164
British inventor seeks to take $18bn bite out of Apple in bitter patent war
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
164 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2553 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe someone can EL5 this to me, but having looked at their patents from the other side of the pond, I just don’t get it.
It looks like the patent is a bunch of legal jargon that basically just says something to the tune of “save a key on in memory on a device, then use that key to validate purchases.” And is was granted in the late 2000’s.
How is this not a patent troll? Isn’t this stuff that existed before the patent was granted and an obvious solution that many engineers would easily come to?
What am I missing?
You’re not missing anything. There was a period of time where a lot of patents were granted for “basic idea, but on a computer!” The USPTO stopped doing it and these patents, which should have never been issued, have been systematically invalidated, including most of this guy’s. He’s a classic patent troll suing over patents that were then invalidated.
One of the criteria for whether a patent is valid or not is that it is “non-obvious.” I remember reading about a patent troll who held a patent on a “system for distributing software updates over a computer network.” Which is, forgive the pun, a patently obvious use for a computer network.
People had been talking about buying music and videos online for at least a decade before this guy filed his patents. IANAL (or an engineer) but nothing in the patents seems more detailed than “sell music online, accept money for it, make sure people don’t copy it.” Which boils down to “buy music, but on the computer!” to borrow your phrasing.
The patent in question, if it's valid, would have expired several years ago. The fact that it's everyday technology today is pretty normal considering how fast technology advances. Ordinary toilet rolls were also a patented invention and there's nothing in the law that says a patent has to a complicated solution to a problem.
iTunes was the first shipping product that ever actually did what's described in the patent... and the person who ran the iTunes department that "invented" this feature was previously a subcontractor working for the guy who holds the patent - he was literally paid to implement what the patent described and then Apple poached him and he continued the work at his new job without any patent license.
I don't support patents and never will, but if there was ever a case for clear infringement then this is it. It's already been to court and apple was found guilty of patent infringement... only to have an appeals court overturn the decision in pretty questionable circumstances.
Wait... what was toilet paper before it was a roll? It's one of those things you just think always was...
Yesterday's news papers was popular. Paper in packs also existed. Before that, corn cobs, moss, a sponge on a stick, actual seashells or the left hand to name some.
Specifically three seashells.
The Sears Roebuck catalog was popular
Originally it came in spheres.
The dude couldn’t implement his patent (downloading media with drm that’s unlocked by a key downloaded from a server). He hired others to do it. His business went defunct. Apple hired one of the former employees to work on something similar because of their expertise. Is that patent infringement?
If someone hires a former Facebook employee to work on their social network, is that patent infringement?
If the patent was obvious to begin with, and there is existing prior art, is that patent infringement?
No. If that employee then implements features that FB has patented? Probably yes.
The patent was filed in 1999 but wasn't granted until late-2000s. I dunno what US patent law states but I would have thought it's back dated to when it was applied.
But I think this all part of the battle because the US patent office has refused to release internal emails that could shed light on all this.
Something fishy is going on and he's already won some cases.
The US didn't do things that way until Nov 2000. Patents filed for before then were given a term based on their publication date. So sometimes applicants deliberately tied up their applications with filings and amendments to delay their publication date and give them a bit more time when the patent ca be enforced.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent