« Shocking Next-Gen Law Enforcement Handcuff System Revealed | Main | Washington Research Foundation Sues Apple over Radio Patents »

November 30, 2012


Wow. How do these patent applications pass into grants? Isn't there sufficient prior art to render this thing void? It wasn't filed until 2008. Since computers have been around a lot longer than that, I can't believe Microsoft and Dell rolled over on this.

You dunno? Yes, it's obvious that you "dunno" much. Apple makes products and protects the products that they actually make, like the revolutionary iPhone or iPad. Apple doesn't go around suing companies without merit, or via miscellaneous claims like this troll is doing. Below is a definition of a troll so that you can't say that you "dunno" any more.

Definition: Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

If you don't know who the troll is by now, then you're a lost cause.

I dunno what weird cult site this is but.... how does that taste for Apple? Will the real patent troll please stand up?

At present, I'd say that they're excessively vague and should be tossed out on that basis.

Next, the vague claim that they're trying to make looks like it really looks like it ties into the OS, not the hardware.

On the technical merit, the devil is in the details (of course), but it sounds like they're trying to claim ownership over the idea that a UI "mouse click" can be used to retrieve information ... why wouldn't that then date the relevant prior art back to Xerox Parc?


"Non-practising entities" should not be able to hold patents.In Australia we have mining leases. There are many "non mining entities" without the capability to develop the leases which hold onto them hoping that a neighbour strikes gold or oil and then buys them out for millions in the assumption that their lease also contains part of the same deposit. As my American friends would say, these entities are the "tampons of progress", holding up the flow of new products and opportunities and as long as the US allows this to happen it will adversely affect their population and their economic recovery.Some argue to shoot say 5% of all the lawyers in each year in order to keep the rest of them more honest and on their toes. In this case certainly the directors of patent trolls should be at the head of the list.

These companies should not be allowed to use a "shotgun" approach. If they are claiming infringement, then they should be forced to cite each instance of infringement by product and demonstrate to the court how that product violates their patents.

I see no reason to burden the courts (our tax payer dollars) if the plaintiff cannot cite specific examples.

The comments to this entry are closed.