Tsera thinks it owns the touchpad, sues pretty much everyone to prove it
By Darren Murph 
posted July 19th 2009 10:20AM
posted July 19th 2009 10:20AM
[Via The Register]
posted July 19th 2009 10:20AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
If the others are willing to set this outside then it means Tsera really has a chance. Anyway, it serves Microsoft right because they have done the same in the past.
now all they need is to get somebody to whack tsera for a lower fee
As a "victim" of the little-guy-patent world this case is probably not what it seems.
Odds are good that the original patent holder did not have the resources to pursue a case against such formidable opponents.
They finally found someone willing to buy the patent either for a flat fee or a percentage of the take.
Some patent cases are actually WHY patents exist.
And this isn't.
Incidentally there are rules about not letting everybody use something for years and set up factories and sell millions of items and only then suing, that is invalidating claims, but I think they should make that into an offence instead of just grounds for invalidating since it's clearly an aggressive and deliberate act to destabilise the market and reprehensible and the same as insider trading and that kind of foul play which will get you in jail and tossed out of your profession.
Sounds like a submarine patent to me.
If a guy invents something and big corporations just copy his idea and make millions, are you saying that he has no right to get his money?
Are you saying invention and innovation by the ORGINAL INVENTOR, no matter what agent is acting on his behalf, should not be rewardeded in America or any other country?
Most inventors never make any money off of their ideas because they are creative engineers and not business people. Corporations make money off of their ideas because they are not creative, they are just business people. So you are saying we should just rip off the little innovators and not give them their rights?
Correct, you can't wait for 15 years and have people spend billions on factories and sales and then step forwards and mention you own it, you do that when you had reasonable time to realise they use the patent, and waiting 15 years is a criminal attempt at abusing the patent system in any sane person's mind.
@Wwhat
I completely see where you are coming from, where is seems that a company bought a patent, and waited to sue. Another perspective (complete speculation) is that the original inventor may have already approached those companies, and was told to go away. Since that inventor did not have the money to sue such large corporations, he most likely sold it to another group to take care of it. It could be a mix of both cases where the guy sold the patent early on, and Tesra waited.
It is important though not to instantly assume everyone is a patent troll, and that in many cases people are actually having their patent violated by larger companies that they cannot possibly afford to sue.
After looking at the patent (# 6639584) it seems that the patent is legitimate.
Hey, Tyler, Texas is my city!! Telsa's might fail on this one. Maybe if they did this like 15 years ago.
I hope the case is settled away from the courtroom by everyone laughing at Tsera.
LOL~
SO SUE ME
Holy shit. I live in Tyler. Never see my town in the news unless it's about how harsh our court system is.
Holy shit. I live in Tyler. Never hear about my town in the news unless it's about how harsh our court system is.
Damn you comment system to hell. I thought it didn't go through!
busted!
I'm thinking that there are too many companies to sue and not enough time to do so, whats next, they're gonna claim that the touchscreen is a form of touch pad? please.
I live in Texas and I hate the fact that we're so damn IP sue happy here. It's like we don't create anything but litigation.
I grew up in Tyler, Texas.
...looks like we got another $cientology in the technology area
@ Return of Jackson...whoo!,
OMG! What asylum did you escape from?!
Tyler in the house! Yeah, they just love our court system here don't they.
@ Dragonfly:
Why, Calmwood Mental Hospital, of course!
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll67/abestunna/simpsons-06-michael-jakson.jpg
Tsera gets countersued out of existence in 3,2,1....
WTF? Someone at the Patent Office should be fired. Computers are "electronic devices" and have had touchpads since before this was even filed that relied on various finger inputs.
This patent should be tossed out. They're taking already developed gadgets and trying to say they came up with their general function. That's bullshit.
Did you even read the patent? God, people on this board are ignorant.
I don't need to read it to guess it's likely bullshit. Before this patent was filed there were computer interfaces that consisted of a touchpad and used pre-defined gestures to perform operations. There are stories on the internet covering these from earlier this year as some people were also questioning whether Apple's multitouch patents could be invalidated (around the time of the Pre's announcement.)
@Darren, "Did you mean: meshuggeneh?"
Hmmm... why isn't Synaptics on that list? Last i checked, the made touch pads....
ZOMG the website is still in beta!
@GingerFox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
test
I looked at the patent and it seems that Apple could indeed lose this suit. Their first touch sensitive iPod was released in 2002 which was well after the filing date of this application in 1999. As for the claims, they read right on the touch wheel that Apple uses. It discusses a series of gestures which include a circular type motion and the invention is clearly directed towards a MP3 player. Apple will clearly fight this as it could cost them hundreds of millions if they lose.
P.S. I am a former USPTO patent examiner and currently a Patent Attorney; but if you take my advice to the bank w/o consulting your own lawyer, well, then you are an idiot.
OK Here you go, US Patent #5,903,229 filed in 1997. Here's the Google Link: http://www.google.com/patents?id=eBwXAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4
Patent invalid.
I'm sure you'll find 20 more especially if you use Synaptics's patents as a starting point, but I'm busy studying for the Bar exam, so this is all I had time for.
How many prior art patents are cited?? In this field, seven seems a bit low. Considering your instant evaluation, it's no wonder patents like this continue to get granted.
PS
The named inventor on the patent apparently worked for Apple.
Meshuggeneh. Hahaha.
Even if this is a valid patent, which it look slike it is, Tsera did not develop the product or apply for the patent.
In this case Tsera bought a patent out of a book for the specific purpose of suing other companies. This is what should be outlawed. There are other corporations like Tsera who pour over patent books to find obscure patents that can be applied against other successful inventions and innovations. They buy and sit on the patents for years and then spring thier trap.
The worst part is that Tsera and other companies like them often times purchase the patents for pennies on the dollar and turn them into multi million dollar settlements.
The best way to fix this is to only allow the original filer of the patent to bring forward an infringment lawsuit. Or outlaw massive patent holding corporations who have no intention of ever creating anything from a patent they purchase.
In college in the 90s my group developed a touch screen phone/gps concept for IBM. It really was the iPhone ten years earlier. Samsung bought the rights to the concept at some point and used a lot of the ideas in thier smartphone lineup. Since it was a student project paid for by IBM we really couldn't file any patents ourselves. Somewhere deep in the paperwork our names are mentioned as developers. Doesn't count for much since we should have kept our moths shut, developed something stupid, and kept the touchscreen phone/GPS for ourselves and filed a patent.
That is the way most R&D is done now. Pick the brains of the best and brightest at the nations top universities and then keep thier ideas while giving a nice donation to the university and developer credits on some obscure page.
OK Here you go, US Patent #5,903,229 filed in 1997. Here's the Google Link: http://www.google.com/patents?id=eBwXAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4
Bada-bing. Tsera's patent is invalid. If I found this after my basic search, you don't think Apple's lawyer's will find it and 20 more ?
Good bye lawsuit.
@daniel
Well, its a little more complicated than that to invalidate a patent. For every argument that you could come up with that this is invalidating art, their attorneys will come up with two arguments as to how their patent is different.
@Joe and Matt
Good luck in your lawsuit! haha
@Joe and Matt
Of course it's not that easy. But it could be easier than you think. First of all, invalidating a patent does not involve the how "different" the invention is from the prior art. For anticipation, for example, if each element of the claim is found in a single piece of prior art, then the claim is anticipated. So you have read through the claim in question element element, and find the same element in the prior art. Thankfully the Supreme Court made combining references to reject for obviousness easy in the KSR case. So you combine this Shard patent with a synaptics patent, and I'll bet you'll come close to invalidating this.
Second, Apple, et al. doesn't even have to do any proving. All they need to do is find some prior art that is not cited in the patent and send the Patent Office $3000 for a reexamination. Given that this patent only has 7 references cited and there are dozens, if not more, of relevant patents, my guess is that the PTO will grant a reexamination. Then Apple, et al. just sits back and waits for the patent holder in duke it out with the patent office. This part will take a couple of years. Meanwhile the Court will typically put the case on hold until the reexamination process is complete.
So I don't have to come up with any arguments, in fact if I had $3000 laying around I can request the reexamination (anyone can). In fact, I couldn't even make an argument if I wanted to. I just need to list the prior art that was not considered before.
Please don't comment on Patent Law unless you know what you are talking about.
P.S. a little due diligence on your part would have also revealed the this invention has several rejections before it was allowed, which is why it's probably so specific. Also a little due diligence would have reealed to you that the sole named inventor worked for Apple. My guess is that when this is over, Apple will be able to show that this guy either 1) invented this while at Apple and kept it secret or 2) filed the application based on work he saw Apple working on. Remember that even before the iPod, Apple had the Newton. It is conceivable that they were working on this for a while.
Either way these guys have no chance.
And by the way, I do just fine in my patent lawsuits!