toggle

iPodNN News

Apple, AT&T face patent suit over mobile Safari

updated 10:20 am EDT, Wed May 12, 2010

Case linked to scalable content

Adding to a list of lawsuits against Apple is Softview, which has filed a new patent infringement complaint through a court in the District of Delaware. The company's target is the mobile version of Safari, as found on the iPhone and iPod touch. Because of the iPhone's involvement, AT&T is likewise named as a culpable party.

The Softview patent describes a method of displaying "resolution-independent" web content on mobile devices, which can be zoomed or panned for better viewing. Essential to the process is the software scaling of formats such as HTML, XML and CSS, while still retaining the desktop layout of pages. "Display lists may also be employed to provide further enhancements in rendering speed," the patent goes on. "Additionally, hardware-based programmed logic may be employed to facilitate various operations."

Softview is requesting a preliminary and potentially permanent injunction against infringing Apple products, along with unspecified damage payments. In practice the case is more likely to be settled out of court, or dismissed after deeper investigation.

by MacNN Staff

(15)

TAGS :

iPod, iPhone, iPod touch, AT&T, iPhone apps, Safari, lawsuits, Apple

Share the Article

3 Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

+1

05/12, 10:47am | report spam | close Reply |
Ha ha!

Do they honestly think that a patent for scaling a document will be held up?

nowwhatareyoulookingat
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2009

-1

05/12, 11:10am | report spam | close Reply |
Softview is just hoping....

Apple will play whack-a-mole with money instead of lawyers.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

-5

05/12, 11:28am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: ha ha

Do they honestly think that a patent for scaling a document will be held up?

Um, they got the patent, so it apparently has held up at least once.

youngjm
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2010

+2

05/12, 11:33am | report spam | close Reply |
OMG!

After three generations of iPhone's and a forth on the way, someone realizes that there is a patent for that and we own it!

Got to love these patents that come out of the woodworks even if they have been trying to work Apple before this.

WiseWeasel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 1999

+8

05/12, 12:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
FU USPTO

Farking software patents... They need to give the USPTO a good flogging for thinking that could possibly be a good idea.

FavFruit
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2007

+4

05/12, 12:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
Reduce to practice..

The rules should be that if you don't reduce the patented idea to practice then you don't get the patent..plain and simple. That would put a bag of hurt on the leaches that are patent holding companies...they offer no productive impetus to the economy.

Marook
Forum Regular

Joined: May 1999

+1

05/12, 01:30pm | report spam | close Reply |
How in the world..

...can you patent something that state '...may...' ???
That clearly indicate (to me at least) something that is only though about, not done. It's a dream - and how in the world do they patent dreams?

I agree on the point that if it's not done in code/practice on an actual device with in xx months, then the patent is not granted!

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

05/12, 01:44pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: How in the world

That clearly indicate (to me at least) something that is only though about, not done. It's a dream - and how in the world do they patent dreams?

Maybe you missed the memo, but most patents are 'dreams'. That's why you patent them. To give you time to work out the kinks and look into producing. If you went to a system of patents going to the first to create a usable product, you'll fall into the hole where the uber-big companies will grab most if not all patents, for all they would need to do is throw money and people at something, produce something 'close enough', and get a patent then. Correspondingly, a small-time "inventor" with an idea but no capital would never get a patent, as anyone he talked to about implementing his idea could just steal it, produce it, and then patent it.

The problem isn't the patents but the USPTO allowing patents on stupid and vague applications which are obviously just pre-existing art slapped on a different type of device.

dimmer
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2006

+2

05/12, 01:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
Silly idea

So, I come up with a patentable idea: now I don't have the means to get this to manufacture in X number of months, so I go show and tell to manufacturers who may be interested. Why would any of them pick up the idea knowing that if they wait a few months they'll get the same functionality "for free"?

So, no more new ideas, no compensation for anyone who does have an original idea, and basically the only people who can innovate are the big corporations who can afford to take an idea to a product.

Patent law already provides more than adequate protection against junk patents. Part of this is through the legal system. It's nothing to get into a panty-wad about.

heyjp
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2009

+2

05/12, 03:48pm | report spam | (1 reply) close Reply |
Escalating Patent Fees

I saw an interesting proposal for escalating annual patent fees. First year when you file: $100, 2nd year $100, 3rd year $500, 4th year $1000, 5th year $10,000, etc.

This would allow legitimate patent applications to be affordable while giving you 2-3 years to develop a product. Then a world of hurt for patent-baggers that are squating on 100 patents and not developing.

If you have real revenue coming in, the 4th and 5th year aren't that bad. Or you let the patents drop at that point.

Change the numbers any way you want, but the concept is interesting.

Jim

wrenchy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2009

-5

05/12, 03:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
Ahhh, I love it

when Apple gets a taste of it's own medicine....

muhahahahaaa.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

+1

05/14, 10:20am | report spam | close Reply |
"no more new ideas"

This logic has to be examined.

You really think without patents, people cease to have ideas.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

All we have today is a ridiculous quagmire of lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, and the notion that a quagmire of lawsuits is somehow stimulating the invention of ideas, is "patently" absurd.

The problem is that people are confusing patent with trademark and copyright.

You can protect a certain design, you can protect people from making unauthorized copies, you can protect your trademark....all without having the patent office go and do things like grant a patent on a "hidden button", or a "picture that can move across the screen".

Software patents, by their design, are nothing but granting exclusive monopolies to people have the money and gall to go into the USPTO with plain and obvious things and ask for a patent on them.

We don't need software patents, not for anything, they serve no purpose of any kind. Software can be written without a patent, take it from me, a long time developer....we don't need patents, period.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

+1

05/14, 10:44am | report spam | close Reply |
exclusive monopolies

The problem with granting someone an exclusive monopoly on an obvious idea (and a patent is a limited time monopoly on an idea, thats the nature of it) - )and all software patents by their nature are obvious ideas.) - the problem is, it does nothing but stifle innovation.

All programmers have the ability to elegantly solve problems, and the idea that one "inventor" thought of something that 1000 others wouldn't have - is wrong. It's wrong, period. It's arrogant and silly.

So what happens is, is one person gets granted the 'patent' on the idea - ideas such as "hidden buttons" - and then everyone else writing software, as a practical matter either just plain ignores the patent - thats what happens about 90% of the time, or they have to make their code worse by writing around it.

What rarely ever happens is the license, but sometimes the largest companies license something.

There is another form of IP protection - called the copyright.

Take a look at a copyrighted song "Happy Birthday to You"

How many times did you license it?

So, what typically happens, is 1) nobody licenses it.

But say you use it in a movie, and your Sony Pictures - use it without a license, expect a lawsuit - so they do pay for the license. But what if the license holder asks for a payment of $1 billion dollars - well thats too much, so you change the script to your movie, and you don't include the song.

The problem with software patents, is they are on OBVIOUS ideas.

And the licensing $$$ is almost always based on how much MICROSOFT CAN AFFORD TO PAY.

So you can pretty much count on the fact, that if patents were regularly enforced, it would stifle innovation across the board.

But what typically happens is people just ignore the patent.

What a great system, eh.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

+1

05/14, 11:09am | report spam | close Reply |
Why you have the opinions you have

And I feel my rant coming to an end.

But most people are not leaders, they take opinions they grabbed from other people.

So, I thought I'd explain to you, why you have the opinion you have - why you were told that a patent has to be 'developed' in order to be valid.

What they really want, the larger companies want, is that when they get sued by a patent holder, they can countersue.

The problem with patent holding companies, is they don't produce products. They haven't violated anyone's patents for that reason. The protection of the "countersue" isn't there...so it is just so darn *difficult* to reason with them.

But, as a consumer, the patents that were needed by your PS3...they could have been granted anywhere, they could have gone to a defense contractor - who knows - it doesn't really solve the problem of an idea not being developed into a consumer product. The fact is that license holders set the price - if they think they'll make more money by lowering the fee, they will, but if they don't really think there is a market opportunity there - as wrong as it might be, they may not lower the fee to consumer levels, and that patented technology doesn't get put into consumer products. Say the patent was held by a defense contractor, they are hardly going to license it for $10 a seat, if they think the government will pay 500K per seat. You are still beholden to the imagination of the patent owner, as to whether it gets priced for consumer products.

But here is an idea - stop granting patents on software completely. They do nothing good. The software industry will be just fine without them. They still have the DCMA, they still have trademark and copright protections. They will still develop products, because they make money by selling products.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/21	Foxconn to spend $210M on new Apple...
05/21	Leap Motion takes a swipe at Microsoft...
05/20	Apple to start enforcing sandboxing...
05/20	Hands on: Fling Joystick for iPad and...
05/18	Apple allegedly interested in Russian...

Show All

05/21	Foxconn to spend $210M on new Apple...
05/21	Leap Motion takes a swipe at Microsoft...
05/20	Hands on: Fling Joystick for iPad and...
05/18	New lawsuit accuses Apple of botching...
05/18	RIM, Motorola submit compromise nano...

Show All

05/20	Hands on: Fling Joystick for iPad and...
05/18	iTunes Festival 2012 to run 30 days...
05/17	Apple briefly censors word 'jailbreak...
05/17	Time Warner, Viacom drop dispute over...
05/16	Flipboard 1.9 brings Audio category...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

10 Most Discussed

toggle

Apple, AT&T face patent suit over mobile Safari

updated 10:20 am EDT, Wed May 12, 2010

Case linked to scalable content

Ha ha!

Softview is just hoping....

Re: ha ha

OMG!

FU USPTO

Reduce to practice..

How in the world..

Re: How in the world

Silly idea

Escalating Patent Fees

Ahhh, I love it

"no more new ideas"

exclusive monopolies

Why you have the opinions you have

Login Here

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Apple, AT&T face patent suit over mobile Safari

updated 10:20 am EDT, Wed May 12, 2010

Case linked to scalable content

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Ha ha!

Softview is just hoping....

Re: ha ha

OMG!

FU USPTO

Reduce to practice..

How in the world..

Re: How in the world

Silly idea

Escalating Patent Fees

Ahhh, I love it

"no more new ideas"

exclusive monopolies

Why you have the opinions you have

Login Here

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace