Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[This is The End]

Okay, your confusion on this point makes sense then.

Project much? I was not confused one bit. All I did was use a non-technical synonym for a word. You chose to be a pedant instead of actually discussing the article, twice.

You also made it very clear that you didn't even read the article until your 2nd post, and I'm not even sure about that! It's almost like you type just to hear yourself talk.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's not a paraphrase for you to talk about Apple "resubmitting" the application in response to this office action - it's flat-out wrong. Apple can just respond to an ongoing examination process (a reexam in this place); it's not a case of Apple re-applying or having to start over.

It's the same mistake that I attempted to correct earlier when people pretended like every office action was a response to a new application. There is a single ongoing prosecution process for AN application. The initial rejection is expected and not indicative of a bad application. The applicant can just argue the rejection and is very often expected to receive an allowance despite the initial rejection.

Note that an ex parte reexam is not procedurally identical to a pre-grant examination, but the above points at least hold in either case.

It's not pedantry to point out that people are significantly mis-characterizing patent prosecution procedure, particularly when people are picking apart the specifics of the procedure to judge both particular patents and the process.

There were quite a few P's there.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

I was not confused one bit. All I did was use a non-technical synonym for a word.

Whether or not you were confused, the "non-technical synonym" you used appears to actually be a proper word for something else (according to the explanation offered by AvalonXQ, which you have not denied). You aren't just using a common word, it sounds like you are actually using the wrong word.

 

[This is The End]

It's not a paraphrase for you to talk about Apple "resubmitting" the application in response to this office action - it's flat-out wrong.

Only in a world where by post was not intertwined with an article to provide context would I be wrong and you be correct.

Thankfully we aren't in that world.

Only someone just looking for an argument, or a buffoon, would read my post and that article and think that I wasn't specifically referring to the topic of the article.

 

[This is The End]

The applicant can just argue the rejection and is very often expected to receive an allowance despite the initial rejection.

OH please! From the article:

if Apple has to adjust its claims to salvage the patent, it will not be able to recover damages for alleged infringement that took place before the patent was amended.

See the word "adjust" there. An adjustment would be much more closer to re-submitting than re-examining, in normal English of course.

Funny how you corrected the Patent terms without even reading the article. And then 2 posts later you still haven't made any comments on the article at all.

 

[This is The End]

Whether or not you were confused, the "non-technical synonym" you used appears to actually be a proper word for something else (according to the explanation offered by AvalonXQ, which you have not denied). You aren't just using a common word, it sounds like you are actually using the wrong word.

That would make more sense if it wasn't clearly obvious to anyone who actually read the article and my post what I was talking about!

I'm about ready to post another news story, let's hope that I don't use a word incorrectly because we would then have to talk about that for 10 posts instead of the actual article!

 

[This is The End]

There's no way this can be good for the end user:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/09/apple_google_microsoft_buy_kodak_patents/

Report: Apple, Google, Microsoft join forces to buy Kodak patents

Kodak went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January and got a cash infusion based largely on the value that could be realized on the auction of its patent portfolio. Kodak has a huge amount of digital imaging patents and estimates the stack's value at over $2bn at current market rates.

According to Bloomberg, two consortia had been planning to bid on the patents. Apple, as it did in the Nortel patent buy, sided with Microsoft and ex-Microsoftie Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures with an opening bid of around $500m.

Meanwhile Google teamed up with a group of Asian smartphone vendors and patent firm RTX to offer a similarly sized rival bid and it might have been hoping to get the support of Kodak, since there's little love lost for Cupertino in the company at the moment.

Now, according to two sources, Apple and Google's groups have hammered out their differences and the two consortia have joined together to share costs and put in a combined bid of around $800m.

 

[AvalonXQ]

See the word "adjust" there. An adjustment would be much more closer to re-submitting than re-examining, in normal English of course.

The application is already in the middle of a reexam. When they respond to the office action, they may amend the claims, or they may not. Either way, they will simply be continuing the current reexam process. They won't be re-submitting, re-applying, asking for another reexamination, or in any other way beginning a new patent proceeding. It will simply be another step in the current proceeding.

I don't post these corrections for OTT's benefit - she has made it abundantly clear that she has exactly the same amount of interest in understanding patent prosecution as freemen on the land have in understanding how common law actually works. But I do hope that by correcting the most blatant misunderstandings, others reading the thread may be made marginally less misinformed by it than they might have otherwise, or perhaps even be incentivized to look some of this stuff for themselves (remember that this is all a matter of public record, not that the anti-patent crowd can be bothered to ever look any of this up for themselves).

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

I'm about ready to post another news story, let's hope that I don't use a word incorrectly because we would then have to talk about that for 10 posts instead of the actual article!

Let's hope that you don't do anything incorrectly, because you appear to be be the sort of person who refuses to accept even the simplest correction.

 

[This is The End]

Yeah let's compare your "correction" to the actual article:

The vast majority of first office actions are rejections, and it's quite possible to argue the rejection and get a later allowance without amending the claims at all.

Everything is set up to incentivize the examiners to reject the claims out of the box regardless of their merits. A first action rejection is par for the course. Later prosecution will reveal the real situation.

Sure sounds like you are downplaying the first rejection to me...

Some people say that first Office actions are partial because they are based only on submissions made by those challenging the patent, and many examiners like to take a tough position early on in order to enable and require the patentee to present the strongest arguments in favor of validity. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the significance of a first Office action. Also, a complete rejection of all claims of a given patent is potentially more devastating than one affecting only some claims.

Ironically, you, the self titled "expert" have been clearly proven wrong many more times than me, a novice, in this thread.

So that "par for the course" of yours is just par for the course for you in this thread.

 

[This is The End]

The application is already in the middle of a reexam. When they respond to the office action, they may amend the claims, or they may not. Either way, they will simply be continuing the current reexam process. They won't be re-submitting, re-applying, asking for another reexamination, or in any other way beginning a new patent proceeding. It will simply be another step in the current proceeding.

LMAO, it's post #4 of yours and you still think you are saying something I don't know??

I said in the very first post I was using the term in normal English, as opposed to what it means in your broken patent religion.

Not only that, but anyone that read my post and the article would know very well what I was talking about!

I swear it's like talking to a christian... You can't see the real world beyond your patent dogma.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sure sounds like you are downplaying the first rejection to me...

Yes, I am downplaying the first rejection.

Ironically, you, the self titled "expert" have been clearly proven wrong many more times than me, a novice, in this thread.

Just like talking to a FOTL. You give them the facts, they cite their fiction, and then they claim they've proven you wrong.

 

[This is The End]

OH, please. I was commenting directly on two articles, with quotes. It's quite obvious that I was talking about the subject of those articles and not about some technical patent definition of one of the words I used. On top of that I admitted I was using the wrong word immediately, and yet we are still talking about it several posts later instead of the actual article.

Anyone reading my post and the articles would know that. You on the other hand it seems were so desperate to try and maintain some eminence of being a patent expert after you were thoroughly shown to be completely wrong about a key aspect of patents earlier in this thread that you pounced upon what you saw as the incorrect use of a word. Despite the fact that the context of my post made it quite clear that I was referring to the subject of the article. It is very clear that you have some of the technical aspects of the patent system down pat, but as for thinking about how patents should actually work, you seem to be trapped in the broken system. I notice that you have you only posted 3 whole words in the new thread about Software and Patents after it was split....

 

[AvalonXQ]

You on the other hand it seems were so desperate to try and maintain some eminence of being a patent expert after you were thoroughly shown to be completely wrong about a key aspect of patents earlier in this thread <snip>

No, I wasn't. But feel free to keep chanting your ignorant mantras as truths. There are at least two other anti-patent posters on here, as ill-informed and intellectually bankrupt as you are, who still believe you.

 

[kmortis]

Do NOT make me pull this thread over to the side of the road, kids. Keep on topic, the topic is not the other posters, be civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Judge: There'll be no US Samsung ban, BUT no new trial with Apple either

Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the US, but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/18/apple_samsung_ban_denied_jury_misconduct_rejected/

Samsung tried to argue that jury misconduct was the reason that the case hadn't gone its way in the first place. The firm said that the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, hadn't admitted that he had been involved in litigation of his own when he was being picked for the jury and added that in interviews after the verdict, he appeared to be biased.

Judge Koh said that legally, Hogan's comments after the trial couldn't be used as evidence in a new trial, and if Samsung had a problem with Hogan, it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection, when jurors are questioned.

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr Hogan’s litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate," the ruling said.

"What changed between Samsung’s initial decision not to pursue questioning or investigation of Mr Hogan, and Samsung’s later decision to investigate was simple: the jury found against Samsung, and made a very large damages award. This is precisely the situation that courts have consistently found constitutes a waiver of the juror misconduct claim."

 

[Darat]

I'd say that given what info we have that the judge has made some sensible calls in this stage of appeals and counter-appeals.

It's hard to see how Apple could claim that they've been unable to be competitive because of breaches of their various IP by Samsung given Apple's balance sheet over the past few years! Plus after reading more I thought that Samsung would have a hard case proving that because of some statements made by the foreman after the trial it meant that the jury process had been perverted.

Wonder if either side have grounds for any further appeals?

 

[WildCat]

Pat. 7,844,915 ("pinch to zoom") officially invalidated by the USPTO:

A key patent successfully used by Apple against Samsung in its multibillion dollar courtroom brawl earlier this year has been invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

All 20 claims of U.S. patent number 7,844,915 -- also known as the "pinch-to-zoom" patent -- were invalidated by the USPTO today, following a reexamination.

...The '915 patent covers technology that can distinguish whether a user is scrolling with one finger versus using several touch points at once for a "pinch-to-zoom" action. A California jury said that 21 of the 24 accused devices sold by Samsung Electronics Co. infringed on the main claim of that patent.

That patent played a role in assigning the damages at the end of the case, which totalled just over a billion dollars. That figure that is still subject to change pending some follow-up orders by Koh, which are expected soon.

As some of us have been saying all along, Apple got patents on the unpatentable. And this screwup by the patent office has cost untold millions in damage thus far, how many small companies could have gone toe to toe with Apple this long? I'm guessing none, and this is why the whole rotten patent system needs to be overhauled. It is nothing more than a tool for large companies to drive smaller competitors out of business.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Pat. 7,844,915 ("pinch to zoom") officially invalidated by the USPTO:

As usual, this is woefully inaccurate reporting. What we have, again, is a first office action rejecting the claims - not a final rejection, and certainly not USPTO "invalidating" the patent. Apple still has the opportunity to respond and there's no reason to believe that the rejection won't be withdrawn after they do. See my earler response.

By the way, the reexamination proceeding appears to be number 90/012,332 in case anyone's interested in looking at it. Note that the linked article doesn't actually provide you with that information or any way to get from it to the actual rejection - probably because, as usual, the reporter didn't bother to gather any actual facts before writing.

 

[WildCat]

Note that the linked article doesn't actually provide you with that information or any way to get from it to the actual rejection - probably because, as usual, the reporter didn't bother to gather any actual facts before writing.

Or maybe that the reporter is amazed as everyone else that you could patent using touch inputs on a touch screen to do stuff.