thewayne: (Default)
At this time I can't find a clean link, just this Slashdot summary. I expect more information will be forthcoming.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection determined that the redesigned Apple Watch models do not violate AliveCor's electrocardiogram patents, allowing them to be imported. This decision comes before a consolidated hearing at the Federal Circuit Court regarding the same patents.

From the decision:
We find that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has met its burden to show that certain redesigned wearable devices ("articles at issue") do not infringe one or more of claims 12, 13, and 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,941 ("the '941 Patent") and claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731 ("the '731 Patent). Thus, CBP's position is that the articles at issue are not subject to the limited exclusion order that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission" or "ITC") issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-1266 ("the underlying investigation" or "the 1266 investigation"), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("Section 337").


Apparently CBP is the agency that rules in disputes in front of the U.S. ITC.

https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/07/13/0455202/apple-watch-is-cleared-by-the-cbp-of-infringing-on-the-ecg-patent
thewayne: (Cyranose)
Wow. This right here shows precisely why the patent wars will probably never go away. Microsoft doesn't make anything in Android OS, doesn't contribute to the Android OS, and is making 95% profit on that. The 5%, or roughly $10 million, is probably off to lawyers and acquiring more patents.

It's a good thing they're making so much pure profit on their Android patents, it makes their Xbox and Windows Phone lines look profitable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11
thewayne: (Cyranose)
YES! And a unanimous ruling! It's always been understood that things in nature cannot be patented, I don't know why the patent office didn't reject applications like this from the beginning. But it's well-known that the U.S. patent office is underfunded and understaffed and unable to keep up with the rapid rate of change in new tech fields.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/13/1550225/supreme-court-no-patents-for-natural-dna-sequences
thewayne: (Default)
Appellate judge John Naughton got himself assigned to a lower court so he could take a case where Apple sued Google, Apple claiming that the 'swipe to unlock' of iPhones was being infringed upon by Google's Android phones. The judge thoroughly lambasted both sides, said that no damages could be proved by either party, and threw out the case. Best of all, he threw it out with prejudice, so neither plaintiff can re-file it.

That, in itself, is wonderful. There are far too many stupid tech patent battles going on, and all it's doing is increasing cost to consumers and stifling innovation.

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/judge-who-threw-out-apple-trial-says-patents-are-a-problem-369223.html

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/US-judge-criticises-the-patent-system-1634026.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/01/apple-google-patent-case-john-naughton-comment
thewayne: (Default)
"The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."' The Court invalidated a patent on the process of adjusting medication dosage based on the levels of specific metabolites in the patient's blood. The opinion sets forth a process for determining patent eligibility for patent claims that include a law of nature. The court wrote that the "additional features" that show an application of the law must "provide practical assurance that the [claimed] process is more than a drafting effort." This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks.'"

This is a good thing, but it probably doesn't automatically 'un-grant' such existing types of patents. But with SCOTUS saying no, challenging them and getting them cancelled should be easier and less expensive.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/21/1647234/supreme-court-limits-patents-based-on-laws-of-nature
thewayne: (Default)
They're already suing Apple, now they're expanding the suit. Basically Kodak is on the verge of bankruptcy, so they're trying to milk as much from their patent portfolio as possible.

The sad thing is that Kodak was one of the inventors of digital photography, and now it has killed them. But digital photography isn't solely to blame, an article that I read recently said part of the problem is that they failed to embrace social networking and got left behind.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/01/11/1526226/kodak-sues-htc-and-apple
thewayne: (Default)
The thot plickens. BT alleges that Android violates:
* 6,151,309: a 2000 patent for "service provision system for communications networks"
* 6,169,515: a 2001 patent for a "Navigation information system"
* 6,397,040: a 2002 patent for location tracking of users
* 6,578,079: a 2003 patent for a "communications node for providing network based information service"
* 6,650,284: a 2003 patent for an "information system" with "a fixed part and a mobile part"
* 6,826,598: a 2004 patent for "storage and retrieval of location based information in a distributed network of data storage devices"


The suit was filed in Delaware, I'm curious why they didn't go for West Texas. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm really sick and tired of patent wars, the system has mutated far beyond what it was intended what patents should protect.

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Google-sued-over-Android-and-services-by-BT-1397721.html

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/19/139236/bt-sues-google-over-android
thewayne: (Default)
"A German court has ruled that Apple's iPhone and iPad devices infringe a Motorola patent and issued an injunction against sales of the products in Germany, in the latest move in a long series of legal battles between the companies. It's the latest stage in the international patent conflict that's been raging over mobile devices, which has included the recent Samsung victory over Apple in an Australian court and a defeat for Samsung in a Dutch court."

I wonder if this is Motorola Motorola or Google Motorola?

So crazy. There's only so many metaphors that you can use to express using a computer. So much ridiculous shenanigans going on: I recently received an email notification of a class action settlement against Ticketmaster that I would get $1.50 credit IF I BOUGHT ANOTHER TICKET FROM TICKETMASTER. Certain types of attorneys are definitely in the right biz.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/006203/german-court-issues-injunction-against-iphone-ipad
thewayne: (Default)
The summary from Slashdot says it so well.

"A case before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday addressed the legality of medical patents. From the article: 'The case focuses on a patent that covers the concept of adjusting the dosage of a drug, thiopurine, based on the concentration of a particular chemical (called a metabolite) in the patient's blood. The patent does not cover the drug itself—that patent expired years ago—nor does it cover any specific machine or procedure for measuring the metabolite level. Rather, it covers the idea that particular levels of the chemical "indicate a need" to raise or lower the drug dosage. The patent holder, Prometheus Labs, offers a thiopurine testing product. It sued the Mayo Clinic when the latter announced it would offer its own, competing thiopurine test. But Prometheus claims much more than its specific testing process. It claims a physician administering thiopurine to a patient can infringe its patent merely by being aware of the scientific correlation disclosed in the patent—even if the doctor doesn't act on the patent's recommendations.'"

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/041253/supreme-court-legitimizing-medical-patents

I think I'll patent the process that if you're hot, you might need to take some clothes off or go to a cooler location.
thewayne: (Default)
A long article from Huffington Post talking about the different power players in patent reform, and how tech lost to pharma. It makes a lot of sense, and depressingly, there's no easy answer to fixing it, especially with the amount of corporate sponsorship in Congress these days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_906278.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
thewayne: (Default)
YES! I have always thought these were just flat-out wrong. Patents were intended for inventions, not things that occur in nature. If you invent a machine that will detect certain genetic patterns, fine, patent that. But not the sequence.

This is especially important to me because my condition is genetic and will probably require a genetic cure.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/judge-nullifies-gene-patents/

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2355233/US-District-Judge-Rules-Gene-Patents-Invalid?art_pos=15

September 2025

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
789 10111213
1415 1617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 17th, 2025 07:31 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios