[A2k] PATNEWS: Apple's new crappy patent on disabling cellphones

JotHal jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com
Sat Sep 29 09:58:06 PDT 2012


The experiment has been undertaken by adherents of software patents.
Here Richard Vary, head of Nokia litigation unit
https://sites.google.com/site/ipkatreaders/unifiedpatentproposal/vary%20bifufcation.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Only four pages. The most important page:

"In our industry, weak patents are a particular problem. In the last 5
years, Nokia has been sued for infringing over 150 patents in Europe:
in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Austria. Our opponents between
them hold many thousands of patents, so one might assume that these
150 or so were the cream of their extensive portfolios.

On infringement, these patents have had some success, as one might
expect. Skilled patent attorneys can generally select for assertion
patents with a good infringement read. But none of the patents that
have come to trial have been found valid. On this chart, all of the
patents were invalid in their entirety. But this slide is only the tip
of the iceberg…

Here, too small to read, are listed the 61 IPCom patent cases against
Nokia that have so far reached judgment. IPCom is the patent licensing
company that purchased Bosch’s mobile phone portfolio and is asserting
it against the industry today.

You might expect that the Bosch portfolio would be strong: Bosch is a
highly respected company, it invested some €8bn into research in the
mobile telecoms area, and it chaired many of the standardisation
meetings. But, again, all of the patents that have reached judgment
have been found invalid as granted. For some, amendments were allowed,
but in all but one of those cases the amendments take the patent so
far from any likely infringement as to be worthless.

In short, of the 150 carefully selected patents asserted against
Nokia, 71 have been pursued through to judgment, and only one may
possibly be valid. That gives an illustration of the proportion of
patents in our industry that have problems with validity."

-- 
'JotHal' jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl

2012/9/29 Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>:
> It is a good question for the Peer-to-Patent folks.
>
> Here's a thought experiment I just came up with, what would be a
> really good goof -- if it was actually possible, though really
> figuring out would probably be impossible.  So: what if we created a
> very general representation scheme for describing what patents are
> doing, then use it to describe classic (pre-sw) patents, and start
> demonstrating 1) a good number of examples of such patents that are
> really the same, once represented this way; and 2) a good set of such
> patents that are similar because they match by the general
> representation scheme, but they also have empirical elements that
> differ and can't be generalized.  Off the top of my head I think of,
> as an example of the second set, a briefcase refrigerator that matches
> a briefcase oven -- that might get across the idea I'm trying to
> describe.  Or maybe it would have to be similar devices in those
> briefcases that just happen to heat when you put one set of chemicals
> in, but also refrigerate with another set of chemicals.  You begin to
> see the difficulty.  It's hard for me to describe the problem:
> fractal, nested complexity? Or is it actually impossible to prove that
> the differentiating empirical elements cannot be generalized to fit in
> any general representation system, so that the point can actually be
> made?  But it would be amazing if somebody pulled it off.  :-)
>
> Again, far easier to come in the other way and just recognize pure
> logical abstraction for what it is, and exclude it.  Rather than try
> to work it out on the empirical, a posteriori side.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Erik Josefsson
> <erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/09/12 10:08, Erik Josefsson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Would then a regexp like this one be considered prior art?
>>>
>>>
>>> ^((?>[a-zA-Z\d!#$%&'*+\-/=?^_`{|}~]+\x20*|"((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^"\\]|\\[\x01-\x7f])*"\x20*)*(?<angle><))?((?!\.)(?>\.?[a-zA-Z\d!#$%&'*+\-/=?^_`{|}~]+)+|"((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^"\\]|\\[\x01-\x7f])*")@(((?!-)[a-zA-Z\d\-]+(?<!-)\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,}|\[(((?(?<!\[)\.)(25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|[01]?\d?\d)){4}|[a-zA-Z\d\-]*[a-zA-Z\d]:((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^\\\[\]]|\\[\x01-\x7f])+)\])(?(angle)>)$
>>>
>>
>> I never got an answer to this question.
>>
>> Can a peer to patent proponent please step forward?
>>
>> In particular someone from Google would be nice since they are now
>> apparently engaged in the lip service:
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/patent-busting-crowdsourced/
>>
>> And no, I will never forgive Beth Novak for saying killing software patents
>> is not a political option only one year after we did it in the EU.
>>
>> //Erik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> A2k mailing list
>> A2k at lists.keionline.org
>> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org




More information about the A2k mailing list