Results 1 to 12 of 12

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Apple Being Sued Over Quick Look Feature Found in the Mac OS X

  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,378
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 144 Times in 129 Posts

    Default Apple Being Sued Over Quick Look Feature Found in the Mac OS X


    The non-practicing entity, WhitServe, recently filed a complaint against Apple claiming that the Quick Look function found in a number of OS X iteration infringes on its file viewing patent from 2011. In its claim, WhitServe alleges that Quick Look violates the company’s U.S. Patent No. 7,921,139 for a “System for sequentially opening and displaying files in a directory,” which was applied for in 2006 and granted in April of 2011.

    Apple originally introduced Quick Look in Mac OS X 10.5 “Leopard,” which debuted at the Worldwide Developers Conference in October 2007. The feature allows users to view the contents of a folder or file without opening the specific application that created it. Files that are supported include PDF, QuickTime, Pages, Text and others. The function still remains active on all current Macs and can be accessed via the space bar for those of you who didn't already know.

    The ‘139 patent offers a similar solution, using software to open and close files in a near-full view mode, which happened to be a big improvement on the thumbnail-based technology of the day. Also noted in the patent’s language is a system to browse said files, called the file selector module, which can move through previews in sequential order. Unlike Apple’s invention, the ‘139 patent does allow users to edit documents and view multiple files at once, giving it more functionality than the Quick Look feature we are used to right now.

    WhitServe continues to claim that it licenses the patent’s technology to undisclosed companies and alleges that Apple’s infringement is causing irreparable harm as it is “not fully compensable by money damages.” The company is seeking damages and court fees from Apple as well as a permanent injunction against the features implementation in OS X.

    Source: AppleInsider
    Last edited by Akshay Masand; 10-26-2012 at 06:59 AM.

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    It's WhitServe not WhiteServe. Not trying to sound like a jerk.

  3. #3
    iPhone? More like MyPhone Colin9001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Money, money, money, money, money

  4. #4
    Ok if it took this long to sue over it may be fake just sayin looks like total bs to me

  5. #5
    So the same thing that windows also does -_-

  6. #6
    They have actually been successful in many of their lawsuits, but I'm sure if it came down to it, Apple could just buy the company.

  7. #7
    This is why Apple aggressively defends their own patents. Because if they don't the real patent trolls (easily identified because they are all nonpracticing entities) will go after Apple if Apple doesn't press their rights first.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by cmwade77 View Post
    They have actually been successful in many of their lawsuits, but I'm sure if it came down to it, Apple could just buy the company.
    which is probably exactly what they hope for.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Modding life View Post
    Ok if it took this long to sue over it may be fake just sayin looks like total bs to me
    It would take that long to sue because the company needs to do a lot of searching and validation if apple really infringe their property

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    This is why Apple aggressively defends their own patents. Because if they don't the real patent trolls (easily identified because they are all nonpracticing entities) will go after Apple if Apple doesn't press their rights first.
    Bingo. Non-practicing entities who's entire purpose is to hold patents and troll the courts should be stripped of them. That's not the intended purpose of patents. And if your going to let the system get to this, you might as well toss the whole thing.

    The only exception I could see is a holding company which is a joint-venture of multiple corps looking to co-op on actually producing something and they can't each hole the patents separately. I know this happens frequently, but I can't recall any offhand...

  11. #11
    iPhone? More like MyPhone Ozzie5374's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Country South Australia
    Posts
    194
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Ain't Capitalism great!

  12. #12
    you reap what you sow

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •