Comments on: Apple’s Pinch-to-Zoom Patent Ruled Invalid by USPTO

By: jer85008

jer85008 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:52:00 +0000

Thanks for the intelligent non-snarky reply – usually good discusisons on the DL forums!

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:23:00 +0000

As they say, It doesn’t matter who you are today, because tomorrow is another day. What we are seeing is a highly inflated poor excuse for an innovative company, harassing the little guy(looking for a chance to exist) so that only THEY can eat. The superstar Tech company cannot be conquered by outsiders(Google, Samsung, Nokia), it will implode from within. Just look at the Romans.

That being said, I’m already noticing a change in the weather at Cupertino. What do you think?

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:13:00 +0000

You never know…They might be supplying the honest folks at the USPTO with some (in the red) AAPL stocks behind closed doors.

By: JRomeo

JRomeo — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:58:00 +0000

Wait, the patents in the Judge Koh Apple/Samsung case referred to design patents, not software patents…………….. Correct???????

By: AJ

AJ — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:27:00 +0000

Moses was using it before everyone.

By: David Wanless

David Wanless — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:39:00 +0000

Rumor has it Apple is going to patent the patent system. Anyone caught seeking a patent will be sued for breaching Apple’s patent on patents.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:24:00 +0000

Probably done on purpose as Samsung could have been going for the end game: invalidation of the patents, not a ruling saying they didn’t infringe. Basically, it’s no issue that they infringed on a patent if that patent is invalid. Much stronger victory, here.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:23:00 +0000

You can’t steal something that doesn’t belong to someone. Apple has been abusing the patent system for years; basically patenting things that either already existed (prior art) or were iterative and obvious (also ineligible for a patent). These are not in need of protection. What the USPTO did here was essentially say, “Uh, yeah; we never ought to have granted that. Sorry.” They did not say that no one has any right to IP; just that Apple’s IP, in this case, was illegitimate.

By: jer85008

jer85008 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:07:00 +0000

Sorry to put the brakes on the Apple hate mail – but doesn’t this open up foreign copycats to stealing more IP from an American company? Please correct/enlighten me but in our rush to heap more S#$7 on Apple isn’t this bad for American business? Personally, I don’t want to see Apple fail – I want to see Apple/Google/Microsoft in a fierce technology war where they are all successful to some degree and we benefit from killer products. Right now, I’m firmly in the Google camp but will follow the leader in terms of technology and innovation.

By: MicroNix

MicroNix — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:35:00 +0000

New book:

“When Apple’s Money Can’t Make The Competition Go Away”

By: MicroNix

MicroNix — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:30:00 +0000

This can’t be +1′d enough!

By: Manny

Manny — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:56:00 +0000

So you were hired by THE INTERNET to correct grammar? YOU ARE ALSO A TURD. Leave it to an android fanboy..

By: Kindroid

Kindroid — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:42:00 +0000

Do NOT force close apps in Android. Android has a very sophisticated app management system that controls how apps are running. When you force close an app…it interferes with the algorithms that control the operation of that function. For all Android users….please quit force closing apps.

By: Aaron Offenberger

Aaron Offenberger — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:35:00 +0000

If you’re going to insult someone, please learn proper grammar. There is a difference between your and you’re. Google it, or feel free to sit in a second grade English course.

By: Derkk

Derkk — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:03:00 +0000

Love to see these crazy wide open patents being reversed. Should have never been granted in in the first place. Patents are there for protection against a very specific design, not a basic idea.