Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
12-05-2009, 11:27 AM #41
This is terrible! Does this company make any products they own patents for? I think patent owners shouldn't be able to sue unless they can be competitive in the market. What if Ben Frank had patented electricity? We could either be sitting in the dark, or being sued everytime we turned flicked the switch. I'm not sure how the patent system works, but it seems like a great to patent things that are years from becoming a reality. Or maybe find something common that technically isn't patented. "Using series of buttons to make a purchase of a snack item". Oh wait I just became a millionaire from suing vending machine companies! Unbelievable what some people will do these days. I like the idea of patents when used correctly, but no one on Earth except this company and their legal team benefit from this. Can these suits be appealed to higher courts? I'm disgusted.
12-05-2009, 02:14 PM #42
12-05-2009, 04:14 PM #43
The reason they make so much money is because of possible losses. Since other companies make **** loads of money off of cameras using their patents they are in a sense loosing money. Obviously the whole reason they created the patents was to sue companies when digital cameras became big in the market and you may think they are *** holes for doing it but trust me they can't hear you under the piles of money they are swimming in.
12-05-2009, 05:51 PM #44
Apple would do the same thing about multitouch or anything else that they have patented for that matter. Why the hell are all you fools protecting Apple?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I once prayed to God for an iPhone, but quickly found out He didn't work that way...so I stole an iPhone and prayed for His forgiveness.
A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself. - Josh Billings
12-05-2009, 09:30 PM #45
12-06-2009, 02:01 AM #46
This thread is driving me crazy!
Patents 101 for all of the St. Clair haters. You cannot patent an invention unless it is patentable subject matter, novel, and non-obvious at the time of filing for a patent.
Patentable subject matter includes processes, machines, manufactures, and/or compositions of matter. You cannot patent an abstract idea--such as a mathematical formula--or a naturally occurring phenomena--such as electricity (e.g., lightning). However, you can patent an embodiment of a mathematical formula that performs a practical function or a process for generating electricity.
The invention must also be novel. In other words, you cannot patent something that is already known. For example, you could not patent "using a series of buttons to purchase a snack item" because this process is probably already known.
In addition, the invention must be non-obvious in light of known inventions. In other words, if a prior invention includes element A, and another prior invention includes element B, you cannot patent a new invention that includes only elements A and B unless it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements A and B to form the new invention.
Also, the St. Clair patents were acquired from a company, Personal Computer Cameras (PCC), that intended to develop this technology but, instead, ran out of money and, as a result, needed to liquidate its assets, including these patents. PCC did, however, contribute research and development to the industry of digital cameras.
The author of this article also misled you into believing that some of these patents were as simple as pushing a button to take a picture. That is absolutely false! All of the patents listed under the '459 patent are continuations of the '459 patent, which claimed taking digital photographs and storing them in solid-state memory. Because they are continuations of the '459 patent, these continuation patents are limited to the the technology claimed in the '459 patent. In other words, these continuation patents do not apply to traditional film cameras but, rather, only to digital cameras that store digital images in solid-state memory.
Remember, the application for the '459 patent was filed in 1990. In fact, all of these patents will be expiring very soon. This technology may seem old now, but in 1990, it was cutting-edge.
12-06-2009, 03:21 AM #47
12-06-2009, 05:26 AM #48
Actually 010 isn't going anywhere, as you tap the screen to take the picture, not press a button.
12-07-2009, 08:20 AM #49
To me thats like filing a patent saying " A device to transport people and things with a gasoline powered engine and four wheels" Then suing every automobile manufacturers. The patents are ridiculous. Or " a device that is portable to connect to the internet" then lets sue all cell phone and laptop producers. I cannot believe that they winning the lawsuits. Oh well just my opinion.If anything was usefull a thanks would be great!
12-07-2009, 01:00 PM #50
Yeah it seems that way ti us so it's rediculous butjonbillsee had a great point at the time it was craziness that we could do that stuff seriously same with automobiles how crazy was itthat now we could do that? Now it seems like an obvious thing but at the time not at all and with portable Internet devices