Rotten Apple Is Shrinking

Apple v Samsung is not over yet
“The claim 19 of the ‘381 patent that Apple relied upon so heavily against Samsung at trial, the bounce back patent, has now been finally rejected by the USPTO, as it ruled there is prior art that anticipated the ‘381 patent”

So Apple’s case is shrinking like a rotten apple. There’s just nothing left, at least nothing Samsung has to apologize or pay for. In fact, I would not be surprised to find Apple had to pay some of Samsung’s costs for frivolous action. Samsung has kicked Apple’s American Ass into second place in the mobile market as it will in court. Apple is an embarrassment to a lot of owners of the gadgets over which Apple sued Samsung.

This should be a lesson to all who would sue over software and other fluffy patents. There’s prior art for everything, so don’t even bother.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Rotten Apple Is Shrinking

  1. George Wilson says:

    This should be a lesson to all who would sue over software and other fluffy patents. There’s prior art for everything, so don’t even bother.

    That’s not important at all. The validity of patents is above all decided by the fact if someone is willing to pay money for it to the patent owner. That’s a cardinal rule of business.

    And, Apple aside, Samsung is, for example, paying quite happily licensing fees to Microsoft for Android-related patents. Why don’t they attack Microsoft’s patent claims if there’s a good chance they’re not valid? Because it’s much easier to do it this way.

    A very basal thought: not so long ago humanity had no concept of ownership. But then someone decided to state that something — most likely a patch of land — was his, and he marked it accordingly. There was no actual basis for that claim, but if others believed this to be true it became fact.

    So you see that ultimately the concept of you being able to own land (or anything for that matter) and being paid for its use is the same as the concept of being able to own patents and being paid for selling licenses for their use: it’s important that someone believes you own the thing in question.

    This basic concept has been institutionalized everywhere in society. Therefore it’s a naive thought to say that it’d be useless “to sue over software”. It’s not. And the technical validity of a patent often enough doesn’t decide about it’s de facto business validity.

  2. ram says:

    Really, the USA would be better off without patents entirely. Can’t say patents have done much for their manufacturing sector. Did wonders for lawyers though.

Leave a Reply