The Strange History of Apple and FlatWorld 89
Fnord666 writes "When a company called FlatWorld Interactives LLC filed suit against Apple just over a year ago, it looked like a typical 'patent troll' lawsuit against a tech company, brought by someone who no longer had much of a business beyond lawsuits. Court documents unsealed this week reveal who's behind FlatWorld, and it's anything but typical. FlatWorld is partly owned by the named inventor on the patents, a Philadelphia design professor named Slavko Milekic. But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at one of Apple's own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. E-mail logs show that the attorney, John McAleese, worked together with his wife and began planning a wide-ranging patent attack against Apple's touch-screen products in January 2007—just days after the iPhone was revealed to the world."
Re: (Score:2)
At the iPhone introduction, Job said Apple "patented the hell out of it."
Nice fanboy modding going on. Like it or not, the quote is not fiction.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/21/the-apple-vs-samsung-patent-dispute-20-talking-points/2/
http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/handheld/apple-beats-competition-with-design-and/240006830
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22patented+the+hell+out+of+it%22
Too late (Score:4, Funny)
Jobs is already dead.
Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Am a lawyer, just because your firm has ties doesn't mean every attorney is tied to the company. As long as the attorney is effectively screened from any work involved with the company there is no conflict. It's rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.10 (1.9 is duty to former clients). If this guy worked, personally, on Apple legal work then there's a problem. I don't know if that's the case. The summary just says he's at the firm so I'm guessing he didn't. But he began planning right after the announcement so maybe he talk
Re:Ummm... (Score:4, Insightful)
He was CC'd on private Apple email threads within the firm, conflict of interest - nuff said.
also lol at anonymously claiming you're a lawyer online
Re: (Score:3)
also lol at anonymously claiming you're anonymous online
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
A timestamp and a few IP addresses can fix that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I sited the rules so you can look there. My anonymity doesn't change ABA rules. Further, I stated that if he had access to Apple legal docs it would be a conflict. So, you're just agreeing with what I said. LOL all you want but what I wrote is correct.
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not an attorney, but I'm married to one, and I can tell you that you just can't count on attorneys to be great spellers :)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what paralegals are for. :)
Re: (Score:1)
He's using tor and proxies YO! And Amazon super cloud. Also his IP address says he is from China! BUUURRNNNN HIMMM!!
Re:Ummm... (Score:4, Funny)
An expert refutes it.
Guess which one gets the +5.
Burma Shave!
Re: (Score:1)
As usual with law, more facts are needed to know for sure.
No problem. We can always Google for more facts.
Re: (Score:2)
well it would have been damn hard to start planning litigation about it before iPhone was announced.. now THAT would be suspicious. this not as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The very notion of have an original idea is "stealing from apple"
COI the other way (Score:2)
I'm going to point out that when your case is rotten, you fight the battle in the public sphere.
Having read the article, it looks to me like it was practically a PR release by apple. That being the case, I suspect that for some reason, Apple isn't likely to win this one.
Why???I don't know. But will point out that the law firm involved seems to have acted with privledged information against the interests of Flatworld. It is entirely possible that the same law firm represents two companies, and if that is the
Re: (Score:1)
Soon ... making payments ... 6 years after the fact?
Not likely. Its clear they've been waiting in order to collect massive damages. That doesn't actually go over well, judges tend to tell you to go fuck yourself in those cases.
Re: (Score:2)
PR release via arstechnica? So now arstechnica should burn in hell too?
Wait, am I even reading the same article you are?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much a PR release via Ars Technica. They're not questioning what Apple are saying in the slightest, and the general consensus seems to be that not only do conflict-of-interest rules not work the way that Ars Technica is portraying them as working, but also that the legal system wouldn't be able to function if they did. From what I recall the bit where they about the firm "letting one of its partners invest in a patent troll, especially one specially designed to target one of the firm's big clients" i
Re: (Score:1)
Sword (Score:2, Insightful)
Live by the Sword. Die by the Sword.
More like, get hurt by a sword, pick up a sword (Score:3)
Apple wasn't huge on patents until a stupid patent lost them a bundle on the 1st iPod. After that, Apple patented anything and everything then entered into the fray. Remember they could have owned everything related to a GUI, Xerox sold them all the prior work.
Re: (Score:1)
Xerox didn't sell them anything. They were an early investor in Apple and allowed a couple of people from Apple to visit PARC. But sure keep deluding yourself.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Oh and Xerox only sued Apple after Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement. The fact is Apple was suing Microsoft for copying technology they themselves copied from PARC. This is typical Apple, presenting themselves as innovators and creators when in fact they are ripping off someone else's technology.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Xerox did go to trial to protect the Star user interface. In 1989, after Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement of its Macintosh user interface in Windows, Xerox filed a similar lawsuit against Apple; however, it was thrown out because a three year statute of limitations had passed. (Apple eventually lost its lawsuit in 1994, losing all claims to the user interface).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star [wikipedia.org]
Seemingly there are a lot of people here too lazy to use Google.
Re:More like, get hurt by a sword, pick up a sword (Score:5, Informative)
Xerox didn't sell them anything. They were an early investor in Apple and allowed a couple of people from Apple to visit PARC.
And Apple paid Xerox executives for that privilege.
But sure keep deluding yourself
It's a sad sad day when anti-technology trolls start arguing that handing over money in exchange for technology is not "selling"
But keep making up shit to try and look cool bashing Apple. It's worked so well this past decade. They keep on making money hand over fist despite you.
Re: (Score:1)
Uhh, we have both posted, we can't mod even if we had points.
So just to sum up, exchanging money for information is not selling that information;
facts don't make a person right, bashing Apple does;
it can't possibly be you that is wrong despite tens of people proving it and showing you otherwise, it must be us downmodding you after having posted comments.
Man we have a smrt one here!
BTW, your now on my ignore list, so don't bother replying. I won't see it.
Re: (Score:1)
Reiterating: Apple exchanged no money for information. Xerox paid for Apple stock. Some management people in Xerox gave access to PARC for a couple of Apple personnel as a goodwill gesture. Apple certainly weren't entitled to have it. Several PARC employees were against it back then as they saw Apple as a possible competitor. Eventually they were proven right.
It seems you believe in the intelligence of the masses. However the masses are not always right. As a quick trip to Wikipedia or contemporary Byte mag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Did I say anywhere that Xerox management didn't agree that Apple personnel could visit PARC? What I find interesting is how Apple fans paint this deal with Xerox. At the time Apple was founded it was hardly certain they would be successful in the 16-bit market and a lot of companies back then failed before even getting to an IPO. The 8-bit Apple II, their main product back then, sold reasonably well in the education market but the C-64 outsold it in the home market while the Atari 800 also took off the shel
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say anywhere that Xerox management didn't agree that Apple personnel could visit PARC? What I find interesting is how Apple fans paint this deal with Xerox. At the time Apple was founded it was hardly certain they would be successful in the 16-bit market and a lot of companies back then failed before even getting to an IPO. The 8-bit Apple II, their main product back then, sold reasonably well in the education market but the C-64 outsold it in the home market while the Atari 800 also took off the shelves very well. Commodore back, then besides selling the C-64, owned MOS Technology which manufactured the CPU for all these machines. Apple was another personal computer manufacturer. Back then there were no shortage of competing platforms.
And what does this have to do with whether or not Xerox sold to Apple certain rights? This is what the OP said: "Xerox sold them all the prior work" to which you vehemently argued: "Xerox didn't sell them anything." Not all compensation is cash.
Xerox paid cash for that pre-IPO Apple stock. It's not like Apple just gave them the shares just in exchange for the visit. That is simply disingenuous.
Um, am I arguing this point with you? What I'm saying to you which you're not understanding is that there was a deal made. Xerox did not receive cash for the rights they gave Apple. But they were compensated and they agreed to the deal. In the end, Xerox made
Re: (Score:1)
You don't get it. Xerox allowed Apple to visit PARC. But they did not give them any copyright licenses or patent licenses or anything like that. Back then software couldn't be easily patented. Copyright was the usual way of enforcement. Why do you think Xerox sued Apple? The lawsuit only failed because the statute of limitations passed i.e. Xerox took too long to sue Apple after they released an infringing product.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it. Xerox allowed Apple to visit PARC. But they did not give them any copyright licenses or patent licenses or anything like that. Back then software couldn't be easily patented.
And when did I say Apple got copyrights? NOWHERE. Apple got rights to use concepts and ideas they saw at Xerox PARC. For which Xerox was compensated. The PARC engineers didn't want to but they were ordered by HQ.
Why do you think Xerox sued Apple?
Because a dozen years later, under new management, they forgot about their deal. SCO forgot or ignored the fact that Novell didn't sell them Unix copyrights only the Unix business. It took years to resolve SCO v Novell even though SCO never had a case.
The lawsuit only failed because the statute of limitations passed i.e. Xerox took too long to sue Apple after they released an infringing product.
Wrong. Apple claimed statute of limitatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember they could have owned everything related to a GUI, Xerox sold them all the prior work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation [wikipedia.org]
they tried exactly that. selective memory is great!
Re: (Score:2)
I remembered that case. 1994 was over a decade after the Xerox exchange. That case wasn't about the mouse or many of their ideas and they didn't have patents it was a copyright case and part of their position is that microsoft agreed with them because they had a formal agreement which they thought Microsoft was violating. Xerox's part in that case was not relevant as they had sold their rights away to Apple long before that time.
Apple was taking copyright too far and didn't bribe enough people; which is wh
That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. (Score:5, Informative)
IAAL and I can tell you Mr. McAleese will not be a member of the bar much longer. As attorney offenses go, this is toxic / nuclear.
This case will disappear quickly now that the real party-in-interest is revealed.
Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt it will disappear.
Apple will now have recourse against the specific attorney and maybe his law firm and the original patent holder.
In this specific case, I don't think Apple will say "Let bygones be bygones." They will want every cent of their costs paid at the very least and damages due to a corrupted counsel not doing their best for Apple's interests because of the conspiracy between known and unknown attorneys.
Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. (Score:5, Funny)
That's what I was thinking. He's lost his job, no firm will rehire him and he'll be disbarred. He'll probably wind up writing story summaries for Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
IAAL and I can tell you Mr. McAleese will not be a member of the bar much longer. As attorney offenses go, this is toxic / nuclear.
This case will disappear quickly now that the real party-in-interest is revealed.
I don't know. It sounds like he's building his resume to try a get a job with the RIAA or MPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
IAAL and I can tell you Mr. McAleese will not be a member of the bar much longer. As attorney offenses go, this is toxic / nuclear.
Is it toxic because Apple is a giant company that most members of Congress are in love with and would secretly bang in the men's bathroom? I'm totally serious: They're the largest company on Earth... why the hell does anyone care how much, often, or with what merit, they're sued? I'm not a lawyer, but as an average person, I'm thoroughly convinced the courts exist solely so rich people can try and out-douche each other. Poor people get no representation. So since this is one rich douchebag engaging another
Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. (Score:4, Informative)
Although the legal profession often manages to live up to their reputation, try living in a world WITHOUT a functioning legal system.
The reality is that poor people often (not always) do have access to legal representation. It's spotty, insufficient coverage and like many things (health care comes to mind) the members of the group and society as a whole ought to be working harder, much harder, at improving things.
But look around you. You want Somalia? Russia? India? China?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But look around you. You want Somalia? Russia? India? China?
Okay first, I get your point. And I agree with it. The rule of law is essential to civilization. So let me put that out there first.
But, if you look at the history of every empire, every major civilization, you will find a pattern of increasing legal complexity to the point that the system itself caves under its own excesses. It becomes pathological and toxic to the purpose it was meant to serve, and ultimately strangles itself. If you read enough anthropology you find that civilization is cyclical -- it st
Re:That Lawyer will not be a lawyer much longer. (Score:5, Insightful)
What year, exactly, did America pass its golden age? You'd be surprised how many times people have said "America has passed its prime", over the decades before you were even a passing thought in your parents minds before you were born.
It would be the point when children have less than their parents. Or about 20 years ago now.
Re: (Score:1)
What year, exactly, did America pass its golden age? You'd be surprised how many times people have said "America has passed its prime", over the decades before you were even a passing thought in your parents minds before you were born.
It would be the point when children have less than their parents. Or about 20 years ago now.
This is likely true, but the slump could also be attributed to the baby boomers; once they all die and wealth gets redistributed, it is possible that everything will go back to the previous trend. Not likely, IMO, but possible. More likely that all the boomers' wealth will go to international corporations, overseas interests, and a privileged few, as has been the trend during the boomer shakedown years.
Re: (Score:1)
All this statistic really says though is that the bottom 50% of Americans and the top 50% of Americans have a major income disparity.
Say the top 400 earners combined make 400 billion dollars. Say the bottom 50% make 399 billion dollars. The US population in 2012 was 313.9 million.
That means that averaged across ALL Americans (including newborns, children, people in jail*, etc.) the bottom 50% (which would include ALL those not earning a wage that I just listed), the average annual wage would be ~2.5 milli
Re: (Score:2)
That's only defining it in terms of posessions, which is an iffy issue at best. Instead, perhaps define it as the point at which destruction of wealth passed creation of wealth: though many would put that 60 years ago, , arguably I'd put it just about 80 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
1991. The year that our principle enemy (the USSR) and reason for existence collapsed. US culture is built upon the need for conflict to provide motivation and stoke the fires of nationalism. Without a war to fight, we are lost*.
Our current enemies consist of lunatic, weakling dictators and batshit crazy theocracies. If one measures ones self by ones enemies, we have fallen quite a distance since the Old War.
*Rome began its long slide into oblivion when it overreached its military capabilities on its bor
Re: (Score:1)
Its amazing that people like you work so hard to turn winning into losing.
We've 'fallen' because we succeeded?
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't win. Russia got smart and walked away from the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Its amazing that people like you work so hard to turn winning into losing.
We've 'fallen' because we succeeded?
You obviously have never watched "War Games". The only winning move is not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give an example of a civilization that collapsed for these reasons, rather than some combination of ecological catastrophe, foreign invasion and/or plague? Because I can't think of any.
Re: (Score:2)
Rome. The western empire didn't collapse because it was invaded; it was invaded because it had already rotted out from the inside.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, he was caught pissing in the very pond he lives in. The other residents of the pond hate that. You can pee over anyone else, just not in your own pond.
After Nuclear War.. (Score:2)
Only Cockroaches and Lawyers will survive. The Lawyers will thus attempt to sue the Cockroaches for damages.
Re: (Score:1)
The cockroaches will retaliate by chewing the lawyers's skin off in their sleep and laying eggs in their fatty layer. The cockroach young will then burrow in and eat the lawyers alive.
Re: (Score:1)
The cockroaches will retaliate by chewing the lawyers's skin off in their sleep and laying eggs in their fatty layer. The cockroach young will then burrow in and eat the lawyers alive.
We can only hope.
Unsurprising. (Score:2)
During a feeding frenzy, a shark which is accidentally bitten and begins bleeding will often be eaten by another shark.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed:
Newsflash: Greedy Patent Troll Developer Hires Unscrupulous Lawyers to Sue!
I fail to see how this is any different..
Re: (Score:2)