[Macworld]

Post your comments for Another Apple patent in Samsung dispute questioned by U.S. patent officials here

[brilor]

"Tentative rejection"? The USPTO report ( linked to in article ) definitively cites prior works and the text of those other patents that invalidate Apple's claim. Moreover, USPTO cites not just one but several sources to indicate Apple did not originate the touch screen idea. Looks like Apple is done on this claim.

[redgeminipa]

Quote

"Tentative rejection"? The USPTO report ( linked to in article ) definitively cites prior works and the text of those other patents that invalidate Apple's claim. Moreover, USPTO cites not just one but several sources to indicate Apple did not originate the touch screen idea. Looks like Apple is done on this claim.

Too bad no other mainstream company made the push with an intuitive, fluid, multi-touch touchscreen until Apple came along with the iPhone.

I owned a few Palm phones back in the day, and that kind of touchscreen was nothing like the ones we have today.

[marbachan]

Although it may be true that Apple may not have originated some, however, Apple did work on it to make it a success that others copied.

Apple's successes is not based on a single patent that make it a success. It is the combination of a set of ideas, dependent on one another, that make is a success.

Therefore, to judge against Apple's based on patents alone is too myopic. It should be based on a set of technologies.

I believe the success of the iPod is not iPod alone but an "eco-system" of iTunes and iPod with songs, etc.

Question is can one patent a successful combination of ideas?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

marbachan, on 21 December 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Although it may be true that Apple may not have originated some, however, Apple did work on it to make it a success that others copied.

Apple's successes is not based on a single patent that make it a success. It is the combination of a set of ideas, dependent on one another, that make is a success.

Therefore, to judge against Apple's based on patents alone is too myopic. It should be based on a set of technologies.

I believe the success of the iPod is not iPod alone but an "eco-system" of iTunes and iPod with songs, etc.

Question is can one patent a successful combination of ideas?

The real question is does Apple's success need patent protection at all. Even with others heavily copying them they have continued to increase profits and revenue. Their reward has been extraordinary, so does it benefit society to go beyond that? Does Apple really need to prevent others from learning from it?

[ingus]

Quote

Although it may be true that Apple may not have originated some, however, Apple did work on it to make it a success that others copied. Apple's successes is not based on a single patent that make it a success. It is the combination of a set of ideas, dependent on one another, that make is a success. Therefore, to judge against Apple's based on patents alone is too myopic. It should be based on a set of technologies. I believe the success of the iPod is not iPod alone but an "eco-system" of iTunes and iPod with songs, etc. Question is can one patent a successful combination of ideas?

Maybe, but not necessarily. It must be new, novel, and non-obvious. It can't be obvious to one "skilled in the art". Even then, it would be a much narrower patent since the specific combination would be patented.

[emepstein]

Back in the 60's and 70's, the Japanese and American Auto companies went at each other with a vengeance. The Japanese made far better cars, they took big time market share, Toyota and Honda became household names, and over time we all benefited big time. They didn't sue the hell out of each other, they just innovated and kept improving quality in a good-ole free-market battle. Apple is the market leader (or at least the apple fan-boys think they are) at this time, but just like the japanese, they took a lot of things to heart and just made them work better together. I don't see Apple as an inventor, only a perfector. I hope that the courts start seeing it that way too, and it looks like the patent office is finally starting to weigh in about these prior art issues.