[mayankk]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

So, technically, if the grid layout has been around for ages, and if someone has patented it 10 yrs ago or more, then those patents would have expired - free for anyone to use. Then, one can do something on top of the older patents to be granted new patents.

I know zilch about laws('cept the basic ones to avoid getting challaned), so tell me one thing.
Say apple wins this case, on its own stipulations.
Also, i would think apple patent period(10 years, you say?) is about to run out.
So, the win could involve something of an extension in the patent period?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

And Apple chose to patent this experience. Seems fair to me. Saying that they changed from a normal black phone to a white phone is simplifying things too much.
.

You obviously do not have the foggiest idea about how patents are supposed to work.
Let me give you a car analogy.
Lets say Airbags existed as a technology.
ABS also existed as a technology.

Cars which had this technology had poor quality and breakdowns, and did not go fast due to lousy engine

Then some mfr comes along and makes a good quality car with technologies available previously with a nice reliable engine.
Then the company goes and patents cars with ABS and airbags with reliable engine.
Speaking of grid layout, just because its not patented it does not mean it did not exist.

Graphical user interface existed since 1980s. So did ICONS and buttons.
Just packaging something nicely does not entitle you to a patent.

Patents are for real innovation, not for packaging.

Think of it in this way. If you invented bubble wrap, you can patent bubble wrap. But you cannot patent storing goods in bubble wrap to prevent breakage.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

...
And Apple chose to patent this experience. Seems fair to me. Saying that they changed from a normal black phone to a white phone is simplifying things too much.

I am not sure if user experience or such a service can be patented.

...
What Apple did was to integrate these technologies into a wonderful package. Now, is that not innovation?

Again I am not sure if innovations can be patented. Patents are awarded for inventions.

[vina]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

You obviously do not have the foggiest idea about how patents are supposed to work.
Let me give you a car analogy.
Lets say Airbags existed as a technology.
ABS also existed as a technology.

Cars which had this technology had poor quality and breakdowns, and did not go fast due to lousy engine

Then some mfr comes along and makes a good quality car with technologies available previously with a nice reliable engine.
Then the company goes and patents cars with ABS and airbags with reliable engine.
Speaking of grid layout, just because its not patented it does not mean it did not exist.

Graphical user interface existed since 1980s. So did ICONS and buttons.
Just packaging something nicely does not entitle you to a patent.

Patents are for real innovation, not for packaging.

Think of it in this way. If you invented bubble wrap, you can patent bubble wrap. But you cannot patent storing goods in bubble wrap to prevent breakage.

I was going to write something on similar lines.

Also

" So, if you can prove that what you did on top of existing technology is an improvisation, that also can be patented, provided it is substantially more that what it was, and the older patent is either owned by the same company, or it has expired."

- not true.

You can invent an addition to any patent (whether you own it or not) and get it patented yourself.

If you do that on the other hand you still can not use it unless you have rights to the first patent (you own the first patent or it has expired or you license it).

Patent is, very simply, a negative right - a right to stop others from using your innovation. It doesn't give you a right to use the innovation.

Originally Posted by mayankk

I know zilch about laws('cept the basic ones to avoid getting challaned), so tell me one thing.
Say apple wins this case, on its own stipulations.
Also, i would think apple patent period(10 years, you say?) is about to run out.
So, the win could involve something of an extension in the patent period?

It takes 20yrs for the patents to expire - not 10. Also you can improve someone else's design, use it in a better way or whatever, but whatever you do must be non-obvious.

Now if somebody has done it before it is obviously obvious. But even if someone hasn't done it before - that doesn't mean it is non-obvious (people might have though of it as utterly useless for example) - which means not patentable.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by vina

It takes 20yrs for the patents to expire - not 10. Also you can improve someone else's design, use it in a better way or whatever, but whatever you do must be non-obvious.

Now if somebody has done it before it is obviously obvious. But even if someone hasn't done it before - that doesn't mean it is non-obvious (people might have though of it as utterly useless for example) - which means not patentable.

question still remains, will a win allow apple to hold onto the patent rights for a longer duration?

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

You obviously do not have the foggiest idea about how patents are supposed to work.
Let me give you a car analogy.
Lets say Airbags existed as a technology.
ABS also existed as a technology.

Cars which had this technology had poor quality and breakdowns, and did not go fast due to lousy engine

Then some mfr comes along and makes a good quality car with technologies available previously with a nice reliable engine.
Then the company goes and patents cars with ABS and airbags with reliable engine.
Speaking of grid layout, just because its not patented it does not mean it did not exist.

Graphical user interface existed since 1980s. So did ICONS and buttons.
Just packaging something nicely does not entitle you to a patent.

Patents are for real innovation, not for packaging.

Think of it in this way. If you invented bubble wrap, you can patent bubble wrap. But you cannot patent storing goods in bubble wrap to prevent breakage.

Possibly the best and most informed post in this thread.

[vina]

Originally Posted by mayankk

question still remains, will a win allow apple to hold onto the patent rights for a longer duration?

No. But Apple can claim damages all the way into the past since the patent was applied for (if they try to claim damages from earlier than the patent was applied for - they would be claiming that they didn't invent it )

[im_srini]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Also, i would think apple patent period(10 years, you say?) is about to run out.

Originally Posted by vina

It takes 20yrs for the patents to expire - not 10.

Apple has alleged violations of the follwing 10 patents, the first 7 are Utility patents & the other 3 are Design patents. While Utility patents are valid for 20 years, Design patents are valid for 14 years only. The first date, against each patent, is the date on which it was filed & the second date is the date it was awarded.

US 6,493,002 B1 - Mar 20, 1997 - Dec 10, 2002 - Method & Apparatus for Displaying & Accessing Control & Status Information in a Computer System
US 7,469,381 B2 - Dec 14, 2007 - Dec 23, 2008 - List Scrolling & Document Translation, Scaling & Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display
US 7,669,134 B1 - May 02, 2003 - Feb 23, 2010 - Method & Apparatus For Displaying Information During An Instant Messaging Session
US 7,812,828 B2 - Feb 22, 2007 - Oct 12, 2010 - Ellipse Fitting For Multi-Touch Surfaces
US 7,844,915 B2 - Jan 07, 2007 - Nov 30, 2010 - Application Programming Interfaces for Scrolling Operations
US 7,853,891 B2 - Feb 01, 2008 - Dec 14, 2010 - Method & Apparatus for Displaying a Window for a User Interface
US 7,863,533 B2 - Sep 26, 2008 - Jan 04, 2011 - Cantilevered Push Button Having Multiple Contacts & Fulcrums

US D602,016 S - Jun 06, 2008 - Oct 13, 2009 - Electronic Device
US D618,677 S - Nov 18, 2008 - Jun 29, 2010 - Electronic Device
US D627,790 S - Aug 20, 2007 - Nov 23, 2010 - Graphical User Interface For a Display Screen or Portion Thereof

While I respect Apple's creative ideas, some of these patents are really crazy - in particular US-7,669,134-B1, US-7,853,891B2, & US-D627,790-S...

[deep_bang]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

You obviously do not have the foggiest idea about how patents are supposed to work.

Perhaps i do not have much idea. Thanks for enlightning me.

[vina]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

Perhaps i do not have much idea. Thanks for enlightning me.

hey deep - do keep writing, don't keep the light to yourself.

[999]

Guys didn't Samsung sue Apple in return too?l. God knows where Apple will source all those components which were provided by samsung

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

Can any one dispute that iPhone did give the best experience when it was launched? Forget about the technical details like grid layout and all .. just look at it as a layman.

As somebody pointed out earlier - people are more concerned about trinkets than technology.

And Apple chose to patent this experience. Seems fair to me. Saying that they changed from a normal black phone to a white phone is simplifying things too much.

Sorry - this one is adults only.

Is doing "it" while talking on the mobile patentable? "that" too is an esxperience, na?

Apologies again.

BUT I do agree that most people - in fact 90% i would say, do not use most features of any phone. What Apple did was to integrate these technologies into a wonderful package. Now, is that not innovation?

Unfortunately, not all innovation is patentable; and not all patents are in public interest.

Yes - some things may be denied a patent on grounds of not being in public interest.

By the way, if you look at the patent laws, patents can be granted even for improvisations.

Please do not use words loosely while talking about legal terms.

So, if you can prove that what you did on top of existing technology is an improvisation, that also can be patented, provided it is substantially more that what it was, and the older patent is either owned by the same company, or it has expired.

The premise is incorrect; therefore, the conclusion too is.

So, technically, if the grid layout has been around for ages, and if someone has patented it 10 yrs ago or more, then those patents would have expired - free for anyone to use. Then, one can do something on top of the older patents to be granted new patents.

Fortunately, no.

There are very clear limits; but unfortunately (or fortunately, if you are a lawyer) the USPTO, and almost every other patent office is very lax in testing if a patent application conforms with the innovativeness test.

Originally Posted by mayankk

Say apple wins this case, on its own stipulations.
Also, i would think apple patent period(10 years, you say?) is about to run out.
So, the win could involve something of an extension in the patent period?

Not extension of the patent period, but damages plus penalty.

srini - thanks for that info.

Any idea when the time period you stated begins to run? Date of application or date of grant? :-D

Too bad PJ of groklaw is retiring.

[kaushik_s]

Is Apple suing Samsung for Kies too? Please do sue them about that also. One crappy piece software i.e. Kies got inspired by another crappy software i.e. iTunes. Kies is now strikingly similar to iTune interface.

[vina]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

...

Not extension of the patent period, but damages plus penalty.

srini - thanks for that info.

Any idea when the time period you stated begins to run? Date of application or date of grant? :-D

Too bad PJ of groklaw is retiring.

Damages fine, but wouldn't penalty be applicable only in case of willful infringement?

Patent runs from something called "Priority date" This is the date the inventor claims he invented the idea.

An inventor can apply for a patent within one year of inventing something (and reducing it to practice). Priority date can thus be earlier than Application date (which will obviously be earlier than grant date).

Normally, as an inventor, you would want the priority date to be as late as possible (so you can enjoy the patent longer) but the risk is that is anybody went to the patent office with the same (or similar) idea and claimed an earlier priority date then you are screwed.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

So, what was Apple doing with the patents from the 1990s when they filed the applications to 2002/4 when the patents were granted, and then till 2006 when the iPhone was actually announced?