UK Court Invalidates Motorola Message Syncing Patents 31
Dupple writes with news of another tech patent thrown out for obviousness. From the article: "On Friday, the High Court of London issued a ruling that said that one of Motorola's patents covering technology to synchronize messages across several devices should be invalidated. Originally, the patent covered the synching of messages across multiple pagers, but recently Motorola has used the patent in lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft for using similar message-syncing services in iCloud and on the Xbox, respectively. The presiding Judge Richard Arnold declared Motorola's patent invalid and said it should be revoked because the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.'"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One would think there's a suitable 12-step program...
Dictionary (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine a Judge whose dictionary has the same definition of 'obvious' as the rest of us.
Satan is skating to work this morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a Judge whose dictionary has the same definition of 'obvious' as the rest of us.
Imagine a /. editor who can see "syncing" and then allow "synching."
Good to see another obvious patent go down in flames. "But, this is done on a computer!" Meh.
If we're killing off obvious patents. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
So does that mean that patents on the following will be invalidated as well:
* email over (over a wireless network)
* The hyperlink
* Toolbars/button bars/ribbon bars
* the double click
* single-click purchase
* app stores (over a wireless network)
* Click to purchase upgrade (inside a smartphone app)
* Rounded-off rectangles
Maybe the judge was thinking of Europeans? (Score:3, Funny)
Europeans are better endowed when it comes to matters of intellect, than Americans. So maybe this patent should be invalidated in Europe but not in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing intellect with education.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing intellect with education.
Your confusing intellect and education with brain washing...
dang commie... we don't want none o' that!
dang muzzies... we don't want none o' that!
dang fags... we don't want none o' that!
dang atheists... we don't want none o' that!
Re: (Score:1)
Obligatory Bertrand Russell quote (from memory, my bad if not word for word...)
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans are better endowed when it comes to matters of intellect, than Americans. So maybe this patent should be invalidated in Europe but not in the US.
Yes, European history is chock full of illuminating examples of said enlightenment - must be nice to live in such a peaceful, civil place...
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't hold your breath. If you want to innovate best move to China and just ignore patents.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about where you live, but in the UK if you want a good example of prior art of a rounded rectangle as a design element, you could point at a road sign.
Curious (Score:2)
the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.
What does "priority date from 1995" mean? Granted, there are thousands of patents like this that should be invalidated. But does that mean they filed for this patent in 1995? If so, it's wasn't all that obvious then. Did it take seven years for it to be granted? And is the judge referring to the 1995 or 2002 date when he mentions the "expert in the field at that time?"
Re:Curious (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But does that mean they filed for this patent in 1995? If so, it's wasn't all that obvious then.
Push email got introduced in 1986 in IMAP if not earlier. Was the Motorola enhancement that much different that deserves a patent? the judge which look at the specifics of the case believes it is not.
What a scrooge (Score:2)
That's not a very nice thing to do to Motorola right before Christmas.
Well there's still the Privy Council (Score:1)
Or should I say the Privy Council/Supreme Court? I think I recall there were some legislative changes in that regard some 5 to 10 years ago.
BTW has Apple considered the consequences, precedence wise?