Apple, Microsoft hit with patent lawsuits

“BTG claims in a lawsuit against Microsoft and Apple that Web-enabled software update technologies used by both infringe on the patent awarded to Teleshuttle Technologies. BTG, a company that licenses and manages intellectual property, has exclusive worldwide licensing rights to the patent,” Susan Kuchinskas reports for InternetNews.

“The suit was filed in Federal Court in the Northern District of California following BTG’s unsuccessful attempts to get the Redmond, Wash.-based software vendor and the Santa Clara, Calif.-based software, hardware and peripherals supplier to license the technology on ‘commercially reasonable terms,'” Kuchinskas reports.

Full article here.

22 Comments

  1. A patent for something like this is ridiculous. Someone should audit the US Patent Office and find out how many of these lame patents exist. It’s one thing to patent intellectual property that’s considered a discovery or innovation. It’s another to patent how something is used. If you could legally patent how something is used, there would be tons of these frivolous patents. Imagine patents on how a pencil is held, or how someone types on a keyboard, or even how someone puts on their shoes. It’s absurd. Patents are for inventions, not for usage.

  2. beryllium:

    I concede the point that intellectual property should be protected. However, if one cannot print on paper a working product how is this patentable?

    For example, let’s say someone years past thought that one could transmit music by radio waves and these waves could be converted back into sound – with no description of how this was to be accomplished or how devices were to function. A good idea, sure. A patentable idea, no way.

    Otherwise any dreamer and schemer can whip up a mad idea and claim to be its owner even if they hay no clue how such an idea can be converted into a workable product. Give me something real, not just flights of imagination.

  3. Trying to patent something after it has already been implemented will not fly (if that’s the case). But to restrict anyone from attempting to patent an idea is just as ridiculous.

    meat of magnesia:
    What if you had an idea for, say, an electronic device that you personally wouldn’t know how to manufacture or create? To get a patent, you would have to detail EVERYTHING about that product; what it does (very specific), what it’s purpose is, how it stores data, how it interacts with other systems, etc… It’s not like you can just make up some general crap to try to cash in on something. You have to know your stuff.

    What this process does is PROTECT YOUR IDEA. Once it’s patented (or in the process), you can try to find a company that can help develop a physical product.

  4. meat:

    Saw you earlier post about restricting patents to products not ideas. Although the product does not exist physically, software, if defined well enough (and submitted to the patent office before someone else has implemented the idea), it shouldn’t make a difference.

    It’s there to protect the idea.

    As far as people trying to abuse the system – Ever look up a URL that you want to register and find that someone owns it and would gladly “sell” it to you.

  5. �What if you had an idea for, say, an electronic device that you personally wouldn’t know how to manufacture or create? To get a patent, you would have to detail EVERYTHING about that product; what it does (very specific), what it’s purpose is, how it stores data, how it interacts with other systems, etc… It’s not like you can just make up some general crap to try to cash in on something. You have to know your stuff.”

    Hmmm. I think you made my point. It would seem that the patent process is for the lazy, unmotivated, unimaginative, incompetent, and incapable.

    So, if I make a device that is substantially or significantly different than a previous “idea” then it is, in fact a unique item, even if the concept was based upon a pre-existing concept only.

    Where is the “intellectual property” if you can’t design a working prototype? Seems to me that if you can put the item together in some functional capacity you have not the intellectual capacity to begin with.

    Kinda reminds me of the Far Side cartoon where the physicists inserts �then a miracle occurs� in describing his concept of a physical phenomenon. No wonder his colleague ask him to elaborate on this.

  6. �What if you had an idea for, say, an electronic device that you personally wouldn’t know how to manufacture or create? To get a patent, you would have to detail EVERYTHING about that product; what it does (very specific), what it’s purpose is, how it stores data, how it interacts with other systems, etc… It’s not like you can just make up some general crap to try to cash in on something. You have to know your stuff.”

    Hmmm. I think you made my point. It would seem that the patent process is for the lazy, unmotivated, unimaginative, incompetent, and incapable.

    So, if I make a device that is substantially or significantly different than a previous “idea” then it is, in fact a unique item, even if the concept was based upon a pre-existing concept only.

    Where is the “intellectual property” if you can’t design a working prototype? Seems to me that if you can put the item together in some functional capacity you have not the intellectual capacity to begin with.

    Kinda reminds me of the Far Side cartoon where the physicists inserts �then a miracle occurs� in describing his concept of a physical phenomenon. No wonder his colleague ask him to elaborate on this.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.