If 'prior art' doesn't work for the companies Apple has sued successfully defeating legitimate prior art claims(and subsequently taken competing products off shelves), Apple doesn't deserve to be able to have that defense.
Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here...of patent trolling.
The system should be reformed so any patent would require a commercially viable product to be sold for some determined period of time, to allow the patent to be valid. This would eliminate this type of patent troll companies, at least.
Here is example of the ridiculousness of the patent system. There is nothing unique or non-obvious about either of these patents. Its just basic programming and engineering, nothing that deserves economic protection. (And yes the same is true of many of the Apple patents)
Just pick something and sue... seriously... it will settle out of court. its that easy. tomorrow im going down to a store that serves coffee in Styrofoam cups that doesnt have "contents hot" written on them and since I can handle pain... im spilling that sucker all over me... bam... theres that 10,000 computer system ive been wanting.
This is how ridiculous this sue happy society has become.
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]I don't like Apple but these companies are just trash.[/citation]
I agree completely. I think it's a complete abuse of the system to create a corp. and buy a patent just to sue someone. Having said that....who better could he possibly have chosen than Apple.
I think Samsung should finance all these suits against Apple as revenge for the whole German court blocking all Galaxy tab sales in Europe for however many weeks that was. Apple has a hell of a lot of bad karma to get through when it comes to litigation.
[citation][nom]jsc[/nom]Considering Apple's conduct in the past, it is hard to be too sympathetic, but Apple's defense should be able to be summed up in two words: "Prior art".[/citation]
How can Apple claim prior art if this patent was filled in 2005 and their first iPhone was launched in 2007? Of course this is still another abuse of the patent system.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Let's get past our dislike for the usual Apple tactics, and look at the real problem here...of patent trolling.The system should be reformed so any patent would require a commercially viable product to be sold for some determined period of time, to allow the patent to be valid. This would eliminate this type of patent troll companies, at least.[/citation]
there need to be 2 patent systems, bug business ones, where they need a viable product, and consumer level, where they need a detailed schematic.
protects the extremely smart hobbiests and inventors not in corperat pockets, while allowing corporations some ability to protect their innovations....
there would be some leway for companies who are underfunded and cant produce the product in a timely manor. got to also look out for the little guys.