Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 iPod Patent: DENIED Posted Aug 11, 2005, 9:31 AM ET by Brad Hill Apple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 any links to articles? I'm just sort of interested in reading abt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by MorePaul any links to articles?I'm just sort of interested in reading abt it I did better than a link. I posted an entire article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 That's the whole article?!? I was hoping the article or site would have citations (maybe the patent number and/or the app number if the app has gone public, etc - sources of comment, etc)at least a credintials check on the reporting org(I mean, I'd rather have a link..updates, retractions, citation, etc) Initially, it sounds like an OA which is really common (I'm not sure I'd go far as to say "more common than not"...but really really common) BTW - I figure I'd better get this out of the way...No, I'm not "apple guy" , or an "MS guy" or any of that bull{censored} -- I'm more interested in the IP law of it and that don't stand for iPod that's a gripe of mine with legal reporting...a lot of times you read about court rulings and they don't even bother to put a docket number...WTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by MorePaul That's the whole article?!? I was hoping the article or site would have citations (maybe the patent number and/or the app number if the app has gone public, etc - sources of comment, etc) at least a credintials check on the reporting org Initially, it sounds like an OA which is really common (I'm not sure I'd go far as to say "more common than not"...but really really common) BTW - I figure I'd better get this out of the way...No, I'm not "apple guy" , or an "MS guy" or any of that bull{censored} -- I'm more interested in the IP law of it and that don't stand for iPod I'm certainly sorry that the article did not meet your high standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Hey Hey Hey ... that's OK I mean it's first blip and all eh, I have to deal with IP daily, so yeah...my interest is slightly more than casual (though I'm not driven to this case by any specific biz concerns) but yeah, in general, I find "legal synopsis" reporting to cause a hell of a lot of confusion and misinterpretation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members steadyb Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_beats_apple_in_ipod_patent_race/ B.G. - Apple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 thanki Si - it's a start (seems a bit partisan in terms of nature of site, but a start and it doesn't invalidate, we just have to keep that perspective in mind) - definitely gets the ball rolling and allows us to take a look Man I sure wish they'd do a little more citation, but even the lack thereof is valuable in terms of reporting validation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spokenward Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by Duck King I did better than a link. I posted an entire article. No, It's not better. Quotes, sources, links and attribution. Bloomberg story The Register AppleInsider reports that the rotational patent has been rejected by the USPTO. However, this isn't as final as the statement suggests. "Non-Final Rejections" (NFR) of this kind aren't unusual. Patents are frequently bounced back to the inventor, and many successful patents are accepted only after several NFRs. For example, an Amazon.com e-commerce patent we wrote about recently succeeded at the fifth attempt in four years.Apple's rotation application, we discover, received its first NFR on September 29, 2004 and was bounced again on June 13 this year.But Platt's playlist application also has a rejection history. It received an NFR on 17 November 2002, and a more serious Final Rejection on 14 June 2004. After further documentation was received, and extension granted, the application received another NFR on 11 December last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by spokenward No, It's not better. Quotes, sources, links and attribution. Bloomberg story The Register Well, I happen to think my one full article was better than your two links and one quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spokenward Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Not if you want to use the forum as a source of accurate information that can be reviewed by peers. That is an SSS tradition that really anyone can learn. Try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by spokenward Not if you want to use the forum as a source of accurate information that can be reviewed by peers. That is an SSS tradition that really anyone can learn. Try it. You have to be kidding. That may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on an internet forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spokenward Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Not hardly, I've seen your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by spokenward Not hardly, I've seen your work. Now you hurt my feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 The P.O. is out of control and in way over its head. Without weighing in on either the merits of either the denied Apple patent or the already approved MS patent, I think it's worth noting that the P.O. has over the last 10 or 15 years been handing out patents for things that should never have been patented as though they were candy on halloween. The height of absurdity was, I think, whoever it was a few years ago who tried to maintain that they had a patent on the 'clickable link.' [And now that I've read the rest of the thread, I realize the article that leads the thread was so poorly written as to be next to worthless. So, you know... what good is a link to a worthless article? Nah. I'm not getting in this. Thanks for sharing, Duck. And thanks for caring, Spokenward. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 > Then consider yourself lucky! I mean, I've seen industrial-strength stupid on the net. It's not a pretty sight. From what I understand a huge number of patents are rejected when challenged. There's a lot of prior art out there, and it's not surprising that it doesn't always get uncovered no matter how diligent the involved parties are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by Duck King That may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on an internet forum. Nah....I've read stupid-er stuff. "They suck and their customers are morons." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Posting a link to your source is considered proper net protocol and "good manners". Not doing so can give people the impression that those are your words, and not a quote from someone else. Since you said it was from an article, that's not true in this case, but it's generally considered the "correct" way to do it. Additionally, you also find that some people will question something - accuracy vs rumor etc. if a source isn't given. Furthermore, there's a question of copyrights... quoting an entire article might not always be a good idea insofar as that goes... especially if you don't link back to the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duck King Posted August 12, 2005 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Posting a link to your source is considered proper net protocol and "good manners". Not doing so can give people the impression that those are your words, and not a quote from someone else. Since you said it was from an article, that's not true in this case, but it's generally considered the "correct" way to do it. Additionally, you also find that some people will question something - accuracy vs rumor etc. if a source isn't given. Furthermore, there's a question of copyrights... quoting an entire article might not always be a good idea insofar as that goes... especially if you don't link back to the source. Sorry, you brought the AOL crowd with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members franknputer Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Actually, if you read the article that was linked to then you'll see that the statement made in the orignal post is not exactly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FrankieP Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 Originally posted by Duck King Sorry, you brought the AOL crowd with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members steadyb Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 The Real Deal On Microsoft's Playlist Patent "The patent has been the focus on media reports this week that suggest a connection between a digital media patent filed months later by Apple Computer," DiCarlo reports. "The reports suggest that some component of the iPod interface may be infringing on Microsoft's patent, and that Apple may be forced to pay royalties to Microsoft on millions of iPod units sold. In truth, the patents in question might not even be directly related." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted August 12, 2005 Members Share Posted August 12, 2005 I assume the ipod app is not yet published? OAs aren't unusual and I'm not seeing that there is a petition to make 20030221541 special because of actual infringment Kinda tough to tell without actually being able to see the applications though - that's the thing about "may"...it implies and includes "may not"but, we just don't have the full info thanks for the update! esp with the app number!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.