News - Apple’s pinch-to-zoom patent invalidated in initial ruling

[HEXUS]

Because “...prior patents covered the same inventions” says the WSJ.

Read more.

[brasco]

I think all the accusations of US protectionism by their patent office may be leading to a compensating swing the other way... Actually researching these patents may have been a good idea in the first place?

[jimbouk]

Samsung should sue the patent office for damages due to incompetency...

[shaithis]

I am seriously hoping that this gets settled once and for all soon by cross-licensing IP like they did with HTC.

Then, with all IP x-licensed, Samsung and HTC release IOS devices just to make apple go mental

[scaryjim]

I am seriously hoping that this gets settled once and for all soon by cross-licensing IP like they did with HTC.

If USPTO keep invalidating Apple patents at this rate, they won't have any IP left to cross-license

[Obscurity]

Any word on who owns the patent before apple? Gotta say this had me in stitches, half of Apple's cases fall flat after this.

[genkifd]

Recent Apple trend is continuing - sue our competition. since our sales our down only way to get money is sue our competition.

sooner or later every company is going to hate Apple and their products will suffer from this poor behaviour.

[3dcandy]

It does appear that the legal system is getting a bit tired of Apple's stance....consumers will be next!

[Brewster0101]

in your face apple

[Harkin]

From the BBC website:

A total of 21 specific methodologies are claimed by Apple's filing. All were rejected by the patent office on the basis that they had already been granted to previous applicants - something the USPTO had not discovered before approving the document in November 2010.

For now the patent remains valid and Apple is expected to appeal.

So Apple are violating previous patents and they can just carry on doing that? If someone violated one of Apple's patent they would make sure the product was taken off the shelves, funny how that's not even an option because it's Apple Makes me even happier watching them sink

[twilightZone]

This isn't good for Apple.

[crossy]

I'll freely admit to being thoroughly confused by this story. As I understand it, the USPTO are saying that there's prior art for all the content of this particular patent and "it should never have been granted". That being the case why are they not invalidating it now? I realise that under the US legal system Apple have a right to appeal, but surely there's either prior art or there isn't - and besides isn't the USPTO the final arbiter of what is - or isn't - "prior art" for a patent?

As an owner of two Samsung devices (although no fanboy!) I'm hoping that this latest declaration materially affects that Apple v's Samsung court case (the US$1bn one). Personally I can't see any sense in any part of that court decision standing - flawed trial and now apparently (largely?) based on a fundamentally flawed patent claim. I'll raise a glass in the hope that sanity prevails and we see an end to all this patent (-ly stupid) tit for tat legal nonsense. (by ALL sides!)

As for the patent lawyers, maybe the late Kenny Everett's "General Cheeseburger" character had the right idea ... round them up in a field and bomb the ....

[Zerox]

Oh look, 2/3 of the patents used in the Samsung trial, namely patent '381' (bounceback) and '915' (pinch-to-zoom), have been declared invalid (although they will only be revoked after countless appeals from Apple)

Does this mean that for now Samsung will get back 2/3 of that $1 billion payout + a little compensation for the legal fees & brand damage?

Seems only fair in my eyes.