elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs: 
1 edit | [rant] Yet Another Frivolous Lawsuit
»www.tuaw.com/2008/02/27/lawsuit-···e-sales/
Apple just keeps getting hit with lawsuits this month. AppleInsider reports on yet another new lawsuit seeking to bring the iPhone down. Romek Figa of Abraham & Sons filed a 5-page complaint in a Massachusetts district court that alleged Apple violated a patent from 1990. The patent is described as a way for a phone to look up an incoming number and match it with a stored contact, allowing the phone to display the stored contact information.
However, the 1990s-based patent references technologies such as a two line LCD and separate receiver. Figa's complaint requests that Apple be tried by a jury; and if he were to win, Apple would have to stop selling the iPhone and further infringing on the patent. He is also seeking damages for Apple knowingly infringing on the patent. This time they're suing Apple saying the iPhone infringes their patent. What's the patent about? Well, it's from 1990 and it is for comparing CallerID to an Address Book and displaying that name. Last I checked, all of my cellphones have done this, and even my Panasonic cordless phones at home do it.
--
My Webmaster Gig | Crunching the Midnight Oil |
|
HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs: | Ahahahaha... F'n hilarious! This shit will be tossed out quick. Apple should then sue this idiot for attempted defamation or something.
This is ridiculous.
--
GO LEAFS GO!
Don't question the authoritaaaa! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to elias
Naw, this country needs no tort reform at all. None.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
leXicon5
Pelosi, SHUT YOUR Fing Pie Hole
Premium
join:2000-12-27
Saint Louis, MO | reply to elias
Well we could form a E-Vigilanty group and pummel the Romek Figa of Abraham and Sons e-mail and answering machine...
What a Fing tool.... |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to elias
said by elias  :» www.tuaw.com/2008/02/27/lawsuit-···e-sales/Apple just keeps getting hit with lawsuits this month. AppleInsider reports on yet another new lawsuit seeking to bring the iPhone down. Romek Figa of Abraham & Sons filed a 5-page complaint in a Massachusetts district court that alleged Apple violated a patent from 1990. The patent is described as a way for a phone to look up an incoming number and match it with a stored contact, allowing the phone to display the stored contact information.
However, the 1990s-based patent references technologies such as a two line LCD and separate receiver. Figa's complaint requests that Apple be tried by a jury; and if he were to win, Apple would have to stop selling the iPhone and further infringing on the patent. He is also seeking damages for Apple knowingly infringing on the patent. This time they're suing Apple saying the iPhone infringes their patent. What's the patent about? Well, it's from 1990 and it is for comparing CallerID to an Address Book and displaying that name. Last I checked, all of my cellphones have done this, and even my Panasonic cordless phones at home do it. Not to defend a baseless lawsuit, but what the iPhone does is a bit beyond simple caller ID. Perhaps what's spelled out in the patent (have you read the full text for comparison?) is sufficiently similar to what the iPhone does that there's actual merit? I mean, if this were simply "caller ID", these guys would have tried to cash in a while ago.
Guess we'll see by how far this all goes.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| I think the problem is that just about every current cell phone looks up the caller's number and displays the phone book entry and/or plays a ringtone based on the number. Google's Grand Central does something similar. The "patent" has been so thoroughly diluted that I doubt there is anything left to claim.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by RadioDoc :I think the problem is that just about every current cell phone looks up the caller's number and displays the phone book entry and/or plays a ringtone based on the number. Google's Grand Central does something similar. The "patent" has been so thoroughly diluted that I doubt there is anything left to claim. All depends on what's spelled out in the patent and what specific mechanisms the iPhone is using that the claimant is contesting as infringing that differs from the way others do things, though.
As to Google's Grand Central (isn't that an acquired product that, prior to acquisition, might not have had enough notoriety to attract a patent suit), is it a widely shipping product, yet?
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | It's essentially a phone switch controlled by a web app and it is widely available via their "invite" process.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to elias
The patent is garbage to begin with, and never should have been issued. Number is 4,924,496 |
|
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs:
| reply to nixen
said by nixen :Not to defend a baseless lawsuit, but what the iPhone does is a bit beyond simple caller ID. Perhaps what's spelled out in the patent (have you read the full text for comparison?) is sufficiently similar to what the iPhone does that there's actual merit? I mean, if this were simply "caller ID", these guys would have tried to cash in a while ago. Guess we'll see by how far this all goes. When it comes to CallerID and such, the iPhone doesn't do much more than any other cellphone. If the number isn't in the address book, you just see the number. If the number is in the address book, it shows the name you specified. Optionally, it may show a picture and play a custom ringtone.
Cellphones have been doing this trick for ages, even home phones do this as well. My first Nokia was able to show monochrome little pictures when certain people called, and was able to play a different ringtone based on caller groups. Again, this sort of functionality has been around for ages.
--
My Webmaster Gig | Crunching the Midnight Oil |
|
gust334
join:2002-05-09
Gilbert, AZ
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to russotto
said by russotto :The patent is garbage to begin with, and never should have been issued. Number is 4,924,496 Umm, what exactly is your basis for establishing "garbage"? Are you a registered patent attorney or agent? Are you aware of applicable prior art that is not cited in the prosecution history?
I skimmed through the claims and although they are awash with "means for" language, that was pretty much the norm for that period of time. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | Just because there is no prior art doesn't make the patent valid when actually scrutinized.
Patent trolls need to die and when these stupid cases thrown out, the patent troll fined a few tens of millions, to hundreds of millions for abuse of process. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :I think the problem is that just about every current cell phone looks up the caller's number and displays the phone book entry and/or plays a ringtone based on the number. Google's Grand Central does something similar. The "patent" has been so thoroughly diluted that I doubt there is anything left to claim. Not exactly. The original article was a bit lacking on specifics. This one has a bit more.
quote:
...many of the world's wireless phone makers have licensed the patent, including the three biggest - Motorola Inc., Samsung Group, and Nokia Corp. In addition, Figa sued Hong Kong electronics firm VTech Technology Ltd. over the patent in 2006; VTech and Figa reached a settlement last month.
"Apple was contacted about a license, but the parties were not able to agree on acceptable terms," Tittemore said. She said that Figa sent a letter to Apple chief executive Steve Jobs in May 2007, about a month before the iPhone went on sale, to warn Jobs that the phone might violate the patent. "He informed Mr. Jobs that the iPhone very likely infringed, and he provided him with the patent number," said Tittemore.
-----
said by russotto :The patent is garbage to begin with, and never should have been issued. Number is 4,924,496 How many phones were you using with integrated caller ID and address book lookup in 1988?
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | In that case, Apple may have stepped in it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to elias
I'm not a patent attorney. I am, however, a computer programmer who works on embedded devices. I believe that gives me sufficient background to comment on this patent.
Even assuming this particular device was the first of its kind, there is no real invention there. Doing a database lookup based on telephone number is a standard (even ubiquitous) technique; a specific instance of performing a standard technique is not "non-obvious". If 3M comes up with a new kind of clear tape tomorrow, could I (or they) get a patent on wrapping packages with it? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to Cabal
It doesn't matter how many phones he was using, it's whether anyone had thought of the capability earlier or even deployed it (as in prior art).
Reverse number lookup technology has been in use in Chicago (by the Chicago PD and FD) since the mid 70's and is the same thing. Their system matched incoming numbers to names and addresses through an electronic reverse lookup system and displayed the results. Chicago is where E911 started.
Seems to me that Figa's caller ID reverse look up is invalid by prior art. Electronic reverse lookup from incoming caller's number physically existed for over a decade prior to Figa's patent and were obviously developed years or more prior to that. The fact that he figured to put it in a smaller box doesn't change it. Figs's idea is just "personal E911". |
|
gust334
join:2002-05-09
Gilbert, AZ
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to russotto
said by russotto :I'm not a patent attorney. Ok, not trying to pick a fight, was just wondering what qualifications you might have had, if any. Since the topic is clearly [rant], anything goes.
I am an inventor with a plurality of issued patents. I am also a registered patent agent, which means I've passed the patent bar exam and I'm qualified to prosecute applications and respond to Office actions with the USPTO on behalf of clients as well as myself. I work both in an engineering capacity (including embedded devices) and I also evaluate IP for my company.
Given that background, I assert that in practice most inventions appear obvious in hindsight. It is truly a difficult problem to examine disclosures/applications and determine if an inventor's combination of known elements does appear to be novel, because you have to mentally place yourself in a space where the invention that you're reading about doesn't exist yet.
I don't recall the state of the art back when this patent was filed, but think about it: somebody had to be the first to have the insight to use caller ID information to perform a database query and present database results to the user instead of just the ID or ID/name provided by the carrier.
The observation that today--20 years later--it seems like it should have been obvious back then, doesn't change the fact that 20 years ago a qualified examiner, armed with contemporary trade and industry journals, textbooks and design references, and the contents of domestic and international patents already issued or filed, and whose sole job function was to ensure that the invention was novel, useful, and non-obvious, was unable to find sufficient prior art to show that the invention as claimed was previously known.
That last italicized part is pretty important. Even if (as Carbidyne asserts) reverse number lookup technology existed and was in use at the time, the wording of the claims may narrow the scope sufficiently to avoid infringing on that prior art. (I haven't gone over the claims in detail, as nobody has offered to pay me to do that yet.  )
It is also worth observing (as the article Cabal posted asserts) that a number of the largest cellular device manufacturers have licensed the technology. Invariably, companies of this size carefully weigh the likelihood and costs of being able to invalidate the patent vs. infringing and paying damages vs. paying the license fee, and they go the way they think will cost them the least.
The natural tendency here in ATM is to attack anything that is bad for Apple. (That's fine, it is simply the accepted culture of this forum.) In this case, Apple is an adult and they made a conscious decision to resist, and I don't think anybody can predict how it will turn out. |
|
ihaddsl
join:2001-12-05
/dev/hda0
·Comcast
| as russotto noted, it's not novel to combine two elements via a database lookup even if it actually hasn't been done yet. This is simply basic applied computer science.
this is a good example of whats wrong with the patent system in it's current incarnation IMHO |
|
