Redditor finds feature in 1983 software invalidating Apple patent suit against HTC

[b24pgg]

Here is an article about the lawsuit and here is the reddit thread about how the suit is frivolous:

I have found preexisiting features in 1980's software invalidating a claim on apple U.S. Patent N 5,946,647 to shut down all android phones

The whole apple claim is infuriating to me because the claim is something that was implemented in at least one common software I used from 1983's called Sidekick from borland.

Furthermore I believe it was a fairly common feature in many programs that read internet mail and messages from bulletin boards. The 1980's DOS software "sidekick" from Borland International could recognize a phone number in text and highlight it and if you clicked on it call that number using your pc's modem.

He goes into much further detail, but that's the jist. Ruling was supposed to happen Tuesday but has been delayed until 12/14

tl;dr: Apple obtains patent for a system in 1989 that had been used at least 6 years earlier by another company, then attempts to sue HTC for infringement of that invalid patent

 

[rhett7660]

Here is an article about the lawsuit and here is the reddit thread about how the suit is frivolous:



He goes into much further detail, but that's the jist.

tl;dr: Apple obtains patent for a system in 1989 that had been used at least 6 years earlier by another company, then attempts to sue HTC for infringement of that invalid patent

Was the previous software ever patented? Also this seems like a very long time ago and I am wondering if the software wasn't patented at the time and then Apple came along and patented it, if the patent office was up to snuff on all the patents that would be coming along for software.



On a side note, good god, could I say patent anymore in this sentence?

 

[b24pgg]

Was the previous software ever patented? Also this seems like a very long time ago and I am wondering if the software wasn't patented at the time and then Apple came along and patented it, if the patent office was up to snuff on all the patents that would be coming along for software.

Good question...I browsed through some of the reddit responses and found this:

As far as I know (which does not go very far, mind you), American patent law has a "prior art" clause that invalidates patents when it can be proven that its object has been invented and made public before the patent application. BUT this only applies to American "prior art". If the invention was conceived and made public in the EU, you can still file a patent in the US and prevent the European company from entering the US market.

 

[Bonch]

Story is fake, unfortunately.

 

[b24pgg]

Story is fake, unfortunately.

What part? Source? Or are you trolling

EDIT: trolling, apparently.

 

[KnightWRX]

Was the previous software ever patented?

Doesn't matter. Prior art is prior art.

 

[thekev]

Was the previous software ever patented? Also this seems like a very long time ago and I am wondering if the software wasn't patented at the time and then Apple came along and patented it, if the patent office was up to snuff on all the patents that would be coming along for software.

On a side note, good god, could I say patent anymore in this sentence?

You've never been able to patent something already in use. They do sneak by, but those are typically ones that end up invalidated. Apple has been way too generic on some of them. I don't think everyone realizes how many commoditized parts are in smart phones. There are a ton of components shared amongst competitors.

 

[rhett7660]

You've never been able to patent something already in use. They do sneak by, but those are typically ones that end up invalidated. Apple has been way too generic on some of them. I don't think everyone realizes how many commoditized parts are in smart phones. There are a ton of components shared amongst competitors.

Thank you... I think a lot of companies,, not just Apple have been tooooo generic on a lot of their patents.

 

[b24pgg]

I don't think everyone realizes how many commoditized parts are in smart phones.

I think it's probably the opposite...which is why so many of these smartphone manufacturer vs. smartphone manufacturer lawsuits seem so silly to the average consumer

 

[Consultant]

No years / dates in an older revision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SideKick&oldid=47315355

Anyone can add anything to wiki. Just read the MS page for example.

 

[b24pgg]

No years / dates in an older revision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SideKick&oldid=47315355

Anyone can add anything to wiki. Just read the MS page for example.

...which is why it's important to check the references at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. The dates are accurate based on sources like this one.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Thank you... I think a lot of companies,, not just Apple have been tooooo generic on a lot of their patents.

It not too bad until said companies start suing and blocking imports over said crapents.
That or demanding money for them with the threat of law suits.

edit:
Things like say saying company A will licences this block of 1k patents for X amount to company B and yes their are going to be crapents in that block but what company B is after is say 10 patents in that block and it is getting the rest for "free" as a bonus and get some coverage from them. The crapents in that group are not bet since they are part of a block and not increasing the value of said block. It a way company work is they say just give me that huge block so I do not have to worry about anything.

 

[thekev]

I think it's probably the opposite...which is why so many of these smartphone manufacturer vs. smartphone manufacturer lawsuits seem so silly to the average consumer

You might be right. I come across some of these posts and things with so much bias at times. Even with Samsung phones the newer ones seem to have taken off from the F700 with the physical keyboard removed (announced February 2007, they did not copy an iphone in a month's time). The patent battles are beyond ridiculous. It's boiled down to attempting to get competing products pulled in any way possible.