Live By The Patent, Die By The Patent: Apple Loses Patent Lawsuit Over Sony & Nokia Patents

from the but-of-course dept

Thu, Dec 13th 2012 4:35pm — Mike Masnick

We've argued before that it often seems that operating companies that decide to go down the path of suing others for patent infringement are really just opening themselves up to being hit with similar patent lawsuits themselves. It's a complete waste of time and money (all of which could be going towards actual innovation). With Apple launching patent nuclear wars all over the place, now it's been getting hit back with suits from others. The latest is that Apple has lost a patent dispute with MobileMedia, a company that Sony and Nokia dumped some patents into for the sake of ~~shaking down~~ getting "licensing" revenue from other companies. The whole thing is silly, and Apple, Sony, Nokia, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Microsoft and everyone else would be better served by not having to fight off all these silly lawsuits, but by being focused on making better products and competing in the marketplace.

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: lawsuits, patents
Companies: apple, mobilemedia, nokia, sony

96 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 2:53pm

...but the lawyers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JP, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:22pm

Nice one
"The latest is that Apple has lost a patent dispute with MobileMedia, a company that Sony and Nokia dumped some patents into for the sake of --shaking down-- [i mean] getting "licensing" revenue from other companies."

Hilarious. :DD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:36pm

Nokia
Maybe somebody should report on which patents are involved instead of bashing Apple to kingdom come.

Nokia includes "their patent" on their keypad button system used in phones since the inception of messaging a pager from a Motorola brick. The difference is that the iOS interface for phone control is simply that iOS uses the industry standard arangemenr of numbers.

Sony's volume control system is a dial not a trigger button for up and a trigger button for up and down.

The ignore button or use thereof claimed by the Nokia patent is not a power button in which the button blacks out the screen. That's a standard function used by most mobile phones. In case things get sluggish on the iPhone, you hold the home button and power button for 15 seconds to force reboot....that I think is uniquely Apple.

As for the "turning screen" sensor, it's the same situation when Sony sued Nintendo over the gyroscopic system used in the Wii remote control. That case was tossed out.

Now if you want to argue about whether or not this is true, go do some research and see what patents MobileMedia is suing over. Everyone under the sun uses some form of it. Since Apple is in litigation with Samsung, it makes perfect sense to the likes of MobileMedia to patent troll Apple. They seem to think they will get positive press over suing Apple like Samsung had which makes it clear they are doing this in an attempt to ride the gravy train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:48pm
  
  Re: Nokia
  Okay Wally... I am starting to see why a lot of people seem to think you are a douche.
  
  "Maybe somebody should report on which patents are involved instead of bashing Apple to kingdom come"
  I didn't read the article that way... infact: "Live By The Patent, Die By The Patent", "Sony and Nokia dumped some patents into for the sake of shaking down...", and "The whole thing is silly", seems to be pointing out that all of these companies are causing problems.
  
  The fact that you question the validity of the patents in question is sort of the point, but never the less Apple did declare a Patent War, and this is what should be expected because of it. On the plus side this case is just about money, they are not trying to get compeating products removed from the market (like Apple want to do to Samsung).
  
  This article doesn't "Bash Apple to kindom come", it merely points out that the patent war is silly, Sony and Nokia have and offshoot trolling company, and that turn-about's fair play.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Nokia
    First, Nokia tried using the same patent against Apple back in 2009...Which is what started the patent war.
    
    I admit being out of line with the "Apple bashing" bit, but that is the EXACT type of thing MobileMedia Inc wants everyone to think....like I said, they are riding the gravy train hoping to get the bite out of Apple Samsung couldn't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Nokia
    You don't have to try to prove me wrong by calling me a douche, it just makes your rebuttal less valid when your views differ from mine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 1:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nokia
      He's right though, it is a valid point. You are a douche.
      
      You are the biggest apple fanboi around. You fail to look at things objectively like the article.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        It seems your trolling proxy failed there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        Not sure what 'trolling proxy' you mean. If you are suggesting it's the same person posting, the snowflakes are different. I'm legally blind and can tell the difference in both that and the writing styles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        Thanks, just noticed it. Well I guess his proxy didn't fail. Those snowflakes are practically identical except for the direction of the square, so it took a few reviews after you mentioned they were different.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alfred (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 8:31pm
  
  Re: Nokia
  I'd be a lot more sympathetic about Apple getting sued for implementing things that are obvious or only similar to these patents if they hadn't gone nuclear with "rectangles with rounded corners" and "icons in a grid".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 9:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Nokia
    To a degree, the rounded corners argument may or may not stand in some circles. But I recently held my iPod, which holds the same basic flat shape as the iPhone 4 (the corner) to a Samsung phone and the angles matched exactly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Alfred (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 10:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nokia
      You recently held your iPhone 4 to a Samsung phone and the angles of the rounded corners matched? And...what? Design patents are beyond stupid. Even if, as you imply, Samsung slavishly copied the look of the iPhone (which is debatable), why should that matter? Companies have been making knock offs of just about any popular product for ages. From a status point of view, most people want the original, not the knock off. I don't see the big harm to Apple if people imitate their look. If anything, it adds value because it increases the desire factor for their product.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        I agree the rounded corners are debateable. I think knockoffs in the smartphone business actually do more harm to the Android market than anywhere else.
        
        Good example:
        There has been a plethora of knock-off Android devices selling for under $100 a piece claiming to have Icecream Sandwhich.....Have you seen the ratings of the Chinese Made Mach Speed Trio HT 4GB 7 inch tablet that "carries" Android 4.0?? It's a pure Chinese knockoff and what's worse is that it's a 2g cellular device (even though it's not advertised as such), and due to a manufacturing defect....the WiFi connection you can make with it cuts out within 10 minutes of use and shuts off completely. Imagine how many people looking for a descent budget device will be turned away and think that maybe an iOS device is better due to a device that is, to their knowledge, an actual Google Sanctioned Android device.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        Uh, just fyi, Google "sanctioned" devices are labeled as such and usually have the Play Store on them. Only officially approved devices have access to things like Gmail and the Play Store.
        
        Those KIRF-like devices CANNOT be compared to proper Google (Nexus) or Android (Samsung, HTC, etc) devices. The differences, beyond merely price, are astoundingly large to even the most inept and tech illiterate consumers.
        
        Also, those devices you speak of aren't knock-offs. Android is open for anyone to use, it is only when you want access to Google services and frameworks that the device must meet specific criteria.
        
        In addition to that, most people would not be turned away to iOS devices due to a Chinese knock off. People know that KIRFs are just that, KIRFs (hence the insanely low, it might as well be stolen, prices). If they want low priced Android devices they know they have to make some trade-offs. Either in KIRFs, build quality, specs, etc. But they knowingly decide for themselves what is acceptable and what isn't.
        
        You're grabbing at straws to take a shot at Android about knockoffs. And you wonder why people label you what they do. [points at your response] Filled with strawmen, incorrect and not even remotely accurate information, etc. It's interesting. I read your comments and when it comes to Apple it's like you desperately to the point of obsessively go out of your way to find out anything and everything that can help you defend Apple, mention Google or Android though and it's almost like you make stuff up just to insult it. Heck, even non-techies I know don't state half the incorrect things you do about Android/Google. (I say all this while typing on my Macbook. Because we all know that if you even remotely defend Google or point out your misrepresentation of them or Android then you must be a Google fan/troll in Wally's eyes.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        As long as you don't insult my intellect, you can correct me in any way you wish as long as it isn't an insult.
        
        Ok, now that the above is clear, please understand that it was the PowerBook 100 series from which the current standard ergonomic design for laptops (keyboard back towards the screen, trackball/trackpad front and center) are derived. It was a joint venture between Apple and Sony.
        
        As for the *knock off Android Product*, A friend wanted to get their 7 year old grand daughter a cheep, sub $100 tablet and found this one in a K-Mart and got that model and came to me for help as to why the WiFi cuts off mid-download and why GooglePlay wasn't working at all.
        
        I've actually handled the Mach Speed (company) Trio HT 7 inch 4 GB tablet with "Android" 4.0 on it. I went to my local Sprint Vendor (Preferred Wireless) because I knew the entire staff and manager there, to check out the device...you know because I'm used to Android 3.1 on my Samsung SPH-M580...So I wasn't sure what Android 4.0 looked like. I fiddled with the Samsung Galaxy S3 and the HTC 1x and began to realize my friend had been ripped off. I noticed on the box that at a quick glance, the robot trade dress was almost identical. I had to actually look at it for 5 minutes to realize the eyes were flipped and then I noticed the Cantonese writing below it with a 4.0 trailing over it.
        
        I loved handling the HTC device. It was ruggedized with galvanized rubber corners and edges. The Samsung device felt like a cheep plastic toy...please forgive my tangent.
        
        I was not grabbing at straws to take a shot at Android. I simply said Google needs to get a grip on a bit of reality because the average consumer is getting confused by knock off products that resemble Google's Android. I never said Android was a knockoff.
        
        My problem (and actually a constructive criticism) about Android is that the market has become so fragmented, it makes it easier for knock off versions of Android to be made. So I'm sorry if my writing got misinterpreted, and I promise to try to clear my comments up in the future.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        "As for the *knock off Android Product*, A friend wanted to get their 7 year old grand daughter a cheep, sub $100 tablet and found this one in a K-Mart and got that model and came to me for help as to why the WiFi cuts off mid-download and why GooglePlay wasn't working at all."
        
        Again, this has no bearing on Google. Your friend wanted to buy something cheap. The sub-$100 price tag should be enough that even the most oblivious would be wary of the device and know it is a substandard product.
        
        I'm not going to go off correcting too much more. But I'd like to point out one thing, a few people have said you make things up as knocks against Google and specifically Android. To that end, I'd like to point out a few things.
        
        "Samsung SPH-M580" is better known as the Samsung Replenish. Android 3.1 is officially known as Honeycomb. Now, try and stay with me on this class, Android 3.1 (Honeycomb) is ONLY available on tablets, and older ones at that. NOT PHONES. The Samsung Replenish, a phone, runs Android 2.3 (Gingerbread). And ONLY Gingerbread. As for fiddling with the SGS3 and One X, that has little to do with your friend's tablet. Not the least reason of which is because the differences between Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0) and Jelly Bean (4.1) on both devices. Both have received recent updates that took them from ICS to JB, in addition to which both come equipped with manufacturer "skins", making them in no way recognizable from the stock Android experience (which even on KIRF products is still pure AOSP stock). So we now know at least a few things about you Wally. You are grossly misinformed about Android or completely clueless. I base this on your incorrect information about "your" own specific phone. That or you're a flat out liar. I'd rather not speculate too much. Also, your friend wanting a very cheap product, which can be found just about anywhere and for anything (lest I be forced to start linking to all the Apple KIRFs, many of which are done so well that when put next to an Apple product not even an expert would be able to spot the differences) basically got a shoddy product overall. This happens. When you want to cheap out you get cheap things, trying to point the finger at Google though is a bit much and definitely in bad taste.
        
        Nor will I get into pointing out that the Machspeech Trio tablet is another KIRF-like device. It is in no way comparable to a "true" Android tablet (Nexus 7, Galaxy Note 10.1, Acer Iconia, etc). So again, this is you handling substandard equipment and then basing your "conclusions" on the use of said devices. And in this case, basing your experience with substandard and KIRF-like devices and directly comparing your friend's KIRF experience to that, and still NOT coming close to having any experience with a certified Google device.
        
        And yes, you did take a shot at Google. Google CANNOT stop others from producing KIRF products, Apple is in the same boat. Customers need to be more disconcerting and start using that thing between their ears (brain) when they shop. If a price is too good to be true, it usually is and is so for a reason. Sub-$100 tablets are NEVER Google certified/official Android devices. The cheapest official Google certified/official tablets start at $170 and go up from there (Samsung Galaxy Tab 7 2/Acer Iconia/Nexus 7/etc).
        
        Anyway, whatevs. The way I see it, your friend skimped out and got what he deserved. A shitty product. No one's fault but his own, nor is Google responsible for KIRFs (just like Apple isn't). Fragmentation, in regards to Android/Google, ONLY refers to the "fragmentation" of the OS, insofar as people making more of something that isn't really there. Namely the larger amount of people on older versions of the OS (2.3 in particular) and apps "not scaling" well from one version to the next. A problem to some degree, but one largely the fault of developers, as Google has official guidelines and how-to's regarding how to code for proper app development. Guides/information which clearly state that when coded properly following Google's guidelines ANY app will scale and work properly on ANY version of the OS and device.
        
        But as I said, do be a bit more careful with what you say. Your remarks about your phone will now be remembered by myself and others and definitely not lend any credence to any non-Google bias you may have. I mean either you know nothing about your own phone or you flat out lied. Either one is bad. And 3.1 could have been meant as 2.1 and I'd forgive you for that (typing mistakes do happen), but then I'd still be left to point out that 2.3 is the ONLY version of the OS on your phone. Which would still make me wonder about your statements up to now. Honestly, this is the way it works, if you don't know just say don't know. If you've never gone out of your way to handle every device possible (whether it be by Google, Apple, Dell, etc) don't go around offering any kind of opinion when others ask for comparisons. You'll only inform them based on your opinion which is sadly lacking additional experience with other devices, and you'll only harm them and any decisions they'll make. I say this as someone who has literally done hours of research on devices they don't even own. I can tell you the pros and cons of almost any Android device (phones and tablets), Apple device, computer, etc. And all just based on pure research, which isn't too say I have no hands on experience (as I do and am considered a tech aficianado by all who know me).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        " Mach Speed (company) Trio HT 7 inch 4 GB tablet with "Android" 4.0 on it"
        
        Oh yeah, after doing a few minutes research, I'd also like to point out that as far as I'm able to discern no such product exist. Yes, there is a device just like the one you stated made by the same company, but it runs Android 2.0 (Eclair), which is as old a version as you can get and still (barely) call it Android. Also, there is a version running Android 2.3 (Gingerbread), but that's it. NO DEVICE WITH ANDROID 4.0 ON IT EXIST OR IS MADE BY MACH SPEED. So again, I have to wonder if you really know what you're talking about or are making things up. It further adds to the points I made regarding your phone, because your phone runs 2.3 (assuming you have one and didn't make that up), in which case you'd recognize the OS on the device as the same one on your phone.
        
        All I know is that as insightful and knowledgeable as you may be about Apple and Apple products, I will now take anything you say with a heaping of salt regarding anything made by any other company. Not trying to knock you, but if you can't even get the information about your own phone correct then we have serious issues regarding your credibility. (And that's completely ignoring the ones raised about this non-existent Mach Speed Android 4.0 device. Seriously, search for it. On there site and any other tech site. You won't find any such device. An error on your part? Perhaps, but one definitely not supported by the facts and one that must be pondered along with your mistaken information about your phone.)
        
        I'd rather not call you a liar, so we'll just say your mistaken on a few things about things that can be verified.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 1:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nokia
      Wally they would be sued by users if they had sharp corners.
      
      They have to round them so they don't scratch peoples hands. It is therefore an obvious design and the patent fails.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        But most other smart phone makers don't have the same exact angle that makes the device comfortable to hold due to round corners. Your argument is moot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        You need to take geomerty lessons.
        
        A rectangle by definition has 90 degree corners. Wait are you saying apple owns 90 degree corners too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        You still need to learn Euclidian Geometry...I'm not talking about the outside angle of the corners, I'm talking about proportion relative to Pi angles. Sort of hard to explain it without my old High School Geometry book in front of me. It's not the angle on a straight 2-dimensional plain that's the issue, it's the relative circumference in accordance to proportions of Pi that are the issue. The corners used could easily be narrowed by proportion and still be comfortable. Dimensional size makes no difference when the corners are proportionately the same angle, and as sketchy as it seems, that's what Apple may have been complaining about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        Wally what you are referring to is a radius.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        Yes...thanks...it's been a long time for me since Geometry. But at least I sense from you that you got what I was saying. Thank you for not trolling in any remote sense what so ever with your comment :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 3:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nokia
      To a degree, the rounded corners argument may or may not stand in some circles.
      
      I would certainly hope not !!!!! cant have round corners in a circle !
      
      even with 360 Degrees.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nokia
      the angles matched exactly
      
      So... you are telling me you want a patent on the circle circumference formula?
      
      Because that is beyond stupid, of course you can expect certain 90 corners to match up if you are dealing with the same proportions!
      
      Next on daily news, Apple patents math.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        no, but I patent on Pi would be nice,
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dennis deems (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nokia
      and the angles matched exactly
      Why shouldn't they??
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - dennis deems (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        I recently bought a new pair of shoes. I held one of them up to one of my old shoes, sole to sole. The angles matched exactly!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nokia
        Lol...while the shoe analogy is good, just remember those are two different designs. A sneaker is different from a hightop, a high heal, a pair of cleats, penny loafers, Italian Boots....etcetera etcetera....the varied categories of footwear all have different designs and looks from make to make in each category. It all boils down to preference at the consumer level. And believe it or not, in spite of the same outward shape on some shoes, there is a difference in how they are worn, how they function....even if they fit the same category of footwear it varies make to make.
        
        If you want a proper rebuttal/analogy in the fashion industry as to how Apple innovated by improving things for people while seemingly heisting other people's work, I have a question....why haven't the original creators of the sports bra been sued by every major maker of jock straps??? After all, that's all a sports bra was originally made from....a pair of Jock Straps sewn together just right to create something new.
        
        So as you look at my tangent consider my point. Just because a design is shaped a certain way, does not mean it's completely the same as everyone else. Nor should it be...No two makers of shoes make the shape of a style of shoe exactly the same and the only reason for similarity is that a lot of research goes into ergonomics when it comes to shoes. It's more of a parallel to phones and I really do commend you for it.
        
        People are griping about rounded corners and honestly it's funny how they don't realize that by saying Apple deserves loosing a design patent, they condone Nokia getting an equally ridiculous design patent over an arrangement of numbers that have been on ALL phones since TouchTone phones came to market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 9:46pm
    
    Re: Re: Nokia
    Ok, one thing though...the rounded corners bit was actually a bit debatable...but what they are being sued for is this
    
    1 2 3 menu
    4 5 6 ctrl
    7 8 9 end
    * 0 #
    
    That arrangement is not only in digital format on a screen on many other devices...but has been on the cell phone since the car phone. It doesn't even appearing that on the iPhone....Menu, ctrl, end are missing. It's the same patent Nokia initially sued Apple for back in 2009.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:45pm

Now I know that apple is really just a bunch of freetards and pirates... can't they come up with their own ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:18pm

Now, as for the article. It's well thought out and honestly I agree. I just don't think anyone deserves a patent troll and Nokia is the biggest troll of them all. MobileMedia Inc. is their patent trolling proxy so they don't get the blame in the eyes of the jury/general public. The only shell game incident from Apple I can think of was the debacle with Proview...whom with they settled.

Now when you look at the patent Nokia is claiming on a mobile phone keypad/keyboard system where you use the number key pad to type the letters...that was originally on the first Motorola Flip phones...not a Nokia device. It's sad that the jury didn't see this. It's even more sad when the judge asks for a jury that knows nothing about patents and also no general knowledge of the history of a smart phone. Nokia started this whole mess and used a shell company for shakedowns.

As for any comments for Karma and Apple getting what it deserves, I must quote Ghandi :

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

It's simply ridiculous the patents involved are valid because they are common things like BandAid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alana (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re:
  This time, on "Apple is god, and can do no wrong". . . .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Alana, I never said Apple was in the clear here. Proview's lawsuit against Apple over the IPAD trademark was an indication of Apple using a shell company. But of course they settled it. A lot of these patents Bloomberg pointed out were the same ones Sony and Nokia used against Apple over the iPhone 3G.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes you do, repeatedly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is not your conversation troll. You might want to butt out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it's not your conversation either Wally, no butts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's no such thing as a private conversation on an open forum.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So trolling is a conversation???
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Alana, I never said Apple was in the clear here." - Wally
        
        "Yes you do, repeatedly." - AC
        
        The AC wasn't trolling. The AC was making a declarative and verifiable statement about you. In your defense, you didn't say Apple was in the clear HERE, but you have done so numerous times in other articles. Making the AC's statement correct.
        
        Again, someone pointing out your behavior and what you do/say is NOT trolling. It is someone stating the facts as they are and as are evidenced by looking at your comment history.
        
        And trolling actually can be a conversation, because in some cases the troll allows others to think about things that they wouldn't have before or allows for others to respond to the troll, providing evidence/facts/citations for why the troll is incorrect and what have you.
        
        Except of course when you label "remarking on myself and the products/companies I hold dear" as "trolling". That isn't trolling. Stop taking things so personally. An attack on Apple is NOT an attack on you. When people want to attack you, they'll do so as directly as possible. And some have. While I feel for you to a degree, I can't say that the attacks are not unwarranted, nor are they incorrect to a degree.
        
        See what I did there? Rather than insult you or say "Wally is a fanboi/troll" (because to a degree you are a bit of both) I explained things like an adult. And just fyi, one ad hom (usually calling you a fanboy) DOES NOT cause any rebuttals made against you or things you've said to be irrelevant. In point of fact, you outright dismissing said rebutalls "because you had to throw in a shot at Apple or my defense of them etc" (whatever you usually say along those lines), proves the responses to you (all of them) valid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So childishly answering back "yes you do" isn't trolling? I'm not sure what universe you live in, but given the context of that AC's comment, it certainly wasn't a rebuttal. Just stop while you're ahead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stating the facts and commenting on things you VERIFIABLY do do DOES NOT make someone a troll. Also, you don't own the forums, nor are privileged with the ability to exclude others from conversation. Respect others and they'll respect you in turn. You may not like what someone has to say (about you or Apple or anything in general), doesn't give you the right to tell them to "butt out" or call them "troll".
        
        I stand by my previous statements. You have issues with people pointing out your actions and statements and label them troll just for calling it like it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How dare you, I own every conversation on Techdirt!
        
        I already have them backed up to my desktop, my laptop, and I printed them out to be sure.
        
        Nobody can take away my conversations!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:37pm
  
  Re:
  And now explain how all of Apples patents are valid and how every other company are just leeching Apple's R&D.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well that's a different story to begin with. There are actually something companies were leaching but a majority actuality weren't. The patent used in this trial was a physical numerical keypad using buttons in the same arrangement as your regular TouchTone phones. iPhone uses the common industry standard arrangement like everyone else does. I mean if you just look at how you control the iPhone or an early Nokia flip phone, it makes it painfully obvious that these were two totally different methods for manually dialing a number on your phone.
    
    In short, has Apple leached patents before...yes, it's painfully obvious. As for the particular patents brought to the courts by MobileMedia Inc., it's also a painfully obvious no.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Brown (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re:
  In my best "Dad voice": It doesn't matter who started it. Apple, Nokia, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, stop arguing and play nice!
  
  All of their bickering, right or wrong, ultimately hurts the consumer. Sure, the lawyers on both sides come away happy, but all of us consumers are the ones paying for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 8:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike Brown, I whole heartedly agree to your argument. Thank you for not calling me a douche and not accusing me of fanboyism.
    
    Alana, Apple has done some pretty cruddy things before, I cannot deny it. I'm not a fanboy for defending ANYONE from an injustice...even if they are a bully themselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " I'm not a fanboy for defending ANYONE from an injustice...even if they are a bully themselves."
      
      It's a good thing you weren't explicitly called a fanboy for defending ANYONE from an injustice in that case. I think the implication though is you're a fanboy for a host of other reasons, most of which can be discovered by simply clicking your profile and going through your comment history.
      
      Put simply, any time an article is about Apple losing a case in some way, shape or form you appear (shocker!) and say something along the lines of, "This is all just so ridiculous. Can't we all just get along? Blah blah blah." Any time a case is about Apple taking someone to court or getting granted another moronic patent you appear (shocker again!) and say something along the lines of, "Good on Apple! These people need to stop copying and start innovating! And so what if the patent's are absurd?! They can defend/argue this in court if they're so in the right! Who cares how much it cost to do so!"
      
      And just fyi, you claim to not be a fanboy yet act "well my heavens" whenever someone calls you one or even implies you are one. Wally, no offense, you are one.
      
      Oh yeah, you never did apologize for being wrong the other day abut Google Fiber expanding as a business. Not that I expected it, admitting being in error isn't something I expected you to do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you not read that Google has no plans to expand their services elsewhere??? I'm pretty sure you need to read and stop spending your time Bawking at how many times someone says a 5 letter word pertaining to a fruit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you not read that they do actually have plans to expand their services elsewhere? I posted a link from The Verge explicitly stating that. And they're currently looking into where next they'd like to try to expand their services.
        
        Also, I have no problem with Apple. I own a number of Apple products (Macbook, iPod, iPhone, etc). What I have a problem with is some people acting like hypocrites and fanboys (i.e. going out of their way to bring up Apple in non-Apple articles, defending Apple whenever they get sued and saying "can't we all just stop being ridiculous" and then in another article saying "Yay Apple bringing suits! Take that copiers!")
        
        Apple CLEARLY infringed on the patents of someone else, which the jury found and helped rule on. Deal with it. Apple was in the wrong. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be celebrating or saying what I already stated a few times you'd say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Apple violated a design patent on the arrangement of numbers on the numerical keypad of a cell phone???
        
        I refer you to here:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/12173921379/live-patent-die-patent-apple-loses-pa tent-lawsuit-over-sony-nokia-patents.shtml#c225
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Apple has done some pretty cruddy things before"
      
      Understatement much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:57pm
  
  Re:
  Quote:
  It's simply ridiculous the patents involved are valid because they are common things like BandAid.
  
  Yep, that is what others told you when you was defending Apple for suing Samsung with their equally ridiculous patent portfolio.
  
  Quote:
  In case things get sluggish on the iPhone, you hold the home button and power button for 15 seconds to force reboot....that I think is uniquely Apple.
  
  Only if you are referring to the 15 seconds because the act of holding a button down to reboot a device is old very old and if you want proof of it, I am certain that every laptop and PC on the face of the earth has this "Apple unique feature" since at least the late 90's, just hold down the power button and you see and it is not just computers, I know of a lot of appliances that use the system you just need to look in the manual for "How to reset your microwave" ta-da!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 8:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Lovely Strawman arguments, maybe you don't get what I mean by unique. You hold the home button and the power button down simultaneously to reboot it. It was either a Nokia or Sony patent that's supposed being violated for that. It doesn't merely reboot your iPhone or iPod, it clears the whatever is left suspended or stuck while processing data through RAM.
    
    If you take the time to research, you'll find that the patents brought up in this case do not in any way involves functions of an iPhone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "it clears the whatever is left suspended or stuck while processing data through RAM"
      
      **FACEPALM**
      
      That is what happens during a reboot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey douchrbag, I don't know if you missed it, but I was referring to iOS devices. You're only trolling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey idiot/fanboi/prick.
        
        I don't know if you missed it but I was referring to nearly every computer device on the planet.
        
        Whenever you reboot a system it clears the RAM down.
        
        I'm not sure whether you actually believe that crapple invented this or that you are just a moron. Probably the latter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm not sure whether you actually believe that crapple invented this or that you are just a moron. Probably the latter."
        
        The use of the term "crapple" by you shows your bias completely. Honestly, I'm sure you did not read what I said, only saw "Apple" and assumed they stole an industry standard idea...once again you miss as to how the feature is implemented and carried out internally...a charged Alpha particle surges the system....but I guess that physics is a bit hard to grasp for the likes of you...let alone your ABC's...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You never owned a pre-iPhone era cell phone have you? I was referring to the fact that it is implemented and carried out differently on the internal part...but I guess your stellar reading skills overlooked that in your rage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No actually re read your post.
        
        You made out that apple had this mega unique way of doing something which meant the patent was valid.
        
        Basically pressing two buttons instead of the usual one like most phones does a system reboot. This somehow is an excellent feature.
        
        And then you go on a rant about something that a. you obviously have no idea about and b. has no relevance to the conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's mostly common now in most motherboards carrying Sandy Bridge chipsets. They use Alpha wave radiation to basically "reverse" the polarity of the neutrons going into the processor as a fault switch. So if the board dies from transistors blowing out, the CPU doesn't get fried from the neutrons being shot at it.
        
        This is a guess:
        A similar process is done in the basic emergency reboot during a hang up for an iPhone....since it's only Alpha wave radiation, most everything in the iPhone can and is protected or shielded in some way, except for the RAM.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Change "Transistors" to "transformers"...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wally, what are you on about?
        
        I am an electronics engineer and keep up to date with most semiconductor developments. I have never heard of neutron bombardment inside a PC. Maybe in a fission reactor but never in a PC.
        
        Could you please link to the article where you get this info?
        
        My guess is that this stuff is coming from your arse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's the best way I can describe the fault system on Sandy Bridge. Have you seen the size of the transformers on motherboards that carry SandyBridge?? It has to do with the CPU automatically shutting off with certain amounts of alpha wave radiation running though it. The switch is a similar tripping mechanism to those used in smoke detectors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I am an electronics engineer and keep up to date with most semiconductor developments. I have never heard of neutron bombardment inside a PC. Maybe in a fission reactor but never in a PC."
        
        This is the exact reason most transformers are now located as far as posdible away from the CPU. If there is so much as a SLIVER in a transformer like those typically found on a modern motherboard, located near the CPU, goodbye to the CPU.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 11:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only transformers usually found on a motherboard are the ones used to isolate the electronics from the outside world on an Ethernet port.
        
        You are talking complete bollocks here. The sandy bridge chipset, nor your iPod, do this.
        
        Please cite an article explaining this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "It doesn't merely reboot your iPhone or iPod, it clears the whatever is left suspended or stuck while processing data through RAM."
      
      Wow, that's... exactly what happens when you reboot... ANYTHING. What's 'stuck while processing data through RAM' doesn't miraculously stay in RAM, or there'd be no reason to reboot in the first place. That isn't unique to iOS.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But it wasn't a feature on a smart phone to basically clear the RAM by using a particle charge to safely clear it. It's been on computers for ages, but when the iPhone came out...no smart phone had it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I should clarify something before I come off as completely snobbish. The RAM in an iPhone (yes this is absolutely a blessing and a curse) is not entirely volatile. Simply powering off the device puts it into hybernate mode for about 15 minutes before the RAM clears. You can tell what apps are being run in the background by double-clicking the home button. That's it's multitasking menu. During power down it saves whatever you are running into memory so that when the devience is powered on again, you have those apps running again. It's comparable to hibernate mode on a computer. While that feature is not unique (as Android fanboys and trolls have clearly pointed out), the way it was implemented is very unique itself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I hate to burst your bubble but your iphone never actually turns off. That is why you think the RAM is non volatile.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, yeah it actually does fully turn off...basically you hold the power button until a "Slide to power off" thing shows up on the screen. You turn it off by following the basic instruction it gives you. And he may be wrong but you are dead wrong too...the apps that are still running...saves to the flash memmory on the device and transfers back to RAM after the device is booted back up.
        
        You keep on asking the same questions and yet you still dog Wally when he answers, explains, or justifies his reasoning to HIS thoughts... Why is that??? Maybe it's because your just a worthless piece of shit troll using proxies....maybe you lost an arguement more than 3 times in a row. Either way a) he was right and you never held or handled an iPhone or iPod in your life, b) are just a troll not worth Wally's time even though he blindly goes along with your trolling just to be nice (trust me I've seen him mean on here it's not something you want), and c) Never bark or bawk at someone else's thoughts...especially if they are an ignorant thought in your eyes...when it's rationally thought out, you look more stupid questioning him and thus expose yourself to be a very ignorant fanboy and troll...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 2:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wally is claiming that the way it hibernates is unique. When it clearly isn't. He cannot accept that he is wrong.
        He blabered on about Alpha particles which have about as much to do with an ipod as a cheese toastie.
        
        Ok so you slide a button instead of pressing it. That is just ridiculous. To say it is unique is like saying pressing icons on a touchscreen is different to clicking them with a mouse.
        
        And no I am not using proxies, I am not the only one arguing with Wally.
        
        Wally is a massive fan of Apple and cannot accept that Apple have patents for completely obvious things. The other phone manufacturers are in the same boat, which nobody here is denying, but no other company has declared patent war like apple has. You only have to look at the number of lawsuits they have started over their obvious patents in the last few years.
        
        And yes I do own several iPods, I used to own several Macs too. But I don't like the way the current incarnation of Apple behaves to competing companies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't help but notice he's arguing with Anonymous Coward trolls such as yourself who keep asking the same questions and keep trying to use Strawman and TL/DNR to basically throw in insults. Why can't you just leave him the fuck alone? I notice you bawk when ever he mentiones Apple Computer Inc. in his comment.
        
        Unlike you I, and most of the other useres on TechDirt who actually hold accounts, can actually read between the lines when Wally writes. His entire point, before some asshole AC troll like yourself decided to detail his point, was simply that this whole situation was bupkis. Seriously, a patent on how calls are handled??? Or better yet, a standard numeric keypad??? You know Wally doesn't respond well to blatant stupidity and people who troll or don't read between the lines.
        
        Now if you had actually read what he wrote in Threaded mode instead of using flattened mode, you might actually be a lot less confused.
        
        If you own an iPod touch, you would have know the device turns off completely. By saying this "I hate to burst your bubble but the device never fully turns off," you have shown to be nothing more than an ignorant troll. What's sad is that you haven't taken the time to explore your Apple product enough to realize it shuts off completely.
        
        How does it feel being called out in TLDNR??? You like it so far??? I bet not as you are likely to continue digging in on Wally for no apparent reason.
        
        You lost your argument with him and now me...back the fuck off because you are looking more and more like a troll the more you respond to me and force me to give you a long winded speech where I call you out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Unlike you I, and most of the other useres on TechDirt who actually hold accounts"
        
        I would like to stop you there.
        
        You are posting as an AC, same as me.
        And you are defending Wally with a similar writing style, almost like you could be the same person?
        
        I am not a troll just because I disagree with Wally.
        He has yet to actually beat any argument against him. He is defending the indefensible, all these patent battles are anti innovation and anti consumer. No matter which company starts it.
        
        He always rejoices when apple wins and crys when apple looses. I sigh each time I hear about it but laugh when Apple looses multiple fights they start.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He always rejoices when apple wins and crys when apple looses. I sigh each time I hear about it but laugh when Apple looses multiple fights they start."
        Oh you "never directly accuse" me of fanboyi because that's what sock pupating is. Yet again this statement also proves your bias against Apple in general so you will try to debunk anything I say using the same adhom arguements that you accuse me of. I simply said that Apple had a unique way and your bias showed.
        Now the problem you have is that you just set up a trap for yourself. You claim to know how to shut off an iPhone or iPod touch and then claim it doesn't fully shut off...why? Because you know a lot about the product you "own" and "have an electronics engineering degree". You don't support their ethics at all yet you still buy their products?? If that's the case why don't you not support Apple but not buying their products? This means you're a troll.
        
        Conversely you also said:
        "I am not a troll just because I disagree with Wally.
        He has yet to actually beat any argument against him. He is defending the indefensible, all these patent battles are anti innovation and anti consumer. No matter which company starts it."
        
        The fact that you are sock pupating for a negative reaction out of me proves otherwise. I mean really, you sound smart but your intelligence is not applied too well towards Apple because of your apparent bias toward them. Don't try to cite my lack of knowledge on Android as the same reason because honestly, I felt iOS a better interface for my needs. It suits what I need out of a phone as much as Android would suit someone else's needs.
        
        Your crying because people are noting that even if it is Apple at the butt end of this clearly obvious problem in the patent system, it's still wrong.
        
        Do you care to argue against me on subject?? Or do you wish to continue making yourself look like a troll by derailing the subject in general?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh and since your too darn lazy to switch to Treheaded mode I'll make it easier in you to just shut your pie hole before attacking me because of a supposed bias towards Apple.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/12173921379/live-patent-die-patent-apple-loses-p atent-lawsuit-over-sony-nokia-patents.shtml#c908
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 11:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are obviously confusing me with another AC.
        
        I have never mentioned android.
        
        However you did log out and post as an AC to defend yourself.
        
        I don't give a shit what you think is a better interface. I use neither android nor iOS. I think that it is stupid that apple try to fight the competition in the court room rather than actually innovate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean when a device is reset it clears its memory and restart all their processes again from a clean state?
      
      WTF is wrong with you?
      
      Also if you take the time to research you will find that the patents brought by Apple don't involve functions of the Android, I mean come on, Apple sued Samsung with "design patents" the same BS Nokia is using against Apple now, if Apple can sue for rounded corners, icon alignment, why can't Nokia sue for button configuration?
      
      Maybe you brain shuts down when it perceives a threat to something you like and stop processing rational thoughts but others are not affected by that bias of yours and we do see the similarities.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Also if you take the time to research you will find that the patents brought by Apple don't involve functions of the Android, I mean come on, Apple sued Samsung with "design patents" the same BS Nokia is using against Apple now, if Apple can sue for rounded corners, icon alignment, why can't Nokia sue for button configuration?"
        
        Hooray!!! You finally got my point!!!!! I simply said the issue, regardless of it being full circle on Apple, shouldn't have happened in the first place. Yes some design patents are sketchy, though you can easily use different angled round corners...it's based on a 3 dimensional shape so a depth and azimuth angle are included by the way...ugh tangent...point is simply that the difference is that when you look at implementation of certain features for which Nokia and Sony's shell company is suing Apple for, the patent's aren't even referable to the iPhone and are therefore far more sketchy than Apple's supposed patent on rounded corners.
        
        Now to step onto subject as it seems people like to troll...this is an indication that the patent war has gone far enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 8:08pm

The thing I don't get it, if one of the purposes is to disclose the invention and that was one of the biggest sell points for implementing patents in the first place.

WTF design is allowed to be patented since it will be disclosed anyways if you ever try to sell anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 11:36pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly, and by getting a design patent you give advance warning of your plans. If you waited until it was on the shelves instead you'd have a bigger jump on the competition (unless someone leaks it of course).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    This is mistly why Apple and Samsung are in a debate right now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 3:16am

poor old cash strapped Apple !!! what are they going to do now. They REALLY needed that money.... !

their kids only have one pair of shoes to wear, they have to take turns !..

how dare they 'die by the sword'.. yes, this will certainly DESTROY Apple !. GONE !!!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 5:29am
  
  Re:
  Does it make it right to get revenge??? Or just to drop the arguments altogether? The choice is yours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    None of the above.
    
    It just makes us all laugh and cry about how messed up the US patent system is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Exactly!!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 6:21am

It's funny how most here seem to think these companies have a choice to engage in the patent system or just ignore it.

Clearly it is impossible to ignore it, because if you don't bother to patent your developments then someone else will and go try to make money from you, or worse, customers.

and if you have a patent on a certain method, and you find someone else using that method without a patent, you are DUTY BOUND to act, you cannot simply ignore it and 'let it slide'.

you seem to think these companies have motives that are not related to growing their product, their customer base and their bottom line, and to serve the shareholders (owners) of the company.

Do you really think the board of directors would hold those positions if they sided with "let it slide" attitude to threats to their business?

Of course not, they would be voted out at the next GM.

They are also not doing anything wrong, they paid good money for those patents, either by in house development or in purchasing it off the person or group who did.

It is illegal to encroach on existing patents, and the only people with the responsibility to ensure it is not violated is the person, group or company that owns that patent.

Does not matter what you think of "the system" it is what it is, it is what we have to work with, you might want it changed, that's fine, but until it is changed, it is the rules you have to abide by to conduct business.

so, like it or not, does not matter, you don't matter, unless you are a major shareholder, or a director of the company given the responsibility to actually RUN the company, grow the company and protect the company, and act in the companies best interests.

Letting patents you have 'slide' because it will make the likes of Masnick all warm and fuzzy is not going to help your customers, shareholders or your own job.

So where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide where that line is?
Do you let all patent violations go, and let other companies create exact clones of your product, making your product just one of many, or do you just go after some patents, and let others slide, who gets to choose, and why have you given the companies who have violated your patents a loophole to ignore other patents you hold.

You just cant do that in the real world, in the real world there are laws and rules and an established system, of course you don't agree with all the rules and laws, but they are what they are, they are NOT something you want them to be.

As they are what they are, until they are changed that is the set of rules and laws under which you function.

It's just like the man who killed a small child doing 60mph in a school zone, what are you going to do, tell us all the speed limit law in schools zones is "not right"?

That's what is trying to be done here, it's not the rules that are wrong or the problem.

It's the enforcement and application of the rules, you cant let people drive 60mph in a school zone, just because they have never hit a child, just as you cant let one patent go unchallenged then expect to be listened too when you want another one challenged.

it's either you engage the patent system and compete like everyone in the open market, under the same laws and rules or you don't compete at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  "That's what is trying to be done here, it's not the rules that are wrong or the problem."
  
  The reason I think there's a problem with the patent system is that the blatant trolling cases aren't dropped with prejudice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  It's funny how most here seem to think these companies have a choice to engage in the patent system or just ignore it.
  
  I think you're misreading the room. Most here think companies have a choice as to whether or not to sue.
  
  if you have a patent on a certain method, and you find someone else using that method without a patent, you are DUTY BOUND to act, you cannot simply ignore it and 'let it slide'.
  
  Absolutely not true. Perhaps you're confusing patents with trademarks. Even if it were true, there's still a whole spectrum of responses between "do nothing" and "all-out war".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 10:32am
  
  Re:
  Quote:
  and if you have a patent on a certain method, and you find someone else using that method without a patent, you are DUTY BOUND to act, you cannot simply ignore it and 'let it slide'.
  
  Don't see it, there is no "duty bound" in attacking others unless is self defense.
  
  Quote:
  Do you really think the board of directors would hold those positions if they sided with "let it slide" attitude to threats to their business?
  
  If the company is profiting who cares?
  You seem to think that the board of directors have a clue about how to run the company, most boards have no idea, they parachuted in and have no compass to guide them, they have no bearing except for the money flow, if it is flowing well they don't care.
  
  That is the true measure of success on any board of director you will ever set foot, people smile and say nice things when everything is ok even if they have reservation because they also know in the back of their heads that they might be wrong.
  
  Quote:
  It is illegal to encroach on existing patents, and the only people with the responsibility to ensure it is not violated is the person, group or company that owns that patent.
  
  Does not matter what you think of "the system" it is what it is, it is what we have to work with, you might want it changed, that's fine, but until it is changed, it is the rules you have to abide by to conduct business.
  
  In the day to day business yes that is true, in planing for the future you are wrong it does matter, if it is hurting everyone than we should change it and debate it, flame it, discuss it, fight over it until we find something, anything that everyone can agree on or at least the majority of people who will help enforce it to the minority. The key aspect is this "strong majority" with the capability to enforce its term on the weak minority, the law is of no consequence if it can't be enforced, rules are useless if they are not enforceable and I have yet to see any unnatural monopolist BS stick for very long without disappearing or being tone down a lot.
  
  Quote:
  So where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide where that line is?
  
  The stronger side. fair or not it is how it is going to be and no the government is not the strongest side, it can't do anything against millions of individuals that work on their own to undermine something.
  
  Quote:
  It's just like the man who killed a small child doing 60mph in a school zone, what are you going to do, tell us all the speed limit law in schools zones is "not right"?
  
  Maybe is not right at all, if it happens only once in a while you can get the law to be enforced, but if it happens all the time and a lot of children keep losing their lifes because of it will you tell all those parents that the law is there and be done with it?
  Of course not you find a new way to deal with the situation, because it became clear that the law alone could not solve the problem and a new approach is needed.
  
  Quote:
  That's what is trying to be done here, it's not the rules that are wrong or the problem.
  
  The rules are exactly what is wrong, they push the incentives in the wrong direction and force everyone to act like bastards and a bastard market you get.
  
  Legally people need to follow those rules, for now, but pressure will build up to change that situation in one way or another.
  
  Granting monopolies is not a wise decision it may seem easy and logical to some but it ignores the strong majority that will at some point make itself known, there is nothing that unify people more than the threat of exclusion from being able to work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2012 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  Youtube: Speed Camera Set on Fire
  
  There is a new sport developing all over the world, people are setting fire to speed cameras everywhere, is the new hobby for a lot of people.
  
  http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/13/baltimore-city-dot-vandal-sets-two-mobile-speed- cameras-on-fire/
  
  You see, because it is just a few people doing it and it is not something widespread the loses can be absorbed by that system, if everyone start torching those things that system will not be able to coupe with the amount of damaged done to it and will have to be rethink.
  
  Could you imagine having to bring thousands of people to court?
  
  Would they try to say that the system works fine and that all those people who disagree are just criminals and ignore it?
  
  Right that will lead to one inevitable consequence. Revolution.
  
  That is why governments don't do it, no matter how right they think they are, but somehow some people believe it will be different with granted monopolies, I don't think so, as people gain the ability to produce their own goods and services those monopolies will either end or be ended.
  
  Granted monopolies may make sense in non crowded space where ideas are hard to come by, but in a market place with millions of brains trying to solve the same problems that is not an incentive it is a barrier and it will be removed eventually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregg, 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:26am

It's a make work project for Lawyers. They advise, create and execute these stupid law suits, and the only ones who gain from it are the lawyers.

Companies don't really make money off of them
Injunctions only increase demand of competitors products
Law Suits make companies look bad and people take sides
and bottom line...products end up being very very expensive.

Businesses and People loose in the end.

There should be laws on patent trolls however! I'd say, if you own a patent and you haven't done anything with in in 3 years, you loose the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  This...this is the voice of reason....you just got my insightful vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
staff, 14 Dec 2012 @ 10:15am

more dissembling by Masnick
'It's a complete waste of time and money (all of which could be going towards actual innovation)'

If you cant own it, why build it? Would you build a house you could not own or where everyone else could move in with you?

Now more than ever small entities need strong property rights including the ability to exclude others from using our inventions without permission. Without them we cannot get funded and commercialize. Without strong property rights China and other low wage foreign nations will keep steam rolling us. Considering we create the lions share of new jobs here at home, America cannot afford to undermine us.

http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 14 Dec 2012 @ 4:31pm
  
  Re: more dissembling by Masnick
  Dude, your a shill from a company known for patent trolling. Strong properties rights for small entities also means the same rights are applied to patent trolls. So why are you making that argument?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]