Judge Reverses Ridiculous $625 Million Patent Award Against Apple Over Cover Flow, Spotlight & Time Machine
from the smart-judge dept
Last fall, we wrote about yet another in a long line of ridiculous patent lawsuits. This one, filed against Apple, got some extra attention, because the lawsuit was filed by Mirror Worlds, a spinoff from Yale University, founded by Prof. David Gelertner, who was complaining in the press that he wasn't getting "credit" for these inventions which Apple was accused of infringing on. Of course, the patents seemed pretty general:
Apple responded, by pointing out that this ruling was plainly ridiculous, and thankfully, the judge in the case has agreed, pretty much tossing out the whole thing, noting that while the patents may still be valid, Apple did not infringe, and even if it did infringe, the damages awards were ridiculous.
It seems likely that Mirror Worlds will appeal, so this case probably isn't over yet, but it's nice to see a judge (in East Texas, too!) actually point out that the jury got this one totally and completely wrong.
- 6,006,227: Document stream operating system
- 6,638,313: Document stream operating system
- 6,725,427: Document stream operating system with document organizing and display facilities
- 6,768,999: Enterprise, stream-based, information management system
Apple responded, by pointing out that this ruling was plainly ridiculous, and thankfully, the judge in the case has agreed, pretty much tossing out the whole thing, noting that while the patents may still be valid, Apple did not infringe, and even if it did infringe, the damages awards were ridiculous.
It seems likely that Mirror Worlds will appeal, so this case probably isn't over yet, but it's nice to see a judge (in East Texas, too!) actually point out that the jury got this one totally and completely wrong.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTF?!?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A missed opportunity
"Would have made freely available" but didn't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A missed opportunity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A missed opportunity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A missed opportunity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't mess with me...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This werdict perpetuates a bad system
If the verdict and the amount were allowed to stand, companies would eventually get the clue that patient laws that allow such big awards, are as much of a liability as an asset.
As soon as the percentage of payouts vs. total revenue gets large enough for large companies, they will lobby for lower awards which in turn will make filing the lawsuits less lucrative in the first place, turning the focus to innovation.
If you truly wish reform of a broken system, the best thing to do is to allow it to perform broken. The influential players will eventually get fed up and reform it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling
The only sensible way to determine damages is to let the market set them. Restore injunctions for all patentees large and small, then we will truly know what an invention is worth. Anything short of an injunction once infringement is found is theft by government on top of theft by the infringer and a denial of a Constitutionally mandated right.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling
Wait you're suggesting that Patents are Constitutional right? Are you high? The only reference to IP in the constitution is clearly there to mitigate it's impact and limit the availability of such monopolies. Remember at that time, and in fact up until 1831 (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1) the government didn't assume the power over states to enforce commerce. The clause you're referring to has been creatively re-interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it's intent was to prevent: dubious monopolies that overshadow governmental powers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
court or market?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment