Sprint and Samsung sued for touch-screen flip phone?
posted Nov 29th 2005 11:15AM
There are wack lawsuits, and there are wack lawsuits, but what the hell do private citizens John and Christina King think they're suing Sprint and Samsung for? Well, according to the Inq, it's apparently over the i500 — yes, they may have two patents in the USPTO system filed in December of 2002 for a "Foldable wireless communication device functioning as a cellular telephone and a personal digital assistant" (aka a flip-smartphone) and a "Cellular telephone having a touch screen user interface" (aka every Palm and Pocket PC phone ever, and some UIQ and Symbian devices), but we're at a loss for what Sprint's got to do with this. And let's not even talk about the fact that the i500 got FCC approval in August of 2002, months before their patents were filed — not to mention prior art like the Kyocera PDQ (a folding, touchscreen smartphone from way the hell back). Man, send these fools packing, Sprint n' Samsung, we couldn't care less how hard up these two clowns are for Christmas money this year.
The judge needs to lay the wood to these people and let em' invent from a cell.
Why is the phrase "could care less" (which suggests that you do care at least a little bit) ?
Shouldn't it be "couldn't care less" ?
It's sarcastic, but people use it so often, they started using it non-sarcastically , but still meaning... I don't care.
invention date gives priority over a patent, not filing date.
This is a great example of the pathetic attempts of people that think that can get easy money from big business - file a law suit over some stupid issue. They probably think that the companies will give them a few grand to go away.
I'm suprised that a court would actually allow such a pathetic case to be filed in the first place. We need to make an example of these morons and fine them court fees for wasting taxpayer money.
Those people should be sent to iraq to defuse road side bombs.
Once again, in the U.S. you can sue anybody for anything. The patent office is notoriously weak about digging up prior art and has a habit of allowing poor patents like this to issue. What will happen, without a doubt, is that Sprint/Samsung will hire a top-shelf law firm and shell out six figures worth of legal fees to ultimately prove the patent invalid and get it thrown out of court. The inventor could well have a schlocky law firm that thinks they can ultimately prevail and get a nine-figure settlement, with the schlocky law firm taking most of the profit.
Various reform ideas may or may not cause this kind of silliness to go away. Unless the patent office got far, far more serious about prior art searches, you can expect a headline this to pop up every week. It's going to be very, very unlikely that any case like this ever gets settled in the plaintiff's favor.
Lawsuit = lottery. They are hoping Sprint/Samsung settle out of court for a lofty chunck of change. Anyone can sue and make $ this way.
It's sickening.
@ #2 (and #3)
It's a US thing... So many people in this country have no idea what they're saying when they speak... "could care less" means you care.
Ryan (Block), try using "couldn't care less" in future...
Yeh, I got this idea for a structure, you build out of steel, it goes over water and allows you to cross without getting wet.....
Yeh, yeh that's the ticket.....
I'll see you in court.
I'm confused
their patent MENTIONS kyocera:
"Other References
Kyocera Smartphone Series phone brochure (2 pages), 4/01."
Where is the lawsuit?
Anyone here has access to Westlaw OR Lexisnexis?
Could anyone pull this lawsuit for me?
| LavaFlow LLP v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al
| ilndce
| 1:2005cv06536
| Filed: 11/17/2005
| Filed: Chicago Illinois Federal Court
Maybe if Sprint wasn't so busy trying to charge a buck for a crappy ringtone, or $2.50 for a crappy song download, they wouldn't look like such a fat target for the weak patent crowd.
Maybe people wouldn't feel the need to patent the breathing process, if we didn't have companies trying to figure out a way to charge us for air.
Maybe if Sprint wasn't so busy trying to charge a buck for a crappy ringtone, or $2.50 for a crappy song download, they wouldn't look like such a fat target for the weak patent crowd.
Maybe people wouldn't feel the need to patent the breathing process, if we didn't have companies trying to figure out a way to charge us for air.
My new standard response for these types of items will be:
PUuullLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeze...
Like Chris said above, it is supposed to be "I couldn't care less" when people say it, i don't think it's meant to be sarcastic, but rather that's what people think it really is. Like when you tell someone about some "same old, same old news" and that person says, "so what else is new". It should actually be "so what is new", because the ELSE makes it seem like the same old, same old is new.
Ok, now i know someone is going to reply to my post by saying that they couldn't/could care less about what i just wrote, haha, that's the way it goes.
-mehool
"They are hoping Sprint/Samsung settle out of court for a lofty chunck of change. Anyone can sue and make $ this way."
That's not really true. To prevail--or even be enough of a pest to receive a settlement--in this kind of suit, you either have to have significant merit or else a large pile of money to throw at legal fees.
If you read their patent it is a little different than what Kyocera showed previously. The patent seems to describe and claim (based on reading the claims in light of the specification) a requirement that there be two active information displaying touch screen displays in the device - one immediately above the numeric keypad on the inside of the lower half of the clam and another on the inside of the top half of the clam. The Kyocera only had an input area (Graffiti) on the lower half. Only the top half had an active display.
I am not saying that I am in favor of their having gotten the patent, or that it is non-obvious, only that it is different than any older devices I have seen.