operating system with document organizing and display facilities
- 6,768,999: Enterprise, stream-based, information management system
This case went quickly, and amazingly the court has ordered Apple to pay over $600 million, claiming that it infringed on three of the patents and that it has to pay over $200 million for each of the three products that infringed. Apple is appealing, noting that, at the very least, charging $200 million on each product is, in effect, "triple dipping."
What's left unsaid is the blatant insanity of having to pay anywhere near $200 million for the way in which you display CD covers in iTunes. How anyone can see such a verdict and not think the patent system is horribly, horribly broken is beyond me.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: coverflow, david gelernter, patents, reasonableness
Companies: apple, mirror worlds
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would also comment that I've had several ideas over the years that were had before anyone successfuly monetized them... If I'd simply patented them, I'd be rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> in relation to software that was truly unique and deserving of a patent
I agree.
Here's why I don't think software should be patentable. Software is written in a programming language, which was created by others. If the programming language didn't exist, then the software can't exist.
If you try and generalize software to the point where the programming language doesn't matter, then it crosses the expression/idea boundary and becomes an idea, which is not patentable.
Another way to look at it is, if I create the rules for a board game (like chess), I have also created all the possible states of the game. You couldn't copyright one set of moves, because those moves were already created when the rules of the game were created. The moves may not have been _discovered_ yet, but that is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe you're confused . . .
Ideas are patentable so long as they aren't too abstract or broad, lest they'd protect too much. Copyright protects expression. I.e., patent protect ideas, copyright protects expression of ideas. The current landscape becomes more confusing considering that software is eligible for either type of protection.
When software came of age, it was first copyrighted, because it is work that is "written," albeit in a language few understand (programming code). It is my impression that, because patentable subject matter includes methods/processes, software functions can be patentable when their use is tied to a machine (i.e., computer). Anyone interested in this area of patent law can get some good background by brushing up on a line of federal decisions regarding the "machine-or-transformation" test to patentability.
Many argue that copyright protection is unnecessary for software anyways since most programs are subject to EULAs, but this is an emerging issue in the law. It's a shame that software is subject to antiquated forms of protection, especially copyright. Again, copyright is protection for expression, and I see software as way too functional, although I do understand how certain elements of code-writing might be considered one's expression. Others advocate a sui generis form of protection software, which is a topic I'd love to see explored more)
I don't practice this in this field for a living, it's just a hobby, so if anyone in the IP legal field wants to chime in, I welcome the instruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, Average_joe will show up and say everythings fine.
(and he doesn't He'll still be saying he'd be pleased to work for such a morally bankrupt system.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course they don't, nor should they. The court's expertise is in law, not technology. The real source of the problem is that the patent office is not only missing that clue, it's also got a financial incentive not to get that clue. Until that is fixed, the flood of bad patents will only get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So is the patent examiners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once that's done, the corporate and non-practicing entities will under value their patents, and when their lawyers decide they need to hold on to their jobs, they can't get any more than what they valued the patent for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shmatents
I think (for what it's worth!) that if there is a patent dispute an investigation should be made into if the idea was "stolen" or if it was independently arrived at simultaneously. Further, if it is the latter, the patent should be deemed obvious to experts in the field, and tossed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay if you support Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay if you support Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay if you support Patents
but i like the way you put it even more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being an engineer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This issue reminds me of the Amazon.com 'One click' patent. At what point does something become obvious and not patentable? It seems like there are more and more patents given out for stuff that is obvious and could have been figured out by anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair is fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fair is fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: fair is fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent system may be broken...
I wish this companies would hurry up and sue themselves out of existence so small businesses, dedicated to customer service now, can take over and restart the cycle all over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The patent system may be broken...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live by the patent, die by the patent.
Good for the guy if he gets the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if the patent office worked that way. Suddenly the incentive is reversed. It would be in their best interest to *not* approve bad patents, and to err on the side of caution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Triple Dipping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am glad to see the award...
So keep up the good work patent trolls, change might finally happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gads! Independent invention?? Patents are awarded to the first to invent. Whether someone else "discovers" after independently matters not. They're still infringing. You know nothing of patent law. Write about something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a Brain
Even though the Founding Fathers thought it was important "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" I'm guessing your a whole lot smarter than they were. Right?
Our economic system is based on competition. I quite honestly fail to undersand why 'cry babies' like you whine so much when the little guy out-competes the corporate behemouths. You should be waving an American flag! Do you own some of Apple's of Microsoft's stock?
An All American Citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]