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
Re: [rant] Yet Another Frivolous Lawsuit
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". |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Cabal
In that case, Apple may have stepped in it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
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? |
|
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 |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to nixen
It's essentially a phone switch controlled by a web app and it is widely available via their "invite" process.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| 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. 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
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nixen
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
| 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 |
|
