Oregon man sues Acer, Gateway, et al. for violating hinge patent

Earlier this month, Mr. Khalil Zaidan of Portland, Oregon, sued Acer, Gateway, Toshiba, HP, IBM, and Fujitsu for violating his 1996 patent "Hinge Assembly for Electronic Devices." A closer reading of the patent indicates that Zaidan seems to have patented the basic principle behind a tablet PC, allowing a computer to perform "rotational adjustment." Still, the case -- filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division -- seems like a pretty easy way to milk these big companies for some cash, given that tablet PCs have been around well before November 2006. Nevertheless, while Zaidan is asking the court for damages on patent infringement be decided in a jury trial, we're betting that this gets settled out-of-court pretty quick. We're pretty sure that if Zaidan could actually build a Commodore 64-esque tablet (that's what his diagram is supposed to represent, right?), he could just make money from that instead of going through all this legal nonsense.

[Wick3d GooSe @ Nov 20th 2006 5:32PM]

SUE SUE SUE! THAT IS THE AMERICAN DREAM!

[Andrew Jones @ Nov 20th 2006 5:40PM]

Ahhh - to have an idea, sit on your ass, and get paid. Yes - this must be the land of the free.

[Evan @ Nov 20th 2006 5:40PM]

lol
hes gonna make a good amount of money from this

[- @ Nov 20th 2006 5:46PM]

Shouldn't every cell phone with flip/rotate screen be included in the lawsuit as well?

[Gil @ Nov 20th 2006 5:48PM]

Sssshhh! Don't give him any more great ideas. :)

[Pinhead @ Nov 20th 2006 6:01PM]

I don't really have a problem with this. He did pay for the patent and with these companies using his design he deserves to get paid. And why stick it to the little guy when you can hit up all these multinational conglomerates that make billions annually. It's not like this guy suing them is going to break the bank.

[Matt @ Nov 20th 2006 7:24PM]

They didn't use his design. If im not mistaken, the illustration that accompanies the article is his actual design. Ive yet to see a tablet PC that looks like that. He'll get his money, though, same way NTP got theirs.

[ima9rd @ Nov 20th 2006 6:15PM]

No, it's not going to break the bank. But, this is a story about a typical lazy American thats sits on a general patent until it's worth some money, then sues. Pitiful.

Besides, the apparatus depicted by the image shows something more akin to a digital video camera's LCD than a tablet in terms of rotation.

[p-diddy @ Nov 20th 2006 6:16PM]

Bah... they may have a laches defense depending on when he found out about the infringement. And some of the companies do not have a sliding tablet form factor AFAIK. They should fight it.

-p-

[Tim R @ Nov 20th 2006 6:22PM]

I have found some interesting information that might add light to this.

http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/031103se.pdf

Read page 23 of the pdf, go by the page number at the bottom of the document.

[Jared @ Nov 20th 2006 9:20PM]

Tim,
That document is remarkable. Any idea whether or not this guy is still under investigation?

[Dave Pevsner @ Nov 20th 2006 6:36PM]

as long as my clie UX doesnt get recalled, go sue to your heart's content man.

[Aaron @ Nov 20th 2006 7:24PM]

well i'll be damned, how did you come across that Tim?

[Dorsey Coe @ Nov 20th 2006 7:34PM]

Something many of you are failing to discern is this. There are many people out there that have had their ideas/patents/trade secrets stolen. Do you know how hard it is to get investment capital for an innovative idea that you would like to manufacture, when big corporation X is already manufacturing? I've seen large companies blatantly steal ideas from little guys who came to them looking for a financial partner, more than once. I've seen companies hedge their bet that they could make more off of the product in the meantime, that even if they did lose a court battle (what a fair fight, big corps 30 lawyers against your one) that they would have made enough money to pay for the infringement. Yes, this is the american way, but you are all on the wrong side I think because you are uninformed. Here's an novel approach (patent pun intended). You come up with an idea that hasn't already been patented. You pay for the thing and do all the work needed to get the patent issued. (have any idea how much time and money that is?) THEN you might be in a position to understand/appreciate anyone who has had a patent issued and why they might have a right to defend it. Maybe I am biased. I had a company invite me to their headquarters and even after signing nondiclosures, steal my idea, apply for a patent on it themselves immediately after our presentation, then respond to my objections with a "what are you going to do about it?". If you are of the mental capacity to conceive of something new, I suggest you save your pennies and pursue it privately. If you have not invented, you might want to reserve judgement. It's harder than you think. Flame away.

[kballs @ Nov 20th 2006 7:44PM]

This is exactly what the patent system is for: to protect the little guy. This isn't some patent troll law firm, this sounds like a real inventor. Something corporate America has forgotten is that patents aren't meant to protect big companies (who have massive resources to fight the competition even if their tech is copied via reverse engineering), they're meant to protect small inventors who have very little resources with which to market and sell products (so they can have the protection to sell products in due time or sell their patent/idea to a larger company).

This isn't sitting on your ass and suing for money, this is getting compensated for an idea you worked hard to design and document that has been widely deployed in the market by other companies without your permission or compensation.

There should be some limit to total yearly income or total employees at the company that owns it... once you go over your patents expire and new applications are denied until you fall back below the limit.

[ima9rd @ Nov 20th 2006 8:17PM]

He just happened to wait years and years after the companies began to mass produce them to sue?

Also, if you look at the images, this hinge design is nothing like the ones in current laptops/tablets.

[SuperQ @ Nov 20th 2006 8:46PM]

I seem to remember an old Zeos laptop that had a flipable screen. I think it it was an early 486 tablet. I got no love from google image search. Oh well.. I'm sure there is early 90's tablet PC prior art.

[Lex @ Nov 20th 2006 8:56PM]

what are you guys idiots? The man got a patent for novel and non-obvious technology. Someone else using that tech is stealing.

What you're implying is that he is being opportunistic; meanwhile, you give a free pass to companies with lawyer/patent legions who check every square inch of their products for liability. You seem to think these companies "forgot" or overlooked a mechanism at the core of what make a tablet pc a tablet.


faux geeks you.

[Travis @ Nov 20th 2006 9:19PM]

The sad news is that all these people complaining that he is "lazy, sitting on patent etc" are the same people that sit around and wish they invented the shoe with wheels on them or w way to leave little memo notes for co-employees that will catch their attention or whatever they see that makes them say "man I thought of that first" more than 70 percent of all inventions are actually innovations to original products. You don't have to work alongside someone innovating your patent in order to get credit. But yes, that is the American Dream, to invent something and get paid for it. Somehow or another he didn't get paid for a number of years.

[Tim R @ Nov 20th 2006 9:34PM]

Jared, I don't know if he is still under investigation, but I found it remarkable. Aaron, I actually found it by doing a search of his name on google.

[ev @ Nov 20th 2006 9:48PM]

They spelt Oregon wrong in vocabulary its whoregon there a bunch of retarded sluts live in that state>

[Fruition @ Nov 20th 2006 10:30PM]

This might be a stretch, but has anyone combined the fact that he waited so long to sue and the fact that he was under investigation by the government?

Perhaps he wasn't waiting to sue by choice as much as he was waiting for the investigation to be complete. I'm sure a federal investigation would be more important to him than a lawsuit, so I could see how he'd want that behind him first.

It's just a thought; I don't know how realistic it is.

[Ran @ Nov 20th 2006 10:43PM]

Damn, so we have terrorists suing for payment so to fund practices to blow us up?

[Vagrant @ Nov 21st 2006 12:31AM]

One man's suspected terrorist, is another man's hinge freedom fighter.

[Jake @ Nov 21st 2006 2:40AM]

Oh great! Now my Tablet PC purchases will contribute to terrorism! :(

[Steven @ Nov 21st 2006 4:42AM]

He invented it then did the smart thing and got it patented. They owe him some money plain and simple. It doesn't matter that he waited years maybe he had to raise the funds to start his legal preceedings.

[Vinn @ Nov 21st 2006 7:17AM]

Oh shit.

Has anyone patented breathing?

[GadgetGav @ Nov 21st 2006 9:08AM]

If you know anything about patents, then what is important are the claims, not the drawings. This patent has a lot of claims, but most of them that apply to the hinge design are specifically about a linear track and a rotational joint. I don't think any current laptop designs infringe on that. There are claims in there for rotational electrical connections however and those look a lot more likely to be used in current designs. As it all got approved in one patent, it might not be immediately obvious that he's protecting the hinge mechanism and the means to get signals across the hinge. That seems to me to be the more likely area he'll go after the other manufacturers although I'm not sure that in 1996 it was a novel solution, so those claims might not stand up in court anyway.

[KL @ Nov 22nd 2006 10:56AM]

There should be a rule saying you have to put your patent into use within a certain time, otherwise you loose it. If you can't do that then you can always license it or sell it but it shouldnt be allowed to just patent something and sit on it.

Patents are not ment to hinder development like they sometimes do today, their purpose is (should be) the opposite.

[MacGyver @ Nov 22nd 2006 11:16AM]

I'm all for the little guy, just not for obvious patents. If you have a unique design, something never seen before, involving LOTS of different parts, then that�s fine; but to be able to patent a way of opening door, or the idea of using "menus" to select audio files, or even "1-Click" ordering, that's just dumb, these types of patents give us no advances and stifle the invention of actual products. I invented an i-Drive style MP3 player in 1998 using an optical rotary encoder and a 4x40 lcd, I too didn't have the money or connections to mass produce it after I built and coded the prototype, should that have kept the rest of the world from enjoying their BMWs and iPods, no.
This type general patent keeps others from pursuing products even similar in function, keeping prices high due to lack of competition.
I mean come on, alarm clocks have used this style hinge forever.

[Paul W @ Nov 27th 2006 1:56AM]

This "terrorist" stuff reminds me a lot of the old PhaserPhone secrecy order:
http://www.etoan.com/phasorphone-secret.html
Not to mention the communist witchhunt hearings of the 60's. I thought we were beyond that now, but perhaps not. When a government thinks they are in the right, they may do anything. Branding someone as connected to terrorists is an easy way to achieve the same goals. Maybe he is contributing to terrorism in some way, but maybe not, and I'm very suspicious of that connection. Groups assisting terrorists would be expected to contact local businessmen of ethnic backgrounds that may have some level of sympathy for their cause in order to obtain donations and other support for their cause. That doesn't mean they ever made it to that point on their list of people to call, or that even if they had, it doesn't necessarily lead to any conclusion that he responded favorably. There are a couple of tidbits of info here, and they are being pieced together to form some kind of quick conclusion. It is especially in times like these that we must try to embrace folks like this inventor, rather than brand them as terrorists and treat them poorly, repeatedly, until they actually turn against the government in a kind of self-fullfilling prophecy. Or maybe we can just conclude that the USA is no longer the land of the free, where an invidual must be charged with a crime, and even then assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps under the current government, those days are gone.

[Muzza @ Nov 29th 2006 9:36PM]

I guess it's more profitable to sue than to sell a licence for your patent.