US Patent Office Invalidates Apple's "Rubber Banding" Patent 213
bhagwad writes "The patent that was the cause of so much grief to Samsung in the recently concluded trial with Apple has been tentatively invalidated by the USPTO. The challenge was filed anonymously, but it obviously could have been filed by any smartphone manufacturer. Will this have an effect on further proceedings in the case or perhaps more importantly on the inevitable appeal?"
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
This is what the rascal Florian Mueller has to say: Apple's rubber-banding (overscroll-bounce) patent is still going to go through a lengthy proces before it may or may not be invalidated. There can be more than one non-final Office action by the Central Reexamination Division. Even a "final Office action" is not final at all. It can be reconsidered by the Central Reexamination Division itself, and the last decision by that division can be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which used to be called the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) until recently and is like an USPTO-internal appeals court. Remands by the PTAB to the Central Reexamination Division cause further delay. When the USPTO is done with the patent, its decision can be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And theoretically, a Federal Circuit decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which doesn't hear many patent validity cases (but does take a look at important issues from time to time).
Apple has many patents in play against Android. It doesn't matter in a strategic sense if some of them, or even many of them, get invalidated. It just needs to enforce enough of them to ensure product differentiation. The '381 patent covers a signature element of the iOS touchscreen user interface, and Apple is going to fight hard to keep it alive. But at the end of the day it's just one of many patents-in-suit.
Someone needs to whip this scoundrel a 1000 lashes on his bare buttocks until he understands what shit he is spouting as a so-called 'expert' on patents.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what the rascal Florian Mueller has to say:
I stopped reading there, anything Florian Mueller has to say is irrelevant.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what the rascal Florian Mueller has to say:
I stopped reading there, anything Florian Mueller has to say is irrelevant.
Can somebody please offer a cluebat to the BBC, who keep quoting him as though anything he has to say is worthwhile? Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You wrong him. He does understand. He just doesn't care as long as he gets paid.
P.S.: Most of what it was reported that he said (by the parent) was correct, even though the weighing he gave to the various pieces is readily disputable. I'm sorry that it's unpleasant, but it's true. The USPTO is a *huge* obstacle to anyone who wants to innovate, even if they have deep pockets. If they don't ... when the trolls decide to notice you you've got to either find a buyer with deep pockets or die.
That said, AFA
Re: (Score:3)
The process is far from over or certain, but as far as we know, we are dealing with a single patent and 2 claims, where Oracle v. Google (by the time the claims has been narrowed) dealt with (I think) 7 different pa
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
And rather too late. Apple clearly knows that it's idiotic patents won't hold up in the long run. What counts is that a competitor was hamstrung for some period of time. The object of the game isn't to ban products; Apple knows perfectly well that sooner or later the bulk of its patents are going to be rejected. The point is to cripple competition just long enough to release its own products.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
If they go after the small fries, it will be years down the road before the will affect their main competitor (Samsung, at this point). During that time S3, Note2, etc will be "stealing" customers from Apple.
On the flip side, they go after the big-boy first to stop the leak while it's small, but have a bigger fight on their hands.
I think they saw what happened last time (Mac vs PC), saw weapons they could use (Patents) and went with it. In one respect, it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the strategy if the goal was a slow win of money from Android. Apple genuinely believes Android infringed and their primary goal was to force Android to start forking their look and feel design away from Apple. That's likely been achieved as the systems are forking more and there is less copying.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple genuinely believes Android infringed...
Apple does not genuinely believe anything except that it must defend its margins by fair means or foul.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is a morally bankrupt organization. The day it became apparent to all was the day they had their San Jose police friends break down the front door of a journalist. Apple disgusts me. Any further questions?
Re: (Score:2)
They disgust you so what? That doesn't change the facts of what they do.
As for busting down the door of a journalist, Jason Chen had a warrant issued against him by a judge for theft. I happen to agree that the judge never should have issued the warrant against Chen under the Privacy Protection Act . But the party responsible here for violating the law is the state of California. It is not Apple's job to enforce the Privacy Protection Act.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not uncommon for the victim of a crime to be allowed to help recover their stolen items.
For example if you were mugged and the mugger was caught a block down you would be involved in the "that's my watch", "that's my wallet", "no that pen is his".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh give me a break. Apple is a for-profit company. That means it will use whatever tools are its disposal to disadvantage competition. This whole notion that Apple is trying to help the industry be more innovative, that somehow it is being pragmatic in its lawsuits based on very dubious patents that are very unlikely with withstand scrutiny (as is now happening), is total bunk. The very fact that Apple must certainly know how iffy these patents are belies your claim. The whole purpose is to slow adoption of
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is a corporation. Corporations do not have beliefs. Steve Jobs believed that Android stole their look and feel from Apple. (Or possible he believed that it stole something else, it's hard to be certain.) Apple accomodated Jobs belief. Perhaps the current CEO also believes that. Perhaps he's just being loyal to the memory of Jobs. It's hard to tell.
Their lawyers probably don't believe that anything was stolen. The engineers probably don't believe that anything was stolen. In these cases though
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a corporation. Corporations do not have beliefs
I disagree. Human societies depend on a tremendous amount of shared culture to function. Corporations are highly organized human societies.
As for the rest regarding the lawyers. I don't know what council thinks. That being said, behavior changes belief so I'd tend to think that more likely than not having argued this case and thought about it deeply their beliefs have come into alignment with Job's beliefs.
As for lawyer ethics, I'd like to see gr
Re: (Score:3)
Apple actually went after HTC first. They went after Samsung second (but before the HTC case was resolved.)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Qualcomm, Ericsson, RIM, Intel, Huawei and Nokia are unlikely to join any IP counter offensive against Apple because they don't sell smartphone handsets, license technology to both sides or benefit from suppressing Android (Nokia/RIM). But LG, Motorola (Google) and HTC have a vested interest in defending Android and between them have substantial IP portfolios. It's important to note that these companies can not refuse to license their Standard Essential Patents, however Apple has so far refused to negotiate and has pursued a litigation strategy. Apple is not totally without ammunition in the telcomm patents; they were part of the coalition that purchased Nortel's IP, but most of the Nortel portfolio was already cross licensed to other standards contributors so are more useful for defensive purposes. Cross license agreements do not however protect Apple from having to negotiate FRAND license fees with the appropriate patent holders. If they refuse to negotiate, injunctions are in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Signs of life from the USPTO
This rejection means nothing. Something like 90% of first office actions are rejections. That's just how the USPTO does business, and it's how they've done business for a long time. Even a "final" rejection isn't final. It just means you have to pay more money to keep arguing with the examiner. And you can keep doing that for as long as you're willing to continue paying the fee to go "one more round."
This is a very run-of-the-mill rejection. The court will probably just ignore it. Until the patent is for-real-finally rejected by the patent office (meaning it's been more than six months since the examiner issued an office action and Apple hasn't responded), the patent is strongly presumed to be valid.
This ends the educational portion of today's episode of Slashdot. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled trolling, flame-baiting, karma-whoring, and Microsoft-bashing.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
> This rejection means nothing.
It means quite a bit: an invalidated patent cannot be the basis for an injunction.
Wooo (Score:5, Insightful)
Seen this on terminals long ago think they were zerox, while it didnt bounce it did behave like it had weight an friction. Oh I forgot "On a Cell Phone"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wooo (Score:4, Funny)
It would be fitting to see Looney Tunes referenced in a patent office filing now wouldn't it?
Re:Wooo (Score:5, Funny)
Hate it (Score:4, Interesting)
The annoying thing about it is, rubber banding works sometimes, but not always.
The rule seems to be that rubber banding is activated only when the display contains scrollable content.
They should make it behave the same way, regardless of whether the content is scrollable.
Geez... it really gets me irritated, such basic UI concept and they can't even get it right.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused. Why would there be scrolling semantics when there is no scrolling? Do you want to see scroll bars when there's no scrolling content too?
Re:Hate it (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what he's saying is that if there was a rubber band effect, it would confirm that the device accepted his scrolling command but also show him that it's not supposed to scroll.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct :)
Re: (Score:2)
That might not be too bad. How else would you know that there was scrolling content short of an impotent attempt to scroll? (Thinking of those scroll bars that only appear while you're scrolling, but are otherwise not visible.)
I'm sure that there's a better way. The point is that it's not completely ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas if the behaviour was consistent and it rubberbands, it means the OS got your input just fine.
Re:Hate it (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't the fact that the content doesn't scroll at all (i.e., that there is no rubber banding effect) provide the exact same information?
Not really. I've had scrollable content not scroll at all because the iOS was stalled out thinking. Then I've had content that looked like it was supposed to scroll but gave no feedback. Made me wonder if the iOS was stalled out again or if it really wasn't scrollable. At least the MacOS has the beachball on the cursor to let you know when the OS is stuck on itself.
You'd still have to make an "impotent attempt to scroll" to see the rubber band effect so it really doesn't save any steps, and iOS is generally responsive enough that if it doesn't scroll when you try you know that that's on purpose and not the OS lagging behind input.
The "generally" being in your experience, not in mine nor my associates.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't the fact that the content doesn't scroll at all (i.e., that there is no rubber banding effect) provide the exact same information?
Not really. I've had scrollable content not scroll at all because the iOS was stalled out thinking. Then I've had content that looked like it was supposed to scroll but gave no feedback.
You'd still have to make an "impotent attempt to scroll" to see the rubber band effect so it really doesn't save any step
You're both holding it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
B: Har har.
Re: (Score:3)
the HP touchpad does that (Score:2)
In it's web browser...try to scroll on a non-scrollable webpage, and the whole screen shifts up somewhat then snaps back into place when you lift your finger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
never used an iphone, but n9 does it exactly like you want ;)
Same ol' stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't this crap happening DURING the trial?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why can't it happen BEFORE the trial is a much better question.
Re: (Score:2)
Less drama and headlines for the media.
stupidest question ever? (Score:2)
Will this have an effect on further proceedings in the case or perhaps more importantly on the inevitable appeal?
Yes.
oh dear, uspto..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:oh dear, uspto..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally I remember reading an article where some guy, an 'activist' judge or similar decided that he wanted the USPO to behave in a stamp-and-approve manner and let the courts sort out any fall-out, disputes etc, after the fact. He and others convinced a whole slew of other people and the USPO became the anti-competitive malign tumour in the body of innovation and competition that it is today, feeding lawyers and their families and paying for their second homes and yachts, while legitimate businesses
Re: (Score:2)
That's not totally true. The USPTO was famous for bad patents even before Regan arranged for them to be a "self supporting" part of the government. And while it's true that there was a quick uptick in nearly anything being patentable, and in people who rejected patent applications getting poor performance evaluations, it wasn't as dramatic as you are implying. There are other reasons. (Like not being specialists in all the areas in which they are required to evaluate patents. As the number and speciali
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh dear, uspto..... (Score:5, Interesting)
But isn't that the ideal way to run government? Like a business? Instead of stealing our hard-earned money?
There are arguments to be made in favor of running certain aspects of government like a business(if our national parks got to set ticket prices according to actual demand, they'd have a lot less trouble with understaffing and overcrowding...); but there are some issues to watch out for:
1. If you are a business, you have 'customers' and you are beholden(sooner or later) to provide 'customer service'. Be very careful that your 'customers' are the same people that it is your mission to serve and that 'customer service' is the same product that it is your mission to provide. This is a particular problem with government departments that have regulatory functions. In terms of day-to-day interaction, shared professional backgrounds and skill sets, etc. the 'customer' is usually the party who needs to be kept in line; but the mission of the department is the protection of the public(who should be the 'customer'; but who the regulators rarely interact with). In the case of the USPTO, the de-facto 'customer' ends up being the patent applicant, not the vague, voiceless, largely inchoate mass of 'people who don't want inefficiencies introduced by bad patents'. It's natural enough, and likely to progress even faster if the entity is overwhelmed by its caseload, or if there is a revolving door between USPTO examiners and corporate patent attorneys(which, even in the absence of corruption of any kind, the fact that similar skills are required by both jobs tends to mean will happen to some degree).
(To end on a positive note) The institution of 'Agricultural extension programs', typically associated(in the US) with the research programmes and faculty experts at local Land-Grant Colleges and Universities that operates reasonably successfully as a sort of 'like a business; but in a broad sense' program. Their objective is the improvement of agricultural standards and outcomes in their area, through consultation and expertise on local conditions, pests, etc. along with research made possible in part through access to the data gathered by working with the agricultural population at large, and often offering certain soil testing, analytical, and pest identification services at accessible prices. These aren't "like a business" in the sense that they are run for-profit, and they do have a basic research, R&D, and educational mission; but they are operated as an essentially pragmatic, productivity and profit improving, adjunct to private agriculture in their region.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a pretty good way to handle that. You have two agencies that are staffed very differently.
A is a pro business commerce group that is involved and coordination
B is an hostile agency that goes after the worst offenders
For example on environmental regulation of coal
A is staffed by people from the coal industry and people from West Virginia, Ohio...
B is staffed by people from wildlife preservation from California, New York....
That way in terms of regulation A plays good cop and B plays bad
Re:oh dear, uspto..... (Score:4, Insightful)
But isn't that the ideal way to run government? Like a business? Instead of stealing our hard-earned money?
...
I really, really hope that's sarcasm...
If not, I'll make you a deal: I'll get the government to stop "stealing your money," and in return, you stop using the services and infrastructure that "stolen money" pays for.
Re: (Score:2)
you stop using the services and infrastructure that "stolen money" pays for
Hmmm...I pay some $4000 dollars a year for schools. I don't have kids. Why am I paying for other peoples crotch fruit to be baby sat (and maybe even learn a little) 8 hours a day.
I'm in the same boat, and I always found it stupid.
OTOH, it gives you an excuse to mandate what the kids are taught, even if you don't have any that attend the school, like this asshole did. [wordpress.com]
I doubt that situation will change, unless in-district pedophiles start mandating mini-skirt school uniforms for kindergartners, or some equally sick shit.
I'll gladly pay for services I use. Mind you I'd expect complete openness about how that money is being spent. Quarterly reports on what was payed to who for what and the like. Kinda like SOX for the government. When I pay for something from a business I usually have some selections to choose from. Features are detailed and limitations are typically reported on.
Agreed. Mind you, I wasn't in any way implying the government is (ever) right, or that they (ever) spend our money on the right things, just pointing out how on
Re: (Score:2)
"Obscene copyright laws" are not what allows them to charge outrageous amounts for what are, essentially, non-existent goods; market demand does.
No, it's obscene copyright laws which are essentially perpetual. A perpetual government granted monopoly is as anti-market as you can get. They can cherge that price because there is no market.
Re: (Score:2)
"Obscene copyright laws" are not what allows them to charge outrageous amounts for what are, essentially, non-existent goods; market demand does.
No, it's obscene copyright laws which are essentially perpetual. A perpetual government granted monopoly is as anti-market as you can get. They can cherge that price because there is no market.
Incorrect; think about this from a base, supply vs demand standpoint: Regardless of draconian copyright laws, If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these pa
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect; think about this from a base, supply vs demand standpoint: Regardless of draconian copyright laws, If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
You're missing the key point here. Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them. I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competiti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses the services of the EPA? Or the military? Or the FCC? Who wants to pay for it?
Strange. I don't see anywhere that I stated I wouldn't pay for a military or any other "common good" services. My only condition there was openness and accountability for how those funds were spent. Neither of those exist and our government is rapidly heading in the direction of keeping more and more secret.
I don't see supporting other peoples kids as a "common good". You want to have kids, you take responsibility for them. Make parents responsible for their crotch fruit rather than society.
Grow up.
I AM grown up. I
It at first you are rejected...try again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Chances are that it was rejected the first time. And the second time. And the third time...
You see, when Apple doesn't get a patent approved, they just change a few words and keep trying. Take for example the '604 patent. It was rejected twice in 2007, three times in 2008, once in 2009, twice in 2010 and once in 2011. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all [nytimes.com] )
Finally it got approved (tenth time is the charm!).
Re: (Score:3)
Well, actually, it was largely approved the first time, in an earlier patent that Apple filed (which was only granted after this one was filed), that's one of the reasons many of the claims in this patent are being rejected.
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent situation has gotten completely out of control. What was once the very capitalist means to inspire and reward creativity is now the very anti-capitalist means to stifle competition and commit lawfare.
The patent system need to be reformed as badly as any government run bureaucracy ever has. It's not just in the US either, these problems are epidemic on a world wide scale. When lawyers become more important in product development than engineers you know the system has reached a crisis point.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that patents were ever about "inspiring creativity". They were always about protecting your "invention" from competition.
I really don't think patents serve any socially useful purpose. They are just create monopolies on ideas which are exploited by corporations. The result is that the consumer has less choice and higher costs (and companies higher profits).
Anything that can be copied just by looking at it is "obvious" by definition and shouldn't be eligible for a patent. Things such as indu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a nice theory but history has shown that it rarely works this way.
Usually what happens is that "large corporation" copies the idea and tells the inventor to take a hike. Small inventor doesn't have money to sue so takes a hike.
The only time you see patent trials are when two large companies are battling it out. Small inventors usually get screwed if they can't sell out to large corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that patents were ever about "inspiring creativity". They were always about protecting your "invention" from competition.
Unless we're talking about inventions created by the likes of Mother Theresa, those two are often one in the same.
Why should I waste time inventing something, if I can't make money off of it? Nothing wrong with altruism, but I've got a household to feed.
I really don't think patents serve any socially useful purpose. They are just create monopolies on ideas which are exploited by corporations. The result is that the consumer has less choice and higher costs (and companies higher profits).
Then you don't understand the true purpose of patents (not that I blame you; there's been a lot of intentional obfuscation of that topic over recent years); I'll give an example:
My dad is an inventor. He designs accessories for various types of "toy" t
The government is afraid of the implications (Score:2, Insightful)
The USPTO, with these bogus patents, is basically creating value out of nothing. I think the reason the gov't won't touch patent reform with a 10 foot pole is that the US economy doesn't produce anything anymore, and the destruction of this bogus value is the destruction of one of the only things the US produces anymore. Its like they think we can hoodwink the world into believing there's a significant value to 1-click and a stupid rubber band GUI effect. Yes, there's some value to these, but right now i
Re: (Score:2)
More like the corporate lobbyists with their truck loads of cash are telling the government not to touch patent reform with a 10 foot pole.
Re: (Score:2)
You should make an account so more people will bother to read your contributions.
USPTO pay for lawyer fees? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uncited Theft from Academia (Score:5, Interesting)
Look in HCI this stuff has been done since forever. Academics got really interested in touch technologies in the early 2000s. They've been used spring decay to make "nicer" and more natural interfaces ever since.
Many patents out there are IP theft. They are stealing from public institutions and patenting technology that has been developed in academia.
Re: (Score:2)
Many patents out there are IP theft. They are stealing from public institutions and patenting technology that has been developed in academia.
Not really IP theft because there is no such thing. Ideas are not property. Instead it's a business method based on a lawful falsehood. Let the public pay the costs of developing new ideas, including in universities. A private business then pays for fictional but legal "ownership" of the idea. Then the private business make the profits. In a fair world, the business would give profits back to the public via taxes. In the US part of the world, businesses spend some of the profits on lobbying for reduced taxe
Prior Art from Apple (Score:4, Informative)
What the linked article doesn't mention, but this one does [arstechnica.com] is that one of the prior art patents that invalidates the "rubber band" patent is owned by the same Apple employee that owns the "rubber band" patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, there are examples done in Macromedia Flash that basically used the same concept. Albeit, maybe reversed. But still, enough of a similar concept to prove that there was NO invention at play.
*tentatively* (Score:2)
That's a key word there...
No point in getting excited about this yet.
Who knows how long it will be, if ever, that they actually follow through with it?
real smart strategy there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So now they get no Google maps renewal guaranteed, no screens from Samsung for any products, no licensing for anything Samsung owns, serious 4G LTE patent problems, everyone else in the entire industry hates them and it actively trying to destroy them, and they don't even get their 1 billion in all likelihood. Wow, great business strategy there, Apple.
Apple is doing just great financially, so yes it is a good business strategy.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm [sec.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
on iOS there is a cool effect
say you want to refresh a page. you scroll down just a bit, let your finger off the screen and the data/text bounces back and forth a bit like a rubber band
pure eye candy and cool
Re:What is it about? (Score:5, Informative)
You're describing pull to refresh, not rubber banding. It's a different, but I would agree somewhat related, idea than the rubber band effect, and Twitter actually owns the pull to refresh patent, not Apple.
Rubber banding is when you get to the end of a scroll view, the view continues to scroll a bit past where it's supposed to while showing a generic background (it's now the grey linen on iOS, can't remember what it used to be), then bounces back to the top of the screen. This provides a visual indicator that you've reached the end of the scrollable area.
I won't argue that this should be a patentable idea, but if it were only "eye candy" and not functional in some way every other smart phone maker wouldn't be trying to/have already implemented (and removed for fear of litigation in the case of Android) it.
Re:What is it about? (Score:5, Informative)
What does the patented "Rubber Banding" do...
Rubber banding happens, when you try to scroll past the content, your screen will scroll a little beyond the content and then bounce back. This gives the user a visual feedback that device is responding to the input (trying to scroll) and that device is not frozen; thus, making the experience less frustrating.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have a scroll bar that indicates how many content your can scroll and where in the document you are?
Re: (Score:2)
That's way too useful.
Next you'll want to be able to use the scroll bar to quickly and accurately more to a different part of the document.
Consumer don't want utility, after all, they want to swipe swipe swipe away!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone else care to add to the list of misinformation on things Apple and their fans claim Apple invented?
The rectangle.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: So how do I
Tech Support: Just press the button.
Q: But what about
Tech Support: Press the button.
Q: or
Tech Support: Press the button.
Q: Oh crap, now it's shut down and I've lost all my work!
Tech Support: Don't ever press that button!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, 'rubber banding' on all mainframes with touchscreen interfaces is still safe...
Re: (Score:3)
It's irrelevant. Legal fees are simply the entry fee to the arena. That's the ticket price. The goal of the game is to hamstring your competition. Apple wins even when it loses, because it takes six to nine months for a challenge to a patent to even make a ripple, meanwhile the courts, being forced through lack of meaningful expertise, pretty much give the complainant the power of the state to shut the border to competition until such time as the patent is invalidated.
The patent system has turned the courts
Re:About time.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes and No. Selectively discarding a single one in one side of such important case is only confirming to Companies fill thousands of shitty patent every years, that it is a valid strategy, because they get invalidated only in the most extreme condition, and not even consistently.
Something good would have been for the USPTO to re-evaluate the whole patent portfolio of both Samsung and Apple and invalidate all the obvious one, regardless if they were cited in a lawsuit or not. THAT would have scared patent trolls and other silly patent hoarder (i.e. all the big companies).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like doing their job? That should have been done when this patent was filed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup...
Samsung just adjusted their next quarterly profit estimates up $500 million.